NGCX a new 10 point grading scale from NGC

It's a good point. I would assume designations are unaffected? Who knows? But if it's for modern US commemoratives and bullion only you're really going to see the 9.0 and above grades, or else it's not worth grading. Plus wouldn't apply to those.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Cool. The printer ink will go further. That should save more $$$ than you would think! With the backing of those big dealers, their new "shorthand" will not fail.

 

I agree that theyre shooting themselves in the foot and this is a bad misstep.

I wouldnt be the least bit surprised to see CAC pass NGC in a year or two if their operations are going smoothly. I think a lot of NGC stickered coins will end up at CAC as well. I do think NGC would still be considered above ANACS in that scenario though

 

Plus would apply to everything below a 9.9 according to your conversion chart

 

Thats just simply not true at least for anyone currently alive. Yes at some point 100s of years from now when coins are no longer theyll probably be down to a barebones staff, but the notion that theyre running out of coins to grade simply isnt true. They arent even running out of classic coins to grade. Itll be another generation or two before youd really expect to see that, theres still a ton of coins out there in albums from long time elderly collectors that grew up collecting raw and crack out coins.

That doesnt even get into the fact that world coins could be graded basically as long as coins are made as well. This is just simply a poor gimmicky attempt by NGC, someone had a bad idea and got it approved its not a reflection of running out of coins.

 

How those work is easy. Partner creates the offer and hires NGC to send out the emails. NGC does NOT share its mailing list. Only when you bite and respond to the offer does the partner see your information.

In the direct mail days, it worked the same way. The owner of the list slapped the labels on the mail pieces. (Or a 3rd party did it for them).

 

i

got the email , naw man it cheapens the grading scale and cuts out on severe issues that the Sheldon system covers.....

 

Please just keep in mind that I'm doing this off of the tip of my head and a quick analysis run. I'm going to point out several system errors that I see with this. Okay so from the description between 9.5 on the 10x scale which quantifies for ms65 and between ms61 which quantifies as a nine on the scale your grade becomes very muddled so for Ms 64 you can get 9.4 and 9.3 for Ms 63 you can get 9.2 and 9.1 and in my 62 can be 9.1 also between Ms 61 which is a nine and we're just going to skip in my 60 because that's what they did which should be technically 8.9 but it goes right to au 58 which is a 8.8 going all the way down to au 50 au50 is an 8 and XF 45 is a 7.5 now at this point everything seems to drop down by five points or half points so as you can see from my horrible rushed penmanship I wrote it all down I will create a flow chart a little bit later tonight to show you the exact way it seems to be broken down and why I feel that this is just a horrible thing to do but till then chewing has been an information hit me back remember as always, research is key!!

 

no there not there is a few differences i did a quick run up they skipped and muddled a bit check my response tip










...
<<<<<<<<<<

Please just keep in mind that I'm doing this off of the tip of my head and a quick analysis run. I'm going to point out several system errors that I see with this. Okay so from the description between 9.5 on the 10x scale which quantifies for ms65 and between ms61 which quantifies as a nine on the scale your grade becomes very muddled so for Ms 64 you can get 9.4 and 9.3 for Ms 63 you can get 9.2 and 9.1 and in my 62 can be 9.1 also between Ms 61 which is a nine and we're just going to skip in my 60 because that's what they did which should be technically 8.9 but it goes right to au 58 which is a 8.8 going all the way down to au 50 au50 is an 8 and XF 45 is a 7.5 now at this point everything seems to drop down by five points or half points so as you can see from my horrible rushed penmanship I wrote it all down I will create a flow chart a little bit later tonight to show you the exact way it seems to be broken down and why I feel that this is just a horrible thing to do but till then chewing has been an information hit me back remember as always, research is key!!

 

There has been a push and desire to go to a 100 point grading scale to replace Sheldon for a very long time. Sheldon's scale didn't make much sense when it was first published, and it makes even less sense now.

I, for one, am strongly in favor of a new, universal scale. I'm not convinced a 10 point scale is the most ideal, but given that is how many, many other things are also graded it makes sense to have a parallel to other collectibles.

And yes, it is going to be a sometimes difficult transition. Yes, there will be a period where both scales are used.

But, I think that it is high time we consider something like this.

 

So it's like 'dog-years'. I'm cool with dogs. My dime is a 7 - that's like 49 in dog years.

 

baseball21, posted: "I agree that theyre shooting themselves in the foot and this is a bad misstep.'

Right now, it looks that way to me also.

I wouldnt be the least bit surprised to see CAC pass NGC in a year or two if their operations are going smoothly.

You may not be considering that NGC is a multi-item company. Even CACG will have a long way to go to eclipse anything NGC does aside from US vintage coins.

I think a lot of NGC stickered coins will end up at CAC as well.

I agree, they will be worth more because CACG is only slabbing the best of a grade.

I do think NGC would still be considered above ANACS in that scenario though.

You think? I hope so. ANACS will never get the respect it deserves ; and that company is not even close to NGC.

 

Completely agree. It originated for large cents by saying a "70" would be worth 70 times a "1". Kind of like Fahrenheit mixing salt and ice water to see how cold he could get it, and deciding that was "zero."

 

I does seem kind of cool but the is no list price or what the "hits" will be or what the general content will or odds. here the link for anyone interested
http://vaultbox.com/ngcx/

 

There are a lot of measurement scales that had good ideas, made a big impact, became super popular, and then when people thought a bit more about it realized it made no flippin' sense.

I mean, how about the English system of measurement, based on the size of the king's foot? Seems like a system based on multiples of 100 would make a lot more sense!

And that's kinda why I like the 10 point scale (or 100) for grading coins. It's basically the metric system!

(also, coincidentally, probably why the US coin market has fought so hard against it.... metric? pfffft. That's some European nonsense right there!)

 

I think some of you are reading too much into what @GDJMSP was saying. The purpose of business is to create revenue. Doesn’t matter if that business is dealing automobiles or TPG slabs, the purpose is to generate revenue. Period….. Smart businesspeople spend a great deal of their time and energy trying to be creative to stay a step ahead of their competitors… And that’s all we are seeing here. It will either set NGC apart or it will drive away customers. Either way it will correct itself in due time….. It is what business does. They throw us product ideas and we either accept them or reject them…. I will give NGC props for thinking outside the box, but I too believe this will be short lived.

 

Yeah you're right. I must've been thinking of something else.

 

Is @CaptHenway in the house? I would really, really love to hear some historically based perspective on what he thinks about this. Since, you know, he's kind of a big deal in the history of coin grading.

 

10 point and 100 point is the same. 10 point would use 9.9 the 100 would use 99. There’s no difference other than the decimal.

It’s really not outside the box at all. It’s just a recycled 100 point grading scale idea that has been rejected by the market and collectors for decades now. The problems with 1-70 have nothing to do with not having 100 numerical options it’s the old idea of a hard line at 58.

All this is is a rejected idea being repacked with a different way of reporting the numbers