PCGS is considering a new MS 1-100 grading system to replace the MS1-70
scale currently being used.

Reaction IMO seems to be 90/10 against this idea from comments I have read
around the internet.

What do you think?

The idea will be officially presented at a meeting of registry set participants
at the FUN show in Florida this January.


Some people say it is a done deal, I'm not sure of that.

I think the idea stinks, all it would do is create confussion in the grading system. For instance, If I had a MS69 coin in a system of 1 to 70 where would it fit in a system of 1 to 100 . Would PCGS regrade all their coin for free ? I think not.

1-70 is already too much, and look at how many potential grades are not even being used, like EF-46 through EF-49, or AU-57 etc. There is no need for a 100 point scale unless you also grade comics and baseball cards on a 100 point scale and want to improve margins by letting your graders swing between the products you grade (which given that this is PCGS seems plausable at least).

Absolutely pointless.
The only reason for them to do this would be for the free press they would get.
Maybe they want to force people to resubmit their graded coins to be judged on their new system.

Me thinks they would need to put some sort of indication that it is the new system so that there would not be confusion of "perfect" (old) or 70/100 (new).

-Bobby

Probably the most important question.

A way for them to make more $$$$$$$$$$

Absolutely. Imagine all those millions of coins that people would send in for re-grading under the new system.

Not to mention also if PCGS did this, not soon after every other 3rd party grading service would do this. It would make people who have slabbed coins, resubmit every one back to the 3rd party companies. Can you say millions and millions of profit for them.

And I would have to agree with Izzy, where would a current MS-69 or any other grade be regraded at. And I also that there are too many numbers in the 1-70 scale not even being used.

Not to mention that everyone would have to learn a new grading system.

It would be different if it was necessary, but as has been pointed out they don't even use all 70 points now. Then there's the whole subjectivity of grading bit which would only get worse.

I think it is pretty stupid. The 70 point scale is already pretty well established in the coin community. No reason to change something that already works.

To me it is something to make registry set owners happy. There is more room for them to claim they have the best set because the next guy has a MS-99 instead of a MS-100.

The only reason this is being considered is the registry hounds looking for the extra edge. Right now, a coin grading MS-69.5 will get bumped to MS-70, under the new system it will only be an MS-99 instead of an MS-100. For the rest of us that care more about the coins than the rankings it's just a whole lot of nonsense. Unfortunately it has the potential to spread the disease affecting registry nuts to those not currently affected.

PGCS will be sorely disappointed if they think the rest of the coin community will follow their lead. In fact, they are the "leader" in their own eyes only. This is the product of arrogance yet is also typical of the way PCGS has always done business. They need to be taken down a notch.

Here here!

I really enjoy seeing the lather it has worked up in the CU forums. It has been rather entertaining. The sky really is seen to be totally falling over there.

I think the effect on numismatics and my collecting life in particular would be negligible. Even if PCGS can get the major price guides like the Redbook and Coin Values/Trends and Greysheet and everyone else to go along with it, there will be some kind of fairly easy grade conversion that will be able to be applied to 99% of the coins I collect so that I can price them properly.

The people it will hurt is those that feel the need to get their coins in new PCGS holders either for the registry or to maintain liquidity and have to re-fill PCGS's cofffers to do it. Neither scenario applies to me. Nor do I think it applies to the majority of the hobby. It does apply to about 90% of the posters at the PCGS forums though.

Like you said Stu, they are higher end coin collectors with registry sets. No way they want that, and neither would I, tho it wouldn't affect me much either.

I got the email inviting me to the PCGS luncheon/talk about this. I am planning on going to the FUN show, but I don't think I want to spend 2 hours listening to them trying to sway me.

The 100 point proposal is absolutely the stupidest thing I've heard in the past few weeks

I wish the entire industry would go back to G, VG, F, VF, EF, UNC and BU. But then, I'm an old guy.

Maybe PCGS will destroy themselves with this new brainfart. They're a company based on hucksterism anyway. I don't take their grades seriously now and probably wouldn't revise my opinion of their graders even with a new point scale.

Very crappy idea. Just one more way to get more money.

But, how do you think coins in slabs now will be regarded say 25 years down the road, if there is a new system. Old ones may become another part of coin collecting. Idk, maybe it's just me...

The problem is that they don't care about hardly any of the first 59 grades. As you say, they don't use all those grades anyway so there is no reason to change them. I think the real goal is to expand the 11 MS grades. That is where the 'money' is.

To me, decimal grading makes more sense if they want to go and expand the scale. It gives them an infinite scale between 60 and 70 to differentiate in without screwing anything else up. There are 2 problems with that.

The first is psychological. They might be able to persuade people into thinking they can grade MS coins to 20 or 30 distinct levels by using MS78, MS82, etc. It would be a tougher sell if they tried to use 64.66 and 65.25. People would tend to think the latter is ridiculous. No one can grade to a fraction.

The other problem is that there would be no pressing need to get your coins re-holdered. An MS65 would still be at least an MS65. It might be an MS65.25 or an MS65.66 but at worst it will still be MS65. It is the same scale. Not true if your MS65 now needs to be reholdered to an MS82 or MS83 on a whole new scale.

Of course the whole reason could be because many have gotten wiser when it comes to grading coins and business is being hurt by the competition. They may see this simply as way counter that to some degree.

I think it would also be quite risky. It might be an opening for NGC and ANACS to get market share from people who don't want to put up with regrding all their coins.

I think Stujoe makes a great point with the decimal system between MS60 and MSD70. That would serve a perceived need for more grades while not really impacting prices for existing coins. Of course PCGS may want to try and shift prices and thus the decimal point option doesn't suit their goal

let's make this easy: is there anyone out there who thinks this is a good idea? (other than pcgs, of course ... )

This is completely retarded.

IF, such coin grading companies weren't so well established right now, then you might argue that using a base 100 might be a nice number to play with. Honestly, when I first tried to understand what the grading system meant, I couldn't understand why the figure 70 is used, instead of 100. It might be good for people who comes new into the numisatic field, but for people who got used to it - oh no.

I am sensing a horrible scheme behind this, which is going to be a software type. The base 100 could be used as a percentage format, and who knows if this can happen... Let's say you send your coin in, they would just scan your coin and compare it against their so called perfect defination of NEWMS100 scale and calculate the area of imperfectness against theirs... remember that they are grading in terms of tens of thousands per month and they do have the funds, so they might need some type of method to speed up the whole process... but again, some random speculations on my part...

Just another marketing ploy. A way to differentiate them from the other services.

So soon we'll have tables that say

PGGS NGC ANACS
SM94 MS66 MS64

You know, there was a time when MS-61, MS-62 and MS-64 were thought to be unnecessary and many doubted that grading companines could get to such precise grades, so using decimals might not be so outlandish. Instead, they would likely use separate modifiers, so instead of MS-65.4, it's MS-65*. In any case, this is just a whole lot of hooey!

But, on the other hand, there is a lot of money being made (through crackouts and resubmissions) by people taking advantage of the fact that the TPG's cannot consistently grade to the current 1 point scale.

I don't disagree stu, as I think there are very few areas where the single point is clear enough of a difference (MS-64 to MS-65 is a clear difference, but MS-60, MS-61 and MS-62 tend to be very similar from what I've seen). Despite what you and I both believe, the single point grades have gained market acceptance.

Very true about the market. Looking into my crystal ball, if they don't do something like a 100 point scale, I predict we will see .5 grades before the end of the decade.

You all have it wrong. It is a subtle attempt by the secretive and elusive Metric Minions to help push the final implimentation for the move to the metric system that Carter signed loooooooooong ago.

You are probably correct! We USians have been so successfully converted thus far that this step is a no-brainer.

Well, it's only been 30 years, and we already have 2-liter bottles of pop and 9 mm shells for our handguns, I'd call that meaningful progress!

You think that's bad, try driving a car in England... it's litres per mile in these parts.

Selling things weighed in imperial is illegal, putting up metric road signs (distance of towns and speed restrictions) is equally illegal.

Low bridges are another case in point the signs on the bridge tell you how many metres from road level to the underside of the bridge there are, whilst the sign warning you of an approaching low bridge will say, 'low bridge 100 yards ahead'!

Kinda stuck back in no man's land. You ask some how tall they are they tell you in feet and inches, if you ask how much someone weighs they tell you in stones and pounds. Ask them to measure from one side of the room to the other with a tape measure and you'll get either system. I use both.

I visualise imperial measures better than metric, but with temperature it's oC all the way. I never liked oF.

As for the 100 grades, it's getting ridiculous. I think 12 grades suffice, everything should be done in 12's as it's my lucky number.

Not enough -- let's have grading from 1-1000 so we can all argue over whether it's an XF-767 or 768......

it's XF-768.674a


which is $20 cheaper than an XF-768.674b and $540 cheaper than an XF-768.675a.

i hope they don't do it because i can't adapt to change

Ugh.... and push me even further away from slabbed coins.

don't get me wrong. I tend to trust an expert's skill in determining if a coin has been cleaned and its approximate grade. But beyond that, too much variability.

I need to finish my type set before every raw coin is so entombed.

David Hall, in the question and answer forum on CU is now saying that PCGS has no intention of going to a 1-100 scale. (Is he telling the truth, reacting to the backlash, or just trying to calm the waters before it gets dropped on us?)

To make it even worse, on another q&a he provides a chart of what he invisions a 1-70 to 1-100 conversion chart would be, and although it seperates the various sub mS grade levels further apart, it keeps the same number of grade points for each. So there would be absolutely no advantage to making the change