...

>> I'm not certain why you believe that slabbing can't exist
>> under a differant type of grading system.

The real "value" of a professional grading service and slabbing is in making the call on very minor differences in "condition" of the item being slabbed. If you have a coin which is graded MS-63, it might be worth $xxxx dollars. In MS-64, perhaps 5 times as much and MS-65 10 times that.

Slabbing is also expensive (don't believe for a minute that it will be offered at $10 a chip; the current cost of slabbing coins is more like $30-40 for routine service and considerably more for "special handling").

If the only possible grading "difference" is between "New" and "Excellent" and the value difference is relatively small (10-50%), slabbing will not be profitable. And therefore won't happen on a regular basis.

>> The difference between the two gradings here is only in the deatil.
>> If you have system with only 5 grades (poor,fair,good,very good,mint
>> [as an example]) it is only a matter of time before people start
>> describing their chips as "good-very good" or "very good+" essentially
>> doubling the number of possible grades. In addition it is only a matter
>> of time before we start seeing disputes,arguments,discussions, and
>> complaints about misgrading.

The devil is always in the details, isn't he, Peter? Of course, you're right that this could happen. In fact, for those who collected coins back when, it did in that hobby. The 70 grade MS system didn't happen overnight. It developed out of exactly the process you described. All I can say about that is that it is inevitable (I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument) and we should fight that, too!

>> "The Seller said it was 'mint' when in fact it was only 'very good'"
>> This is when the slabbers move in. I don't see why they can't slab
>> a chip and mark it in 'Mint' grade.

Of course, they could slab a "mint" chip and call it that. Ditto one that's seen some use, "very good" or otherwise. The fewer the gradations and the small the "value" differentials, the less likely that there will be a niche for slabbing.

>> Although I believe that we need a grading system, I believe that it should be
>> a descriptive system perhaps multi-faceted with grades for different parts of
>> the chip. It should not be numerical as that offers little insight to the
>> condition of a chip.

I also prefer definitional grading standards, but don't think I'd like to see detailed grading guidelines for different parts of the chip. That is what CW have done in numerical terms in their grading system. Does it really matter whether a used chip not "excellent" because it has excessive rim nicks, is well-worn or has a mis-centered inlay?

>> However I see the need for a grading system and the prospect of slabbing as
>> not being the same thing. While slabbing requires a grading system of some
>> sort, it is apparent to me that the lack of a grading system can fuel the
>> market for slabbing and it will be the slabbers who would then create a
>> grading system.

I agree with your conclusion. If there's a void, someone will step in to fill it. If there is a demand for slabbed chips, someone will slab them. I just think we should do what we can to insure that there is neither a void to fill nor a demand for slabbed chips.

----- jim o\-S