[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Muchinsky

Since I posed the question, I'll offer my opinion. Like most things in life, I think the point of grading pins (accurately) is more complex than may initially appear. As you have figured out by now, I give long-winded answers to questions. If this turns you off, invoke the trick my students learned long ago---pay attention to only every third word I say.

I'll give the punchline first. I'm opposed to pingrading. Many of the key reasons have already been expressed. Who is qualified to render such judgments, the inherent scarcity of the objects being graded, and the inevitable difference of opinion about subjective opinions of quality. However, that having been said, in "a perfect world" (a term professors like to use) I think the accurate grading of pins (if it were even possible) could be extraordinarily valuable to the hobby and hobbyists. Several members of the board have thanked me for providing a "reference" on pins. Indeed, that is why I wrote the book. But I feel an equally valuable reference would be a book on grading. I would want every pin graded on two scales.

1. "The apples to apples scale". This is the one that is used now in grading coins (and I presume cards). On a scale of 1 to 10, or if you don't like decimal points, 1 to 100, where 100 is absolute perfection (color, centering, crispness, no dings or scratches, etc.), what is this pin's (absolute) grade?

2. "The apples to oranges scale". The first scale is an absolute scale, and this one would be a relative scale. This would involve the grader knowing what the finest specimen of a particular pin is. So this particular specimen, relative to the finest known specimen, is what grade? Due to wide within-manufacturing differences (i.e., a first-class professional pin making company as Whitehead and Hoag vs. a local metal works shop--where the PM10s were all made) you will get differences in quality. Plus we also have an across-manufacturing difference: celluloid vs. lithograph. Lithograph pins are made from applying a coat of paint to a round metal disk. After the paint drys, the image in ink is applied to the paint. After the ink drys, the flat disk is put into a press to create the curl, then a springpin is placed in the back of the pin. Given this extremely different (and less-refined, but cheaper) technology, the resulting difference in quality is obvious. Remember, these pins were not made to go into human time capsules (the collections of hobbyists). They were made to be worn, used, and probably discarded. It is only because all pins were not discarded that we have something to collect.

Let's say the finest lithograph pin ever made (on the absolute scale) is an 80. There is no way possible a "flawless" lithograph pin gets the same grade as a "flawless" celluloid pin. Impossible. The manufacturing technology of lithograph pins (ink on paint) can't match celluloid pins (ink on paper) for quality. So let's say we have before us a really high-condition lithograph pin. It gets an absolute grade of 75. My point is, is this a 75 compared to a 100, or a 75 compared to an 80? My answer is BOTH grades are valuable to the hobbyist. It is here that the grading of pins, for the purpose of advancing and sharing our collective knowledge of our hobby, would be extremely valuable.

Finally, I will offer this. It is not about grading pins, but about human judgment of quality. Sorry to say it, but there is "psychology" at work in grading. I'm not talking about the "politics" of grading, but the human judgment process. Consider this. Next month is the most famous dog show in the country, nationally broadcast, over 100 years in existence, the biggest and the best. The purpose of the show is to ascertain (and award) quality among the submitted entries. In order for your pup to even be accepted for judging at this show, it must have won some local and regional judging contests. I'm not a dog guy, but based upon the statements by the commentators, I believe there are something like 140 "breeds" of dogs. A cocker spaniel, for example, would be one such breed. About 200 dogs are entered in each breed. The judge (grader) of the breed (e.g., cocker spaniel) picks the highest graded dog within that breed to advance to the next round of competition, "Best in Group", the winners of all the "Best in Breed" judgings. There are 7 groups: The Herding Group; The Hunting Group, and 5 others. Now we have 7 new judges. These judges have to know all the breeds within the group, and comparing apples to oranges, judges the "Best in Group". How many breeds make up a group? It varies by group, but around 20 would be a safe answer. Now it gets real dicey--the point of this whole affair, the winner of the "Best in Show". This is the judged competition among the seven "Best in Group" winners. This (one)judge has to know the breeding standards for all 140 breeds, because you never know which breed will emerge as the winner of the Group competition. We have now advanced in the complexity of making judgments from "apples to apples", "apples to oranges", to finally "apples to orangatans". I don't know how the "Best in Show" judge does it, but he/she has to pick the "best dog" out of about 2,800 dogs that arrived for the show (about 140 breeds, 200 dogs per breed, 7 groups, 1 "Best in Show"). Follow the math: 2,800 to 140 to 7 to 1.

If we accept on face value (which we must) that the dogs are graded on quality or condition, every breed should have an equal shot at being selected "Best in Show". The results don't back that up. Not only have some BREED winners never been selected "Best in Show" (and the number of years the dog show has been in existence is close to the number of breeds), some GROUP winners have never been selected "Best in Show". What breeds typically (and by "typically" I mean far more than the others) win "Best In Show"? I believe the records indicate poodles and spaniels have won "Best in Show" most often. What's with these breeds? Are they "genetically superior" to all other breeds? Or are they simply the warm, cuddly dogs that curl up on people's laps and provide enjoyment to the owner? I can't answer this because I'm not a dog expert, but if we throw out the argument of "genetic superiority" (and remember, show dogs, like race horses, are bred to do their respective things--win competitions), something else, something more is going on inside the judge's head than pure ratings of quality or condition. Simply put, judges or graders are also human, and like all humans, we have our likes and dislikes, as objective as we might try to be.

Back to grading pins. Do you think we have our own "poodles" and "cocker spaniels" in our hobby? I do. They get to be favorites because of eye appeal or some other factor. A member of the board asked me if I had a "favorite" pin. I sure do, and I said what it was. If judges/graders are truly grading quality or condition, there should be no "favorites". But to have favorites is to be human, and despite some people I have met at the National, I think we are all human. How do you starch the human element out of grading? I have read coin graders have entertained grading by computers. Not quite sure how that would work, but it sure wouldn't address the "relative grade".

On a totally unrelated matter, I read most hobbyists who left coin collecting did so because of grading. Condition is a determinant of cost, and now grading puts an exclamation point after the cost of a hobby instead of the fun of a hobby. As long as there is money, especially big money involved, and condition is a determinant of value (cost), grading will be here to stay. Despite my belief that a reference on grading would be of great value to our hobby, I hope grading does not make serious in-roads in our hobby.

Test on Monday.

Paul