Q. David Bowers
In the end, over two dozen numismatists, primarily dealers, did help, and Abe Kosoff recognized them in a Coin World column. He further noted:
"Several have each performed so meritorious a service that I must respectfully recommend to the Board of Governors that they be considered for the ANA Award of Merit. I am pleased to list in alphabetical order the following names: Kamal Ahwash, Michael Brownlee, John Hanson, Myron Kliman, and Denis Loring."
In 1977, Abe Kosoff gathered together all of his research and went to work with Kenneth E. Bressett, who was associated with Western Publishing Company and who served as editor of A Guide Book of United States Coins. Bressett had a long and impressive string of credentials and was widely recognized as one of America's most prominent numismatic scholars. Together, Kosoff and Bressett combined the suggestions of many, had line drawings prepared, and came up with the basic text for a book subsequently designated as the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins. Q. David Bowers was tapped to write the introduction, which told of the importance of grading, characteristics of various coins, and how the system should be applied. Early in 1978, Abe Kosoff had a group of qualified people examine a selection of coins. In April he reported the findings in Coin World:
"Six experts recently examined a group of 240 United States gold coins. At my request each submitted a list indicating how he had graded each coin. A study of these lists reveals some interesting information, some of it a bit disturbing.
"For example, only in about half the instances was there complete agreement. For the purposes of this study, if five dealers graded a coin as an MS-60 and one called it an MS-65, this was considered to be complete agreement (for it was within a five-point spread). Similarly, if four called it MS-60 and two said it was MS-65 + it was considered to be an agreement. This consideration was made because each did the complete job in an average time of two hours. The study is important, however, because each had the same purpose in mind, and it was important to each expert that he get as true a picture as possible.
"To avoid nit-picking (which, I am sure, others will do for me!), I tried to make spot evaluations, necessary because of the plus, plus, plus, and plus, plus, plus factors which all of the experts employed. This itself is an interesting observation. Each expert used a plus sign, most frequently in the areas of Uncirculated and About Uncirculated. Since this collection involved choice coins, with only a small percentage below AU, the plus sign was used quite a bit.
"25% of the coins had a variation of five points between the highest and lowest grades submitted. 20% had a spread of 10 points between the highest and the lowest grades, and about 5% had a variation of more than 10 points.
'There was seldom a question about an MS-65. All usually agreed. Occasionally one MS-65 would appear among a group of MS-60s. On one occasion a high of MS-65 compared with a low of EF-45! This was despite the fact that the other four were all at AU-55. This was an exceptional incident, although in another situation I observed grading of a single piece as 60, 45, 55+, 50, 55, and 45. I will say that the bigger spreads occurred in the lower quality material, as a general rule. One lovely piece was graded as MS-70, MS-65+, MS-65+. MS-65+, MS-70 and MS-65.
"The study confirms what we have always known, that some experts are more conservative in their grading than are others. How then are we going to reconcile such a set of figures as 55, 60, 65, 65, and 60? Obviously, two experts saw some slight wear, but four 'did not. Two others thought the coin almost perfect, and two saw something which reduced a Mint State coin to an MS-60 level. I suppose taking a bit more time with a coin would clear up most of the differences. Perhaps what appeared to be wear during a hurried look may turn out to be die wear rather than wear on the coin.
"While I indicated that each expert had the same motive in mind while examining the coins, yet each may have taken different psychological approaches. One may have been impressed by the overall beauty of 240 choice gold coins and let his enthusiasm carry him to a higher level. Another, realizing that possibility, may have tried to hold himself in check and kept reducing to lower levels. I should point out that too many errors could have ended up costing the expert a good deal of money. Some may, therefore, have been a bit on the conservative side.
"We learn that there is a probability that a given coin will be graded within five points by 75% of the experts, 50% agreeing exactly, and 25% differing by five points. How about the other 25%? This represents a substantial number, because 60 of the 240 coins were graded with a spread exceeding 10 points.
"Let us study some of the examples. In one case 60, 60, 60, 50, 60, 55. The high was 60, the low 50. Four were at 60, one at 50, the last at 55. Another example had 55, 55, 55, 50, and 45 + + , and then 55 again. Not too bad considering the 45 had two pluses. And yet four were at 55. Here's another: 60, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50. Obviously, one expert was out of line.
"Let us take a look at some others: 50, 55, 45, 45, 45, 55. That's not an easy one to analyze. Is the coin Extremely Fine or is it AU? I think here is where the time factor for study could really be important. Keep in mind that the experts were not advised of the plan to make a comparative study until each had made their grading decisions ...
"One of the biggest spreads occurred in the grading of a mintmarked half eagle: 50+, 40, 50, 55, 45, and 30. Here, perhaps, a consideration may not have been given to the die wear or the striking characteristics. Again, the time factor could have contributed to this lack of consideration.
"Lest I be accused of trying to excuse some inaccuracies, let me admit it-that is exactly what I am trying to do. In fairness to those who submitted the grading lists, I feel obliged to assert that the amount of time allowed for examination of a coin is a most important factor. Further, examining one coin for a special purpose is quite different from going over 240 coins for an entirely different purpose.
"It is not unusual for an expert to take an overall look at a set and, in his own mind, determine, 'This group averages Extremely Fine' (or AU, or what have you). Should he then have to select the highlights out of the set and grade each one separately, one may be AU, another Very Fine, and so on. But then each one would be given proper individual attention.
"While this example is not quite analogous to the recent experience which I now report to you, I believe that it makes a point, namely, that each expert was making a study of the collection. I am quite certain that for those who had an occasion to do so, parts of this collection were gone over, coin by coin. I am equally certain that, in so doing, a number of grading changes were made.
"I cannot explain away a difference of 20 or 25 points in grading. I can only express thanks that such differences are few and far between.