Question for D. Hall on the Sheldon Scale

Cameo CC

From another thread:

Anaconda asked: "Why don't you grade like gymnastics...by an average of opinions rounded to the nearest tenth."

PCGS Answer: We do use an "average of opinions". However, we don't use tenths. I actually think that the current system of coin grading, i.e. 11 grades of mint state, may be too precise. It may be the cause of some grading inconsistencies. When we first started PCGS we toyed with a 1 to 10 scale, or a 1 to 100 scale. However, we decided not to fight 30 years of Sheldon scale use. Sometimes I wish the grades were 60, 63, 65, 67, 70. Sometimes I think 60,61,62,63,64,65,66, etc. is OK. I never think decimal grading would work. The grading services are not 100% consistent now. How could they be more consistent in applying decimals. I believe it would just make things worse. I might be wrong.


I understand this has been a much dicussed issue. In the past, I have proposed the following grading system. I would use the Sheldon grading system from 1-58. However from 60 to 70, I would modify these grades to include grades 60 to 100. So a MS60, under this proposal, would now be MS60 to MS63. The old MS61 would be MS64 to MS67 and so on.

One would have to add an identifier on each holder, like NGS (New Grading System) some something like that.

I think the biggest obstacle to a new grading system is determining the difference inside each grade. For example, if a coin (under the Sheldon System) is a MS60 then how does one determine where the coin (under the new grading system) would fall within each grade - is a MS60, MS61, MS62, or MS63?

What are your opinions?

Todd

BillJones

There have been too many problems with 11 grading points (actually 9 or 10 since MS and PR -70 and 69 are seldom used except for very modern material). I can't see where expanding the range can do anything by add to the confusion and inconsistency.

I’m sorry to be so negative toward your suggestion, but from what I can see we need more consistency in applying the grades that we already have, NOT more grades which will make the hairsplitting worse.

Cameo CC

Bill - What you say is true and that has been the problem. For some have suggest that a particular coin is a MS66 plus – what does that mean? Further, they want more money for it.

Todd

BillJones

To say the something is MS-66 + or "PQ" (premium quality) means that the coin is strong for the grade, but does not qualify for the next level. This is not an official part of the grading service but something that dealers do privately either as an honest opinion or as a kind of marketing hype. I do it for coins that I think are really nice for the grade. In my opinion a PQ coin is one that has exceptional eye appeal for the consigned grade and in a reasonably good market would be more easily re-sold at the prevailing prices.

I would not like to see this made official for a couple of reasons. First all grading is subjective to a point, and this sort of thing makes it more subjective. In the world of computers digital is better and more precise than analog, but you can't say the same thing for coin grading. One person's PQ is not necessarily someone else's PQ. The precision may sound good, but would be more PR than reality when it is put to practice.

Also I would not like to see the converse. If a coin were labeled MS-66, - or minus, it would add a stigma to the piece that might make it hard to sell, perhaps unnecessarily.

You can twist arm all you want, but I don’t want to cave in on this one. I’ve been a collector since the early 1960s, and when the 11 point MS system was proposed many veteran collectors thought that it would be too much hairsplitting and too little consistency. It’s been a little better than I thought it would be, but not good enough to say that it should be expanded.

Cameo CC

I agree with you. Perhaps that is why the Sheldon system has remained unchanged. I remember the old saying, "If it isn't broke then don't fix it".

Plus, can you imagine all of the conplains PCGS would receive suggesting that a coin should be one grade higher within a grade?

Lastly, I placed this thread to see what David Hall thinks and the other people involved on this board.

Thanks for your comments.

Todd

dorkkarl

<< <i>PCGS Answer: We do use an "average of opinions".... we don't use tenths. I actually think that the current system of ... 11 grades of mint state, may be too precise. It may be the cause of some grading inconsistencies ... I wish the grades were 60, 63, 65, 67, 70. >>

i am 100% in agreement with this philosophy. for 20 years, i learned from the ana book, redbook, etc that such precision was not possible due to differences of opinion. in fact, this alleged precision is my 3d biggest complaint w/ slabs in general. i would submit that vf-25, vf-35 & au-53 are frivolous grades as well.



<< <i>I never think decimal grading would work. >>

agree also. it is absurd to think that such precision from an activity that is by definition inaccurate (ie. opinionated) is possible



<< <i>I understand this has been a much dicussed issue. In the past, I have proposed the following grading system. I would use the Shelton grading system from 1-58. However from 60 to 70, I would modify these grades to include grades 60 to 100. So a MS60, under this proposal, would now be MS60 to MS63. The old MS61 would be MS64 to MS67 and so on. >>

PLEASE don't do it.

again, comments from someone who is not a big fan of slabs. in fact, i do not own a single slabed coin at this time

K S

Cameo CC

KS - I am only wondering - not negative - why don't you like to see the Sheldon System expanded?

Todd

PhillyJoe

As mentioned here many times, grading is a subjective skill, not a science. Grades change over time within one service and are different from service to service. (If I have been grading for ten years, I would hope that my ms65 today matches my ms65 from five years ago.) Also, you have differences of standard within series. One could say that a 1999 Kennedy in pr62 is a dog, while a 1899 Barber in pr62 is a treasure. My personal opinion is that there are too many grades. I could live with pr 63-65-67-69 grades, and ms 61-63-65-67-69. A present 68 could probably fall very nicely in either a 67 or 69. Maybe a little simplification of a subjective function would help. The disparity in price guides for neighboring grades fuels this debate. Two identical modern coins, in appearance; in pr67 its a $50 coin; in pr68 it goes for $500. The 68 is not 10 times as nice, & neither are rare. The questions are easy; the answers are tough.

Joe

Cameo CC

Joe - Good comments and I think you are right. Perhaps that is the type struggle each grader goes through at PCGS and NGC. You can't make everyone happy.

I believe that both PCGS and NGC want to grade a coin properly and they must sometimes struggle with a specific grade. It must be hard to examine coins for 8 hours a day five days a week. I don't know how they do it.

Todd

jom

The best quote is:



<< <i>Sometimes I wish the grades were 60, 63, 65, 67, 70 >>



So do I. IMO, breaking down the grades any further than this just puts more pressure on the services. To me, the "in-between" grades should just be negotiated in price (let the market decide!). The reason the in-betweens were added was so to find a price stucture that didn't have the huge jump. Well, we now have 11 MS grades and we STILL have huge price jumps. What's the point? Fact is adding MORE grades just adds to the confusion and possible brings in more fraud (doctoring coins etc.). Let the market decide what a coin is worth....

jom

Cameo CC

Is there anyone on the board who supports expanding the Sheldon System?

Todd

dorkkarl

todd, if the sheldon system were "expanded" - it would no longer be the sheldon system.

if a coin is worth $1 in ms-60 & $2.5 in ms-65, what value would an increment of ms-63.8 provide? $2.1789547? the bottom line is that trying to refine the grading system to such exacting standards violates the only fundamental basis of any coin grading system - that it is subjective, & therefore precision is by definition impossible.

ie. where subjectivity enters into picture, precision exits. one can say with precision that a coin is round, or it is not round (& even that has an element of subjectivity at the micro level), but that's about as far as people might agree. as soon as a comment is made that is preceded with the phrase "i think", precision flies out the window. so if i say "i think it's a nice coin", immediately, subjectivity takes over.

i hope this makes sense, & i have never been offended by any of your posts . i sincerely appreciate your efforts to think "outside the envelope" & you have made some good suggestions worth thinking about

K S

Cameo CC

To be truthful - I really enjoyed your reply. It is true and right - I agree. I think a have a better appreciation of what the graders must go through when evaluating a coin.

Todd

nwcs

Ultimately, the only "solution" is a true technical grading system where only objective criteria is analyzed. Then, it could be automated and computerized. It would then be up to the market to determine how much coins are worth. This would essentially break the link between the coin's grade and price. Price guides would also go away since coin prices would only be relevant to an individual coin and not a grade (although there would be some correlation), Like with many things, this has advantages and disadvantages.

Cameo CC

Yes - in a perfect world that would be great. But humans are involved in the process and else can you do.

I have always wondered, if the ANA has guidelines for grades, why each grading service interprets them differently? I suppose each of the grading services takes into account eye appeal, spots, if the observe is one grade and the reverse is another grade, and ticks, and then weighs these differently and comes up with a grade.

Am I saying this right?

Todd

dorkkarl

<< <i>if the ANA has guidelines for grades, why each grading service interprets them differently? >>

note the word in bold. therein lies the answer

<< <i>Am I saying this right? >>

yes!

K S

Placid

"Why don't you grade like gymnastics"?
Pcgs gymnastics

Cameo CC

Looks like no one would suggest to expand the Sheldon Scale. The PCGS Board has spoken.

Todd

nwcs

Looks like we're the authority, eh? (sarcastically spoken -- especially concerning my authority status)

It's funny. When I first started to learn grading, I could only focus on the technical aspects. As I've learned more of the appeal aspects, I find that the subjectivity makes it easier to grade in some ways and harder in others.

MJCoin

Simply put, I say keep the Sheldon scale as it is, and let the buyer be the final, determining factor as to what the market value should be.

Cameo CC

I have only been the the coin industry for three years. I, like you, have have a large learning curve. Perhaps it is like a woman (no offense) - just when I think I have figured it out - I learn I was wrong and need to learn more.

I think the members of the PCGS Message Board are the final court of appeal. So far one votes for expanding the Sheldon Scale.

Todd

mr1931S

PCGS and all the grading services base their business on the modified-from-the-original Sheldon scale...

It's any collector/investors choice to play or not play the 'one point up in grade results in logarithmic increase to the value of my coin according to the big market (a myth?) gospel' game...

I was perfectly content with the old-time designations for uncirculated coins...strictly uncirculated,choice,and gem...

Market 'little picture' flashback in time:Collectors that knew what they were looking at,when it came time to trade coins/money, only had to decide what the agreed-on "gem",for example, was worth right then and there with the aid of their Red Book,common sense,and acumen and not what the gospel according to a number-driven, big market (a myth?) thought.

The modified Sheldon numbers are inexorably,absolutely and hopelessly tied with the dollar amount that the coin will theoretically bring in the big market (a myth?)...and it's not ever going to change...

Has any collector in possession of an MS68,Kennedy half,for example,ever gotten "MS68 money" for it from a coin dealer,the in-the-trenches,typically 'little" but real,representative of the big market (a myth?)?

I'm not picking on Kennedy Halves here but for the example given above and countless others the answer is "no"...you have to find another collector to buy/trade your number designated coin with.That is,unless you enjoy on-the-spot losing money which is the certain guarantee for the little (most of us) would-be players in the big market (a myth?)

I've dropped out as a player/would-be player in the big market...the big market is to me,
unquestionably, a myth...

A grading service that encapsulates uncirculated coins with one of these designations "strictly,"
"choice," or "gem"...what a concept...what an improvement...a 'real' big market is born (again?)...

I've got a few encapsulated coins...some MS62's...guess what...they're all at least "choice" according to my eyes...oh,there's a "gem"...It may be that i'm an anachronism...but that's not going to change...and really,i don't have anything against choice or gem...ahem...Kennedy halves either...

Cameo CC

WOW - an interesting idea - I hope I can restate what you are saying - that the grading services should constrict the grades to the standard G, VG, F, VF, XF, AU, MS (I hope I got them all) grades only.

Boy, would that open the door to subjectivity.

Todd

mr1931S

cameocc:
>>Boy, would that open the door to subjectivity.

What do you mean? The new grading service has rendered a simple,objective opinion.

and i give you a big KISS when you buy my "gem" for more than i paid for it...i'm happy,you're happy...we enjoy the hobby for what it is,or should be,not fussing over a mess of numbers...

Cameo CC

Sounds good to me.

Todd

mr1931S

i wonder if D. Hall has some old slabbing machines with some life still in 'em that he would sell me...

of course,my uncirculated coins would be the first ones slabbed as "strictly,""choice," and "gem"...

they would become rarities in their own right...

what a concept...

DAM

If there was a change to the Sheldon scale, regardless of what the change was, I believe chaos would rain down on our hobby. It would take months, it not years, for collectors to understand and become comfortable with adjusting the grade they have on their slabbed coins to the "new" system. IMHO

Todd,

I agree with the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In the end who's the winner(s). I personally don't think collectors have anything to gain. Therefore any windfall goes to the dealers and grading services.