Why use Sheldon's grading system, considering none of us would allow him to handle our collections.

redhott

Why continue to use Sheldon's 70-point grading system, considering none of us would now allow him to handle our collections? Considering the character, or lack thereof, of the man regarding the collecting of coins, why should collectors pay homage to him by continuing to use his flawed system? It may not even be very useful, since collectors of circulated coins apparently have never used, and have no need for all the grade points. For example, exactly what is a VF-21, and has anyone ever seen or heard of that grade being used? It shouldn't take more than a weekend's worth of work for a small number of numismatists to establish a modern grading system that particularly fits American collectors in pursuit of American coins. If not now, when?

MrEureka

I've long thought that a move to a 100 point grading scale is inevitable. What do you think and would it be good for the hobby/industry?

dorkkarl

so your saying someone w/ character flaws cannot make great contributions to society? c'mon.

K S

nwcs

A move to the 100 point grading system will happen when keyboards lose the anachronism of qwertyuiop layout which was devised in the 1800s to keep manual typewriter keys from locking together because people typed too fast. They haven't been necessary for nearly 100 years and definitely not in the computer age. Yet...

So I think this system will be around for a very long time with little modification.

BillJones

It’s never really been established that Dr. Sheldon ever did anything wrong. The participants in this affair were long dead, and the ANS claims of fraud were based upon incomplete records and poor record keeping on their part. A lot of ethical people in the Early American Coppers Club felt that that ANS was just trying to pull a fast one and get back some coins that it did not deserve to have. No, I’m not ready to condemn Dr. Sheldon’s contributions to the numismatic community based upon the claims of an organization that has acted like “the Broadway Bullies” when it came to this affair.

I totally disagree with the contention that one’s character flaws are a basis for condemning a man’s lifetime of work. Walter Breen had tremendous personal problems, but it would be foolish to write off his work on that basis.

redhott

No contribution to society, but a system that was meant to be self-serving, rather than helpful to others.

Some of its contents are used as shorthand communication, but the system itself no longer provides any mathematical proof of valuation. Having 70 grade points, many of which do not exist (have no definition whatsoever and have never been used), makes it appear to the novice that the true purpose of continued use of such a system is to exclude, intimidate, confuse, and disadvantage.

It could easily be mistaken for an elaborate shell game dreamed up by someone with too much time on his hands.

Rather than using a more compactly numbered system with adjectives (that keep springing up anyway), one that would better invite newcomers into the hobby to stay, will we continue to limit those who would join in by continuing to use this mind-numbing number set?

Baley

the use of the 1-70 scale has become convention, and is far more likely to continue to be used that it is to be changed or abandoned. regardless of allegations of sheldon's coin-switching or other ethical whatevers, like the example of the typewriter layout that nwcs mentioned, the 1-70 has become the standard, and it's too much to ask everyone to change to something else, even if it did make sense.

the system works fine, as long as one can interpolate between the arbitrary divisions when necessary, for example, in between grades, or at the extreme upper end, when the spreads between whole grades are large, one uses descriptive qualifiers.

NumisEd

I have a ton of character flaws, but everybody on the forum continues to look to me for my vast numismatic wisdom.

Bear

Let me see If I can remember the saying...................................................O here it is,

"Never undertake vast projects, with half vast ideas".

I always though that the Sheldon scale was tied to the ratio of priced on large cents to the increasing

grade of the cent. Back when I was a young and callow youth, I believed that a MS-70 cent cost 70 times

more then a MS-1 basal state. That was back when there was a bit more stability in pricing structure

with out the instantanious computor nets and instant results of auctions and pricing information.

Steve27

" It’s never really been established that Dr. Sheldon ever did anything wrong."

It's been established that he faked the data for his work on "somatotypes."

That aside, the 1-70 scale isn't bad, but it does have serious flaws. Diamonds are graded on three scales; weight, color, and clarity. Under the Sheldon scale coins are only graded on a "technical" level without regard for toning, which not only affects the desireability of a coin but also hides flaws. What's needed is a modified Sheldon scale which takes into account both factors.

Russ

redhott,

I would guess than, that you have never owned nor relied upon anything written by Breen? His actions were FAR more egregious.

Russ, NCNE

redhott

20 to 25 grade points should be quite suffucient, supplemented (as currently) with adjectives that won't go away (pl, dmpl, fb, fbl, red, brown, etc.) - does anyone really use more than 20 to 25 grade points? Certainly no one needs more than 20 to 25, unless there's a game afoot.

Russ
With all due respect, this thread is not about Breen

It's about Sheldon only because I figured that sensationalizing the title is about the only way to get anyone to respond to something not many otherwise care to approach -

the fact that the grading services can and do modify his now outdated and flawed grading scale whenever it suits their purposes [apparently it's not so sacrosanct after all], but don't anyone think of looking out for the little guy by making anything less complicated!

It's easy to add two cents worth when it's fun, but some other topics are tough. I thought a good example is the "Can you explain MS 70?" post of March 8, which probably deserves more consideration. When I gave up after not finding the words for a quick and easy explanation, I thought it must be a pretty good question. link

Sheldon combined his grading scale with a condition census, theorizing that value had a limit unless there was a clear finest known and second finest to chase after, and he even tried to limit those values.

Today, encouraging the use of the 70 grade along with an implication of great value, while not simultaneously including in the equation a condition census note of an unimagined number of potential pieces when regarding modern issues, is a fraud upon the novice, the future bread and butter of the hobby.

Sure, we can decide this is the opportunity to get all their money, or we can look to extend the life of the coin bull market. Anyone remember bemoaning a scarcity of new collectors ten years ago? Will we be returning to those days sooner or later?

Russ

<< <i>Russ
With all due respect, this thread is not about Breen >>



Redhott,

If the crux of your argument is that we should not use Sheldon's scale because of his alleged character flaws, than it is perfectly valid to test your commitment to that philosophy. You made your feelings clear when you said:



<< <i>Considering the character, or lack thereof, of the man regarding the collecting of coins. >>



Now, if your argument is rather that the scale is technically flawed, that's a different issue altogether. But, that was not what you indicated when opening this thread.

Russ, NCNE

seemyauction

"Why use Sheldon's grading system, considering none of us would allow him to handle our collections."


We use Sheldon's method of documenting observations because it fills a void in our collecting needs, it does not have anything to do with trust?


Alan

PerryHall

The Sheldon scale grading is so firmly ingrained in the hobby that it's unlikely to be changed any time soon. It works as well as any grading system and even with a 100 point scale, people will still argue what grade to give a coin.

Preussen

I think that a 100 point system would have made sense when a numeric standard was first being considered, but changing now would be a nightmare. Like it or not, I believe that the 70 point scale is here to stay. Just my 2¢ -Preussen

TwoSides2aCoin

The adapted Sheldon scale seems to work fine for the majority of coins. Tweaking the system is where the subjective nature of grading has it's pitfalls. In the end, it's an educated opinion or an experienced eye over everything else.

lope208

<< <i>I've long thought that a move to a 100 point grading scale is inevitable. What do you think and would it be good for the hobby/industry? >>



It would be good for the TPG's, that's for sure! Imagine charging $10 or more to reholder/regrade EVERY coin.

Of course, if they stopped using the 1-70 scale, there'd be a whole new crowd trying to collect older slabs
that still have the scale on them.

As much as I don't think it's necessary, it probably WOULD be good for the hobby.

Tvac897

I think a 100 point grading system would require a lot more re-grading, and thus cost to the collection community.

RedTiger

Why do we use a 24 hour clock with a 365 day year? Talk about confusing systems. It shouldn't take more than a week for a committee to come up with a new time system. How about the English measurement system of a foot that was based on the size of one man's shoe? With years of pushing metric, most Americans still use feet and inches for local projects. Why is that?

Sometimes things aren't done because they are efficient or clear, but because there is legacy. Coin folks are slow to embrace change. The industry is run by a bunch of good ole' boys and girls. Polls on a 100 point grading system show most folks see little benefit, lots of costs, lots of confusions, with a few winners at the top and lots of losers all over. Compare that to the move to metric where there are many benefits--and metric wasn't adopted, not on a local level.

jmcu12

<< <i>That aside, the 1-70 scale isn't bad, but it does have serious flaws. Diamonds are graded on three scales; weight, color, and clarity. Under the Sheldon scale coins are only graded on a "technical" level without regard for toning, which not only affects the desireability of a coin but also hides flaws. What's needed is a modified Sheldon scale which takes into account both factors. >>



I say this half joking and half serious. But does the statement above seem to legitimize the whole CAC sticker thing?

notwilight

The 100 pt system will never happen--too much invested in the70 pt system and no real weaknesses with t other than it bothers some OC individuals sense of order.

I don't do any ethics background check on every scrap of paper that comes thru my desk, the company that made the sheets on my bed, or the various companies that provide equipment that these electrons are flowing thru to make this post. People who worry about the politically correct BS that supports this type of thinking are just bored and looking for a cause--reminds me of the stereotypical clueless movie star or housewife who is bored so they go into local politics and think they can "make a diference".

--Jerry

RWB

It was an arbitrary decision pushed by Virgil Hancoc-k of the ANA back in the ate 1970s (?)

Sheldon's "system" never had any logic to it - he tried to fix the relationship between condition and price - something only market forces can do. So, his system was simply another snapshot. He was a good large cent variety identifier; however, also a renowned scientific charlatan and thief.

CertifiedGoldCoins

The 70-point scale is forever encased in millions upon millions of plastic slabs, and a 100-point system (or any other) would not solve the grading problem anyway, since it's dependent on infallible humans, and complicated by their individual subjective views.

jmcu12

<< <i>since it's dependent on infallible humans >>



So then, why dont we get rid of the Sheldon system all together, and have no system at all?

jmcu12

CertifiedGoldCoins

BTW Welcome to the boards!

Shamika

<< <i>Tuesday March 11, 2003 1:42 AM >>




What brought this ancient thread to the top?

Nysoto

The 70 point scale is used because it works quite well, although modified from Sheldon's original intent for use as a pricing guide, and MS70 no longer is defined "as struck". Sheldon's rarity rating scale also works very well with die varieties. If these scales did not work well, they would have been abandoned. The grading and rarity scales should be judged on their own merit, not on the alleged behavior of the inventor of the scales. Admit it, we all have some skeletons in our closets.

There is no need to go to a 100 point scale, it would only be a TPG money making scam. The 70 point scale works fine if consistency is maintained, but the TPG's prefer a moving target to gain resubmissions. The dual standards of grading by NGC and PCGS intentionally creates no real standard, maintains the oligarchy of PCGS and NGC, and allows for gradually changed grading policies which increase resubmissions and revenue to the coin "industry".

There are some interesting EACer comments on Sheldon and Ted Naftzger in the 6/8/08 and 6/15/08 E-sylum newletter.

doh

<< <i>If not now, when? >>


Probably never. There's no need to change it anyway. It works just fine as a guide....I trust my eye more than anything. If you're relying solely on the grade number when you buy a coin then you're in the wrong hobby IMO.

CertifiedGoldCoins

Thanks for the welcome, jmcu12. Took a quick look at your site, love CC coins (and Rusty Goe's book). I'll try posting a pic below (no it's not an 1876.



<< <i>

<< <i>since it's dependent on infallible humans >>


So then, why dont we get rid of the Sheldon system all together, and have no system at all? >>



I vote YES, but it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

PerryHall

<< <i>There is no need to go to a 100 point scale, it would only be a TPG money making scam. >>



Agree 100%.

Frankcoins

Old copper collectors are probably the pickiest collectors in the sphere, yet for many years (1880s-1960s) they considered
an MS70 early large cent worth less than 20% more than an MS60 specimen. That should give pause to those who believe the hype that a recent Lincoln zinc cent, struck in quantities of billions, graded MS70, should be worth a 1,000,000% premium over MS60.

morganbarber

That's why I don't use Breen #s. A group of numismatists met in my mother's basement and devised our own index code which is certain to be unanimously adopted any day now.

ziggy29

Actually, the "problem" with the Sheldon scale is that it was supposed to approximate relative values with the numerical grade (so maybe Sheldon WAS market grading!)

Which means that if we adapted the Sheldon scale today, you wouldn't have 60 on the low end and 70 on the high end, but more like 300 on the low end and 10,000 on the high end.

We'd also have some AU overlapping with MS -- if MS-300 was low end, you might have AU-150, AU-200, AU-250, AU-350 and AU-500.