What do you think about a 1-100 grading system?

mintluster

Everyone knows the story behind the 1-70 system (Dr. Sheldon, large cents, yadda yadda) and I was just wondering if a grading service decided to forge ahead and revolutionize the hobby by instituting a 1-100 system, what would you guys think about that?
MS90-100 would replace the current MS60-70 range. The biggest area affected would be below grade 40, where it would be more detailed and specific for the grades.
Your thoughts and concerns?
Please let me know and be honest.
I would really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue. I think it is very important.

greghansen

There are already many numbers within the 1-70 scale that aren't used. I don't see the utility of making the scale larger and creating more numbers that will not be used. The 60-70 range is the only one that can sometimes get a little crowded.

SDCollector

<< <i>The biggest area affected would be below grade 40, where it would be more detailed and specific for the grades. >>



As a Morgan collector, I'm satisfied with the grading scale below AU-58. Personally, the distinctions that currently exist are plenty for me in the circulated grades and I wouldn't pay a premium for a small one or two point difference within a VF grade, for example.

Elcontador

What it would do is attempt to make more $ for the grading services, as everything would have to be resubmitted. A sidebar is that it would also get collectors like me, who would refuse to do this, out of the hobby.

kamehameha00

<< <i>Everyone knows the story behind the 1-70 system (Dr. Sheldon, large cents, yadda yadda) >>



I don't,could someone tell the story?

flaminio

If we were starting from Year Zero, I would prefer a 1-100 scale rather than 1-70. But there's too much installed base of 1-70, so it will never change.

haletj

I love the idea of using all numbers 1-100. Make MS 80-100. Then a coin grading 90 for example (equiv of ms65 for ex) should stay in the 88-92 area on regrades, but the price difference shouldn't be that much for 1 or 2 points different, so it would lessen the crackout game and the chances of people losing a lot of money because of overgraded or undergraded coins. Sure it may be hard to pinpoint a coin as exactly 90, but now a point or two would be no big deal, as it is a big deal with say ms64 and ms65. How about not even give every coin one number, but a range, say this coin is ms88-90, this one is 93-94, etc.

ms70

Again? zzzzzzzzzzzz

airplanenut

<< <i>

<< <i>Everyone knows the story behind the 1-70 system (Dr. Sheldon, large cents, yadda yadda) >>



I don't,could someone tell the story? >>

Basically, the numbers we have as grades, 1-70, were based on the selling costs of large cents. The costs were proportional, and the better the quality, the more it would cost. For example, a PO-01 was $1, and an AG-3 was $3. At least that's how I understand it.

Jeremy

kamehameha00

Thanks Jeremy

LanLord

We'll get to it just as soon as we've (the US) finished converting to the metric system

Baley

every week, just about, this topic comes up.

on old thread on the subject

mintluster

Thank you everyone for your input and thoughts on the matter.

mintluster

Thanks for the feedback. Your input is valuable on this matter.

michael

if it ain't broke don't fix it



michael

Aethelred

Until someone dies from using Sheldon, I say keep it!

robertpr

We'll get to it just as soon as we've (the US) finished converting to the metric system
Well, drug dealers already use metric here in the US, so maybe they're smarter than the rest of us? LOL Actually, I think the Sheldon scale is just fine. In fact, I like it much better than I would like a 1-100 scale. Plus, someone who doesn't collect coins has no idea what the hell those PCGS labels mean I also prefer the English weights and measures!

ElectricEye

1-100 would make things worse












the sheldon scale doesn't kill people, coins kill people (ever seen a 12 gauge roosevelt shell?)

wallstreetman

If anything, shorten the scale!

How about 1 to 10? Thats a pretty common scale!

Dave99B

Overkill. In fact, 1-50 would be better than 1-70.

Dave

chrisfuccione

Last week I wrote about this so I'm not going to repete myself..I'm just going to do some pasting. There was a post above the one I was doing about this guy who was advertising his new web sit that sold british coins and he had a page on grading that I thought was intresting Here is link to site


link

THis is what page said.

Proof: Not a condition as such, the coin has been struck using specially prepared dies and polished blanks, the minting process has probably been carried out twice with extra pressure employed to ensure the dies is filled. Normally the fields are highly polished, with the design matte, however matte proofs where the whole coin is matte are known to exist. Sometimes even the design is polished. A characteristic of proof coins is that they have very sharp edges.

FDC: (Fleur de coin) Perfect mint state with no abrasion or marks, with full lustre. Usually applied to proof coins only few coins taken from circulation have not come into contact with others during production.

Brilliant Uncirculated: (BU) Usually implies full mint lustre, with no toning or tarnish, should have no marks or abrasions, although such coins will have come into contact with other coins during production.

Uncirculated: (UNC) No wear, although it is possible for the design to be not fully struck in the minting process. They may be bag abrasions. Older coins may be tarnished or toned.

Extremely Fine: (EF) Slight wear on the high spots of the design on close inspection, all other detail will be clear and sharp. Much mint lustre may remain.

Very Fine: (VF) Detail clear, but obvious evidence of limited circulation. High spots worn but detail remain. Traces of mint lustre may show in places.

Fine: (F) Worn over the whole area, but only the highest spots are completely worn through.

Very Good: (VG) Considerable wear over the whole coin, and high spot areas completely worn through. Coins in this grade or below are only collectable if extremely rare.

Good: (G) Inscriptions and date considerably worn but legible.

Fair: (F) Date and denomination legible, type recognizable, but very little detail visible.

Poor: Inscriptions worn off, date barely visible, only outline of design visible. Such coins are rarely of any value to a collector.



Many coins fall between grades and employ such terms as AUNC (About Uncirculated), GEF (Good Extremely Fine), NVF, (Nearly Very Fine), etc. In the U.S.A a numerical system is popular for grading coins.




I wrote the following about a 100 point system

I just looked at the post above us about British coin site and they had a page on grading that I thought was interesting. According to site the British use the descriptive grades instead of the ANA's numbering system. They use the term FDC: (Fleur de coin) for our gem state coin. According to THE INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPAEDIC DICTIONARY of NUMISMATICS pg.99

Fleur de coin [fr.] [abbreviated F.D.C.] literally, flower of the die. 1. Uncirculated; mint condition. 2. Very high quality often used to describe gem proof coins or medals as well as superior business strikes.


There has been rumblings about getting rid of Sheldon’s 70 point scale and going to a hundred point scale. My personal feelings are that it is a good idea to change at this point for a few reasons

1) What you might think is a grade on a coin I might look at the same coin and get a diffrent grade. Look at what happened a few months ago with the COIN WORLD survey. The professionals couldn't agree on grades for any of the coins. So unless they make the grades so descriptive to the point where you could scan a coin and have a computer program grade the coin it will still be an art and not a science.

2) Each grading company deviates from the ANA grades as a business practice and as you can see from the original post and the British grading system not everyone is using the same system. Unless we can have most if not all people use one system what use is it to having one? My BU coin might be different than your BU coin and one company MS65 might be different than another companies MS 65.
CHRIS FUCCIONE



A few posts later I found an article from the April 1945 issue of the NUMISMATIST about grading and I thought it was funny how no matter how things changed they stay the same

Here is the post

I was looking up some information today and I found this in the April 1945 issue of THE NUMISMATIST it is an article by Sturart Mosher and is titles "The Condition of a Coin" pg.321. I wish I had a scanner because the whole thing is very interesting. It goes into how we should not shun a coin because it has wear on it and how style of coinage and how it was struck important (that has to do with ancients more than modern coin. But there are some series that just by design wear out quicker because of the design such as earlier Walking liberty halves and Buffalo five-cent pieces.) He also touches upon a little bit on good verses bad on toning (what he called coloring. I don't think toning was used yet as a term). I want to try and retype the last page and half that deals with grading what he calls classification of condition).


CLASSIFICATION OF CONDITION

The Classification of condition is a perennial for collectors and dealers alike. Their aim is to improve upon existing methods and to establish a workable system that will be accepted by the whole coin collecting fraternity.

So far no one has devised such a system and what is more, none ever will. It is not possible to apply the same system to all coins. Most of the terms in current use mean little or nothing when standing alone. Take for the term “uncirculated” and apply it to a group of coins including a Greek tetradrachum, a Roman bronze, a medieval denier, A Pine Tree Shilling, a copper cent of 1793, a silver dollar of 1794, and a quarter dollar
of 1921. Each of these coins might be “strictly uncirculated” Yet supplementary terms are needed to describe them accurately.
It is unfortunate for both the dealer and the collector that there are no hard and fast rules by which to grade the condition of a coin. Various systems have been designed, some of which have not been with out merit, but the insurmountable factor of personal Opinion will never permit everyone to see eye-to-eye in deciding the comparative merits of each coin. This situation leaves room for an honest difference of Opinion yet this difference is of small importance if you but your coins from a dependable cataloguers who have experience, integrity, and good eyesight.
Though the adjectives used in describing condition are familiar ones it may startle the beginner to learn that a coin classified as “very good” is actually in wretched state and what is worse almost unsalable. “Uncirculated” is another confusing term. In it’s proper sense it means a coin that has not been circulated. Yet any coin that is free from signs of wear is called “uncirculated.”

TERMS USED IN CLASSIFICATION OF CONDITION


For the Sake of clarity these terms are arranged in order of merit rather than alphabetically

PROOF (PR.)- A coin with a mirror-like surface struck with polished dies on a polished planchet. Usually sold at a premium by the mints.

UNCIRCULATED (UNC.)- In perfect condition showing no signs of wear or damage but not necessarily brilliant. Sometimes known as MINT STATE.


EXTREMELY FINE (EX. F.)- No definite signs of wear but having a less desirable surface than an uncirculated coin.

VERY FINE (V. F.)- Showing inconsequential signs of wear but only slightly less desirable than the preceding classification.

FINE (F.)- Perceptible signs of wear but still a desirable piece.

VERY GOOD (V.G.)- definite signs of wear but still not altogether unattractive.

GOOD (G.)- Worn but lettering and design all clear.

FAIR (FR.)- Quite badly worn and usually undesirable.

POOR (P.)- Less desirable than FAIR yet the design can usually be distinguished.


The rest of the article goes into how some catalogers can mix up an uncirculated and proof coins and how some people use extra descriptions to highlight the positive aspects of a coin and that should be done to highlight the negative parts also.


CHRIS

fountainheadgold

Shorten the scale do not lenghten it

mintluster

Holy cow Chris! That is some good info on the subject. In some cases I guess a lower scale would work since there are so many numbers not used now. But you raise a great point about having a universal standard. If we really want that then a 1-100 scale would be needed so we could really nail down the grade to the smallest detail. I definately never liked the 1-70 scale because the whole "70 times the value of a worn piece...." is stupid and confusing. And it is not true! I wish the ANA and/or PCGS would forge ahead and make that monumental step of applying a new, better, more reliable standard. But I doubt it will ever happen.

chrisfuccione

The only way it would work is to have all grading companys sign on to it. so a MS 66 would be the same no matter what company grades it be it PSGS, NGC, ANAC, or even ACG. after that the only diffrence would be pricing and type of slabs.

CHRIS

mintluster

Yep, you're right. I don't see that happening anytime soon. But it's nice to dream about.

mintluster

Yep, you're right. I don't see that happening anytime soon. But it's nice to dream about.

Coppernicus

Anyone advocating a 1-100 point grading system is hopelessly decimal-challenged. The 1-70 is arbitrary, but so would a 1-100 scale. How about a 1-83 scale?

Mike

chrisfuccione

Or we could go back to the 1945 example I gave and just have one grade for an unciculated coin. What I am saying is that we have to move grading away from an art and moveit towards a science. Having a tighter grading standard is one of the ways. The currrent system leaves to much room for personal error. What you might think is a MS 66 Someone els might think is a MS 65 or a MS 67. CHRIS

Shamika

I like the idea of a 1-50 scale with 30-50 being reserved for mint state coins.

ScarsdaleCoin

I have been in favor of this for some time.....in fact a few months ago posted a similiar thread on the subject.....talk about heated thread....

LAWMAN

Any change you make in the grading numbering system at this point means that we have to re-submit ALL of our slabbed coins. This has worked well in the recording industry (78's to 33's to tape to 8 tracks to small tape cassettes to cd's-- each time you have to upgrade your whole record collection-- and people do! Always at higher prices), but, grading coins by 1-100 or 1-1000 will not make them look or sound better. Let's live with Shelton's gift to us in all its glory.

jom

Having a more "precise" systems does absolutely NOTHING. They've already tried this with the inbetween grades of 62, 64, 66 etc etc. The reason these were added was to alliviate the huge price differences in the grades, say for 63 to 65. It turns out it didn't work too well because many coin series still have huge jumps such as between 64 and 65. No matter what you do these jumps are going to exsist.

To me the best thing to do is to LOWER the number of MS grades and let the MARKET decide what the coins are worth for the inbetweens. If this is done there will be LESS pressure for the services because it will be easier to grade. I mean, isn't it easier to say a coin is MS63 or MS65 than to say whether its MS63, 64 or 65? If it isn't 65 then it's 63. Period. If it's a PQ piece then the owner will charge a higher price.

Another positive thing would that less emphisis will be placed on the grading services which mean THEY won't be controlling the market as much as they do now. This, by the way, is the reason this won't happen. Why would the services do this? This is what they want and it allows them to charge a higher price for their services.

jom

razorface1027

AHHH, leave well enough alone! It's been workin' all these years. Why fix it if it ain't broke!...

ANACONDA

Personally, i think a 1-100 system is not a good idea. We're too used to thinking of the 1-70 system, plus it would make all of the current books that talk about grading obsolete plus all auction records would become much harder to use in comparing old info to new info.

My suggestion - keep the system we have when considering 1-60 and expand 60-70 to include decimals to one place.

The advantage of this is that we don't have to reprogram our selves.

Our US governement tried to implement the metric system and failed, and they have money, power and authority. Coins are different - no one has money, power and authority who could implement a metric coin grading system.

adrian

LanLord

I think a system of grading that starts with 0 as the highest grade and goes on to infinity would be good.

A 0 coin has zero distracting marks on it.

A 10 coin has 10 distracting marks on it.

A 100 coin has 100 marks etc.

Hey, if we're going to change something, let's really make it different. Not just a change from 1 - 70 versus 1 -100, lets go 0 to infinity.

Conder101

<< <i>I definately never liked the 1-70 scale because the whole "70 times the value of a worn piece...." is stupid and confusing. And it is not true! >>


But it was true, and had been true for something like 25 years when Sheldon created it back in 1949. Sheldons mistake was the since it had been constant for such a long period he felt it was a natural, unchanging ratio. (Kind of like the silver : gold 15:1 ratio that everyone thought was a natual law back in the early to mid 18th century.) Unfortunately it just reflected a ration of the period created y the relatively static demand for large cents at the time. But the very act of observing something tend to affect the thing being observed and the attention Sheldon brought to the large cents by his book changed the interest levels for large cent and altered the ratios turning them into constantly changing amounts