Why are there so many VF grades?

ajaan · July 14, 2012 12:08AM

Two grades for Good, G4 and G6
Two grades for V. Good, VG8 and VG10
Two grades for Fine, F12 and F15
Four grades for V. Fine, VF20, VF25, VF30, and VF35
Two grades for Ex. Fine, EF40 and EF45

Can you really accurately tell between the four VF grades?

Billet7 · July 14, 2012 12:29AM

VF spans a large distance of wear, the grading scale is imperfect.

BAJJERFAN · July 14, 2012 12:29AM

<< Two grades for Good, G4 and G6
Two grades for V. Good, VG8 and VG10
Two grades for Fine, F12 and F15
Four grades for V. Fine, VF20, VF25, VF30, and VF35
Two grades for Ex. Fine, EF40 and EF45

Can you really accurately tell between the four VF grades? >>

I suppose some can. Maybe au50 and au53 shud be lumped in with xf40 and xf45. I could also see vf20, vf25, vf30, vf35, vf40, vf45 and xf50 and xf53.

Billet7 · July 14, 2012 12:30AM

Huge difference between a VF20 and a VF35...HUGE!

Sonorandesertrat · July 14, 2012 12:58AM

"Why are there so many VF grades?"

Money and marketing. These grades include what many collectors, having limited budgets, feel is the max amount of wear that they want to see on 19th/20th-century coins in their collections.
At a higher level, the same thing has occurred for AU coins (50-53-55-58).

LanLord · July 14, 2012 12:59AM

<< Huge difference between a VF20 and a VF35...HUGE! >>

Yep. The VF grade just happens to be where there is a lot of differentiation in a single grade range. In some coins, I don't even wanna think about a 20, but a 35 would be choice.

MidLifeCrisis · July 14, 2012 1:01AM

<< "Why are there so many VF grades?"

Money and marketing. These grades include what many collectors, having limited budgets, feel is the max amount of wear that they want to see on 19th/20th-century coins in their collections.
At a higher level, the same thing has occurred for AU coins (50-53-55-58). >>

123cents · July 14, 2012 1:24AM

Why are there so many VF grades?

Because type collectors on a tight budget love this grade level.

RYK · July 14, 2012 1:25AM

My opinion is that it is an anomaly or flaw of the Sheldon scale that allocated so many grades in the VF range. In reality, there is no consistent difference between a 25 and a 30 in appearance or value.

If I had my druthers, I would subtract one grade from the VF span and allocate it to XF.

dogwood · July 14, 2012 1:35AM

Because, absent a viable adjective, the 30 range is still only Very.
Think about it.
Very=20
*****?=30
Extremely=40
it's linguistic laziness more than anything else.

astrorat · July 14, 2012 1:43AM

<< My opinion is that it is an anomaly or flaw of the Sheldon scale that allocated so many grades in the VF range. In reality, there is no consistent difference between a 25 and a 30 in appearance or value.

If I had my druthers, I would subtract one grade from the VF span and allocate it to XF. >>

Yes ... the Sheldon grading scale is lipstick on a pig that should have never left the barnyard. It was a myopic system that was antiquated as soon as it was published and was based on the retail selling price of a small, focused coin type at a defined point in time. The fact that it became the "standard" system is amusing and demonstrates the lack of collector and dealer sophistication during the 1950s - 1970s. Sheldon's "logic" was, well, laughable if you actually read his "account" of how the system was developed. Nonetheless, it's our glorious, tarted-up pig now.

Edited to correct spelling...

MidLifeCrisis · July 14, 2012 1:56AM

Did the original Sheldon Scale assign the adjective descriptions or just the numbers?

tydye · July 14, 2012 2:05AM

VF20 should be F20. Difference between a 20 and 35 coin in the CBH series is huge. I only purchase VF20 coins at F-15 money

astrorat · July 14, 2012 2:07AM

<< Did the original Sheldon Scale assign the adjective descriptions or just the numbers? >>

Both ... sort of. It assigned a number (i.e. selling price) to the qualitative description used (i.e. qualitative grade). Read "Early American Cents" and you will see his logic and justification.

DennisH · July 14, 2012 2:08AM

I think that all of us who collect circulated coins can easily tell the difference between a VF20 and a VF35 in our primary series. But F15 vs. VF20 can really be tough... more so than VF35 vs. XF40.

MidLifeCrisis · July 14, 2012 2:10AM

<< 

<< Did the original Sheldon Scale assign the adjective descriptions or just the numbers? >>

Both ... sort of. It assigned a number (i.e. selling price) to the qualitative description used (i.e. qualitative grade). Read "Early American Cents" and you will see his logic and justification. >>

Thanks. I should read that book.

But did he assign the "Very Fine" description to the 20-35 grade range? Or was it assigned by somebody else (the ANA or ANACS?) later?

ziggy29 · July 14, 2012 2:24AM

I'd simply put it this way: There is a *huge* difference between "barely better than Fine" and "just a hair below XF".

Sonorandesertrat · July 14, 2012 2:29AM

Sheldon assigned 20 and 30 to the VF grade, 40 to EF, and 50 to AU. Additional numerical grades began to appear as the prices of coins rose in subsequent decades. I do not think that Sheldon's VF-AU descriptors correspond well to how we interpret his numerical grades today.

CaptHenway · July 14, 2012 2:31AM

<< 

<< 

<< Did the original Sheldon Scale assign the adjective descriptions or just the numbers? >>

Both ... sort of. It assigned a number (i.e. selling price) to the qualitative description used (i.e. qualitative grade). Read "Early American Cents" and you will see his logic and justification. >>

Thanks. I should read that book.

But did he assign the "Very Fine" description to the 20-35 grade range? Or was it assigned by somebody else (the ANA or ANACS?) later? >>

Using his system a common variety 1794 cent in Very Fine condition sold for $20, while the same coin in EF sold for $40. He therefore assigned the EF grade the numerical equivalent of 40 and the VF grade the numerical equivalent of 20.

A Choice EF was an EF-45 and a Choice VF was a VF-30, and the market added 25 and 35 just because nature abhors a vacuum.

ziggy29 · July 14, 2012 2:33AM

<< Sheldon assigned 20 and 30 to the VF grade, 40 to EF, and 50 to AU. Additional numerical grades began to appear as the prices of coins rose in subsequent decades. I do not think that Sheldon's VF-AU descriptors correspond well to how we interpret his numerical grades today. >>

Well, no it doesn't. Sheldon used these numbers to approximate the typical spread in value between grades. This, of course, is much different now. With the lowball registry we'd have to change PO-1 ("basal state") to something like Poor-50, followed by Fair-10 and then AG-3 and so on...

magikbilly · July 14, 2012 3:35AM

35 is one half of of 70?

Eric

TomB · July 14, 2012 4:01AM

If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates.

MidLifeCrisis · July 14, 2012 4:11AM

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

Good point.

We really don't need any of the letter descriptions.

Sonorandesertrat · July 14, 2012 4:15AM

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

I dunno. TomB's response smacks of too much common sense.....

magikbilly · July 14, 2012 4:16AM

<< 

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

Good point.

We really don't need any of the letter descriptions. >>

Well, I never really considered them as they moved. Select, Choice etc. Gem in to Superb. Gem. Fortunately, the coins have not

Best,
Eric

ajaan · July 14, 2012 4:48AM

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

That would be a disaster. It would take me forever to complete my Morgan Grading Set.

Seventy one coins?

telephoto1 · July 14, 2012 5:08AM

Given today's lax, er,ah, I mean "evolving" standards, today's VF20 is yesterday's F15...so maybe you're right and they should just call it F20 and be done with it.
I'd like to see how many could take a 20,25,30 and 35 of the same given coin and arrange them in grade order without being able to see the labels.
Very few, I'd wager.

astrorat · July 14, 2012 6:05AM

<< Using his system a common variety 1794 cent in Very Fine condition sold for $20, while the same coin in EF sold for $40. He therefore assigned the EF grade the numerical equivalent of 40 and the VF grade the numerical equivalent of 20. >>

This. Sheldon didn't describe grades, he "equated" price with specific dealer's and collector's qualitative grades.

BillJones · July 14, 2012 6:24AM

Sheldon's original scale was developed as a pricing methodology. The idea was to assign a "Basal Value" to every early large cent variety. A large cent in BS-1 (BS = Basal State) was an UNDAMAGED piece that had extensive wear, but could still be attributed by its Sheldon variety. The coin did not need have a readable date, and believe me you can attribute dateless large cents by Sheldon variety because I've done it. Then to estimate the value of the piece one multiplied the Basal Value by the numerical grade.

For example taking a price from Sheldon's first book, Early American Cents, which was published in 1949, an 1814 large cent with the plain 4 (S-295) had a Basal Value of 25 cents. Therefore a cent in VG-7 was worth $1.75; one in VG-10 was worth $2.50. A coin in EF-40 would have fetched $10.00 using this system and an MS-60 was worth $15.00.

Why was there a big gap between VF-20 and EF-40? I think that it something to do with the prices "elite collectors" were willing or could pay. First EF-40 according to Sheldon's grading guide was our AU-55. In Sheldon's words, an EF-40 coin shows "Only the slightest trace of wear, or of rubbing, is to be seen on the high points. For an AU-50 the description was "Close attention or the use of a glass should be necessary to make out that the coin is not in perfect Mint State. Typically, the AU-50 coin retains its full sharpness but is darkened or is a little off-color."

Given these strict standards you can see that an EF coin was a truly outstanding piece that is far above what we think of the EF-40 grade today. Therefore there was a vast price difference between the worn coins that most collectors pursued and the near perfect coins the top flight collectors wanted, and that was reflected in the gap from VF-20 to EF-40.

By the time Sheldon published the 1958 edition of his book even he was admitting that is Basal State times numerical grade system was breaking down. He outlined some arcane rules about how finest known coins were two or three times the "normal" prices, but a perceptive reader could see that his pricing system, even if it had worked in the late '40s and early '50s was not then valid. But then the concept of "precision grading" came into vogue because the abuses that were occurring in the coin market, and the Sheldon scale without its pricing component came into use.

crypto79 · July 14, 2012 6:34AM

<< Sheldon's original scale was developed as a pricing methodology. The idea was to assign a "Basal Value" to every early large cent variety. A large cent in BS-1 (BS = Basal State) was an UNDAMAGED piece that had extensive wear, but could still be attributed by its Sheldon variety. The coin did not need have a readable date, and believe me you can attribute dateless large cents by Sheldon variety because I've done it. Then to estimate the value of the piece one multiplied the Basal Value by the numerical grade.

For example taking a price from Sheldon's first book, Early American Cents, which was published in 1949, an 1814 large cent with the plain 4 (S-295) had a Basal Value of 25 cents. Therefore a cent in VG-7 was worth $1.75; one in VG-10 was worth $2.50. A coin in EF-40 would have fetched $10.00 using this system and an MS-60 was worth $15.00.

Why was there a big gap between VF-20 and EF-40? I think that it something to do with the prices "elite collectors" were willing or could pay. First EF-40 according to Sheldon's grading guide was our AU-55. In Sheldon's words, an EF-40 coin shows "Only the slightest trace of wear, or of rubbing, is to be seen on the high points. For an AU-50 the description was "Close attention or the use of a glass should be necessary to make out that the coin is not in perfect Mint State. Typically, the AU-50 coin retains its full sharpness but is darkened or is a little off-color."

Given these strict standards you can see that an EF coin was a truly outstanding piece that is far above what we think of the EF-40 grade today. Therefore there was a vast price difference between the worn coins that most collectors pursued and the near perfect coins the top flight collectors wanted, and that was reflected in the gap from VF-20 to EF-40.

By the time Sheldon published the 1958 edition of his book even he was admitting that is Basal State times numerical grade system was breaking down. He outlined some arcane rules about how finest known coins were two or three times the "normal" prices, but a perceptive reader could see that his pricing system, even if it had worked in the late '40s and early '50s was not then valid. But then the concept of "precision grading" came into vogue because the abuses that were occurring in the coin market, and the Sheldon scale without its pricing component came into use. >>

Textbook answer that isn't out of a textbook. Perfect

DIMEMAN · July 14, 2012 7:01AM

Like many have mentioned......there is a big difference between VF20 and VF35. The VF ranges to me are needed.

It's the MS range that seems crazy to me! 11 grades of unc with pluses....22 grades of unc.....get real!!!

DoubleEagle59 · July 14, 2012 7:18AM

If a computer could accurately grade consistently, then 4 grades for VF does make sense.

With the inaccuracies of the human graders, 4 VF grades is just dumb.

BillJones · July 14, 2012 7:26AM

<< If a computer could accurately grade consistently, then 4 grades for VF does make sense.

With the inaccuracies of the human graders, 4 VF grades is just dumb. >>

No really. There are significant differences in the look and the price between VF-20 and VF-35, but it usually only shows up in the price for scarce and expensive pieces. For example a 1796 quarter in VF-35 is lot more desirable and expensive than one in VF-20. The problem is in recent years the EF grade as been "degraded" to include more coins that are really near miss VF-35 or even VF-30. I'll grant you that people can disagree about whether a coin grades VF-30 or 35, but the differences between VF-20 and 35 are much better defined among expert graders. And the beauty of it is, properly applied, the VF-35 grade helps to preserve the integrity of the EF-40 grade.

veryfine · July 14, 2012 7:28AM

<< Maybe au50 and au53 shud be lumped in with xf40 and xf45. I could also see vf20, vf25, vf30, vf35, vf40, vf45 and xf50 and xf53. >>

I would never want to see an AU-50 or 53 as part of the XF category. Any AU grade denotes "full detail", which would be an inaccurate description for an XF coin.

Elcontador · July 14, 2012 7:30AM

<< "Why are there so many VF grades?"

Money and marketing. These grades include what many collectors, having limited budgets, feel is the max amount of wear that they want to see on 19th/20th-century coins in their collections.
At a higher level, the same thing has occurred for AU coins (50-53-55-58). >>

You really see the AU issues SDR raised in Draped Bust $s. The net grading that goes on in this series just makes the phenomenon worse. Practically speaking, I can usually tell the difference between an AU 50 and an AU 55, or an AU 53 and an AU 58. But oftentimes, I think the difference between a 50 and 53, or 53 and 55 is arbitrary. A 58 should be a slider; if not, imo, it's overgraded.

Zoins · July 14, 2012 7:38AM

Great info Bill. Thanks for taking the time to write that post!

astrorat · July 14, 2012 7:45AM

<< 

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

Good point.

We really don't need any of the letter descriptions. >>

And that was Sheldon's intent.

Zoins · July 14, 2012 8:11AM

<< 

<< 

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

Good point.

We really don't need any of the letter descriptions. >>

And that was Sheldon's intent. >>

Isn't this sort of happening already with market grading (AU60-63?).

fc · July 14, 2012 10:22AM

the problem seems to be that only in the lowest grade does one use a negative
term. Poor. If they would have simply used two negative terms at the lowest
level VF would not have been abused.

messydesk · July 14, 2012 11:03AM

Maybe 30 and 35 (or 20 and 25) should be called "Quite Fine" or "Rather Fine" so that each grade level from G to XF would only have 2 numbers in current use.

ambro51 · July 14, 2012 11:22AM

Because its a grade that makes sense and is agreeable to all collectors. You can recognize it, not shiny, but not really worn. It dosent look really crisp and fresh though. It's a coin you can look at and say this coin is in very fine condition.

BaseballAbs · July 14, 2012 11:40AM

All I know is the scale has worked just fine. Besides I finally feel like I got it down for the most part, no need screwing it up. You can't make it more perfect no matter how hard you try. Unless they use a number system with some supper advanced high tech scanning device of some kind. I'm shocked something has not been devised and in use by now.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 14, 2012 11:54AM

There are so many coins. I lost count somewhere betweeen G and VG.

HoledandCreative · July 15, 2012 3:08PM

Level the field. Make it 101 grades on a scale of 0 to 100. Zero being Basal State, unidentifiable - might not even be a coin, can't tell for sure - no date, no mintmark, no nothing. There are 10 grades, so 10 variations of each grade. Uncirculated now gets 11. TPGs would probably like the regrade business. The lowballers could use a little slack between Poor, Fair, and AG. VF should be no different than any other grade.

fastfreddie · July 16, 2012 4:25AM

<< My opinion is that it is an anomaly or flaw of the Sheldon scale that allocated so many grades in the VF range. In reality, there is no consistent difference between a 25 and a 30 in appearance or value.

If I had my druthers, I would subtract one grade from the VF span and allocate it to XF. >>

How about...

Not Good 1,2,3
Good 4,6,8
Fine 10,12,15
VF 20,25,30
XF 35,40,45,
AU 50,53,55
UNC 58,60,61
Not Gem 62,63,64

fastfreddie · July 16, 2012 4:31AM

<< 

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

I dunno. TomB's response smacks of too much common sense.....

>>

Becasue the letter give the observer an adjective to think about and a number does not.

veryfine · July 16, 2012 6:02AM

<< If one simply does away with the letter description, which does nothing anyway, then the problem evaporates. >>

Does that mean I'll have to change my name in here? Will I be become obsolete?

illini420 · July 16, 2012 8:48AM

The do it to make it harder to win the PCGS grading contest

lordmarcovan · July 16, 2012 9:35AM

<< Can you really accurately tell between the four VF grades? >>

Better than I can often distinguish between the ten MS grades.

Why are there so many VF grades?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories