Serious question. Why the use of “Good” as a grade for crummy coins?
csdot
Posts: 707 ✭✭✭✭
I imagine most of us have been collecting for decades, so the grade of “Good” for coins scoring between a 4 and a 6 on the 70 point Sheldon scale is something we just accept, albeit with an occasional eye roll 🙄 over the euphemistic language.
So how and why did the early hobbyists accept and adopt the term “Good” for coins universally thought of as right next to the bottom tier on the grading scale?
Surely it wasn’t merely a sales technique.
1
Comments
What would you propose as an alternative, considering that we already have a number of lesser grades, such as About Good, Fair and Poor.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
According to your taste, I suppose. I would never call this G4 coin "crummy" by any standards, but then that's me.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
There has to be a more definitive answer to the question of “how and why” the moniker of Good was granted to such a low grade (the 4-10 range out of 70 -if you include Good through Very Good) than they already used up poor, fair and almost good for 1-3, so they ran out of descriptive words and jumped straight to Good. Maybe you are correct and it was that simple, but if so, sort of a disappointing answer.
My quick research reveals that Dr. William H. Sheldon first presented his original scale in 1949 for his book on Early American Cents" titled "A Quantitative Scale for condition" as a way to grade Large cents.
The fact that he was trying to assist others in how to properly grade Large Cents tells me that he and his fellow contemporary hobbyists in that area were studying a coin type that has a much higher circulated census than what many 2021 coin collectors might collect.
Meaning, where today’s collector might wonder why 4 = Good, a Early Cent collector might not have seen it as unusual. For other collectors, there are plenty of descriptive words that easily fit between Poor and Good, like: Fair, Rough, Worn, Well Circulated, Details barely visible, Details faintly visible.
Indian Head $10 Gold Date Set Album
Imagine if they used words worse than “poor”
Seems kind of obvious as the grade between "about good" and "very good".
Now that is a funny answer. 😆
Indian Head $10 Gold Date Set Album
I think for any series that circulated heavily, good, as in “good, solid, adequate” is a “fine” descriptor. For example, I’d be happy to have a set of early walkers or Barber halves in good condition.
The main question I would have is why change a system that has worked well for so long?
You could substitute Ugly for G4 then you might have POSUgly 01, Very Ugly 02, Quite Ugly 03, Ugly 04, Fairly Ugly 06 Somewhat Ugly 08 and so on, but still would not change anything. Terminology is what works, changing everything, just because, does not work.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Maybe because coin dealers decided that having a "crummy" grade might not be a savvy marketing move?
Isn't "Average Circulated" supposed to be approximately AG-3? If so, better than average could be considered "good".
I think the term came about in a time that was far less desensitized to hyperbole. If it was in a condition where you could tell what it was, it was good. Obviously, at the time, Fine was better than good and that was probably understood. Today “fine” is how you tell people you’re doing when they ask and neither really wants to converse. Apparently back then, good was a basal state of decentness and Fine was better to an that. Also, it really makes sense that in a hobby you’re trying to grow interest in, you would use relatively posit e descriptors for the vast majority of pieces.
We really should rename the lowest grades
Good.
Very Good.
OR
Crummy.
Very Crummy.
Does that answer your question?
What do you call a coin such as this one?
A long way to Lowball 01?
Kinda ugly?
Crumby?
I prefer Good 6. How about "gem good"?
What does one call a G6 CC half end up this free of dings and scratches? "Lucky good"?
"Cull" comes to mind.
Way too much detail for a 01.
Wow, for a brief second I thought that was a 76-CC double dime.
There's a bit of a value difference!
Coin lingo, it's full of nonsense - just like every other hobby.
There are 2,339 lowball coin type sets listed on PCGS.
"Good" for the grade.
When used properly, “Good” describes a coin that has all of the main design devices sharp and clear, BUT all or virtually all of the microscopic or “Fine” detail is gone. In many cases, it is the least acceptable collector grade. A coin in Good has the main design devices outlined and all of the lettering and the date are sharp and clear. The rims are still intact, and none of the letters are worn at the top into the rim.
There is lea way for some coins because of strike issues, and this gets into grading by surfaces which can get much more complicated. Dr. Sheldon addressed that, and he was correct when he stated that it often takes years of experience, plus I would add God given talent, to grade surfaces consistently.
It would interesting if someone could do a study on the evolution of grading terms. They were well established when I became a collector in the early 1960s, although the pricing in “The Red Book” was a lot more sketchy. When you look at very old auction catalogs, the terminology was much more simple. When did it get much more complex? Did Dr. Sheldon push the envelope in 1948? I don’t know.
In the old days that coin would have been a G-VG. Today it will probably be called VG. VG-7 might be a fair grade because sometimes too much emphasis it placed on the letters in the word “LIBERTY.” That probably dates from the Brown and Dunn grading books which tried to simplify things by concentrating on key design features like “LIBERTY.” The assumption was it that part of the coin would follow along. There was some truth to that, but experienced graders learned that it was not an absolute truth.
Of course, if you were a less than ethical dealer, or one of the fly by night grading services that have set up shop in the modern era, it’s a “Fine,” or even a “VF” when you are selling it. When you are buying it, it’s a “Good.” That is especially true if it happens to be a rare date. Rare coins often get a grade push.
Interesting post, and replies. Thanks @BillJones for explaining some nuances that exist in grading. @barberian - I like that half as a VG due to the very attractive nature of surface preservation. I think Bill nailed it as VG-7; however, that term is seldom used.
When a coin is 200 years old 04 is pretty good.
Didn't Sheldon have basal state or something like that for the lowest grade?
The adjective names stuck because of the era they were created. The same reason why we have QWERTY keyboards even though it isn’t the optimal arrangement of keys.
Yes, BS-1, which is short for Basal State-1. Today, the term is Poor-1. It was used for coin that was heavily worn, but NOT DAMAGED. You also had to have enough to determine the Sheldon variety number. That did not necessarily mean you had to have a readable date. I know that can be done because a collector once handed four dateless Draped Bust large cents to me, I was able to attribute all of them with the Sheldon book.
Sheldon mentioned that there was a grade below BS-1. Coins that were heavily corroded or damaged were a lesser grade. He suggested that they were worth half of the Basal State price.
I would call this perfect. It lived an honest life of actually being used as a coin, wasn't abused, and isn't ugly. That's the exact look I go for on older stuff.
I know I'm different from most, though.
For most people Good means "good enough for now" but for me it's actually good good.
Look at old catalogs from the late 19th century onwards and you'll see a gradual evolution from few grades represented by non standard terms to more grades represented by standardized terms.
One of my first early catalogs (1930s) had valuations for "New" and "Used" for most issues. Fine, Very Fine, Extremely fine and Uncirculated were used from the early days, as were poor, fair and good. I don't think that cull, very good and almost uncirculated came into widespread usage until somewhat later. By the post WW2 boom of the 50s-early 60s, circulated grades were pretty well established but few differentiated between the different qualities of mint state coins.
When I explain the grade of "good" to a non-collector, I say, "Good, which actually means "'bad'", or "Fine, which actually means "OK'", reflecting your observation that "good" is at the bad end of the grading scale.
I imagine "back in the day" when most collectors obtained their coins through pocket change and some hand me downs that most of the coins were in really bad shape. A coin with decent features that could be made out was considered "good" when that collector presented his coffee can collection to a coin dealer. In most cases a good coin is exactly that "good". Most coins in that coffee can are in pretty bad shape.
Well, we can change the description to:
"Good Enough".
BHNC #203
They aren’t bad they good, or almost good as the case may be. Not crummy
Does two crummies equal a right
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It means piece of 💩 but still good (real).
Because it’s “good” enough for an average circulated album collector. For an album you want the common dates to match the key dates and anything above good for a key date belongs in a slab.
Mr_Spud
I always thought "Excellent Fine" was very awkward sounding, even as a 10 year old kid. That's about as bad as "Excellent Good". I also think the numbering system used today is pretty terrible, 4, 8, 12, 15, 25, 35, 58, 64. Ugh I think who ever developed these words and numbers was brain damaged.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
In any case, I still think this is one of the most appealing AG coins I've ever seen.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Good, then great, grand, excellent, outstanding, amazing
Well worn?
When I was purchasing some old coins from an old collector many years ago (mid-70's), the guy was like 80 years old, I said one of his coins was AU, he insisted "there is no such grade. A coin is either Unc. or XF".
I have the seventh edition (1954) of the red book and for most coins they use only g, f, vf, unc. and proof. There are no listings for VG, EF and AU coins.
Listings for Indian head cents are Good, Fine, UNC. and Proof (4 total)
Lincoln cents -Fine, Unc., Proof. (3 total)
Seated dimes-Good, Fine, Unc. (3 total)
20 cent pieces, Fine, Unc., Proof. (3 total)
later date bust halves (after 1807) Fine, Unc. (2 total)
Gold coins-Fine, Unc., Proof. (2 total)
53rd edition
Indian head cents: G-4, VG-8, F-12, VF-20, XF-40, MS-60, Proof-63 (7 Total)
Seated dimes: G-4, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, MS-60 (5 total)
20 cent pieces: G-4, VF-8, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, MS-60, Proof-63 (7 total)
Later date bust halves: G-4, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, AU-50, MS-60 (5 Total)
In the 75th(2022) edition:
Indian head cents: G-4, VG-8, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, AU-50, MS-60, MS-63, and Proof-63 (8 total -double the 1954 edition)
Seated dimes: G-4, VG-8, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, AU-50, MS-60, MS-63, and Proof-63 (8 total)
Twenty cent pieces: G-4, VG-8, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, AU-50, MS-60, MS-63, Proof-63 (9 total-triple the 1954 edition)
Later date bust halves: G-4, F-12, VF-20, EF-40 AU-50, MS-60, MS-63 (7 total)
For some earlier bust coins AG-3 is added.
Grading has become more and more intricate over the years.
I don't know of any crummy coins. Just coins that aren't quite as nice as others.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
This is not funny to me. It’s logical.
The OP posts a very good question. If we answer his point . . . .this thread will die in 4 responses. If we alter / defer / transfer / acquiesce / abort his original meaning . . .well, we can go on and on.
A great question. I do not have an answer . . . but I have also considered this many times.
Bravo to the OP. You won't get an answer . . . but there are some of us who appreciate your meaning . . . . .
Drunner
I'm guessing we're spoiled these days with the Internet.
In the old days without photos, combined with date/mm collecting, these were probably the best many could get of rarities.
I imagine the use of words was different back then, and in common parlance it worked. Since then, it’s been ingrained and isn’t about to change.
My logbook entry for the flight that got me my pilot certificate just says “private pilot check ride satisfactory.” Now I might prefer it to say awesome or great or spectacular, but the examiner who made the entry was an old-school guy and when you either pass or you don’t, the wording works as-is. As long as you know what it means—and with coin grades, I bet they did when they first came out, and now we do because it’s what we’re taught—then the wording works even if it seems to leave something to be desired.
Charmed Good.
I think it has to do with the kind of material Dr. Sheldon was working with. For early large cents, there are many coins in below Good condition. So if you lay out 1000 truly random early large cents, those in Good might actually be better than a third or so.
The terms make less sense for Morgan Dollars, where the average grade is probably MS-something or AU, and the ones in Good are pretty crummy by comparison.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Would that be better or worse than fair?, VG? or Fine?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It would be better than Very Well Worn
I have seen many coins graded G6 that I find attractive. A well circulated Morgan that most would grade G6 or G8 is perfectly acceptable and the condition or description of good describes it perfectly. I like circulated Morgans with readable dates and MM's no slicks or heavy damage. NONE of the Morgans I own that most would grade G to VG would I consider crappy coins.
Al
Good is for grades 4 and 6. If it’s an 8, it would be VG.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.