Rethinking the Sheldon Scale: Should Coin Grading Move from 1–70 to 1–100
pcgsregistrycollector
Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭✭✭
I AM AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL BUT I WANTED TO HEAR OTHER THOUGHTS.
The 1–70 Sheldon grading scale has been the foundation of U.S. numismatics for over seventy years. Originally designed by Dr. William Sheldon for early large cents, the scale was never meant to become a universal grading system for every coin type and era. Yet over time, it has become the accepted standard—used by grading services, price guides, and collectors alike.
However, with the advancement of the hobby, I think it’s worth asking: does the 1–70 scale still serve the modern numismatic market effectively?
The problem lies in precision. Within Mint State, for instance, the difference between MS-63 and MS-64—or MS-66 and MS-67—can be thousands of dollars, despite representing just a single point of separation. To compensate for this lack of granularity, the market has added “+” grades, designations like “FB” or “PL,” and CAC stickers—all of which essentially create micro-tiers between the 70 available points. In other words, the market already behaves as if the Sheldon scale were more detailed than it actually is.
A 1–100 grading system could provide a clearer and more precise framework for the future. Expanding the scale would:
- Offer greater differentiation between coins that currently fall within the same narrow grade band.
- Reduce subjectivity by allowing more precise calibration for strike, luster, and surface preservation.
- Reflect the technological sophistication of modern grading, especially as AI and digital imaging continue to develop.
Of course, a change of this magnitude would not be simple. It would require widespread industry consensus, redefined standards, and possibly reholdering millions of certified coins. Yet, the core question remains: is the Sheldon scale still the best system for an increasingly precise and data-driven hobby?
I’d like to hear serious thoughts from others on this. Is a 1–100 grading system the logical next step for numismatics—or is the Sheldon 1–70 scale too entrenched to ever evolve?
Proud follower of Christ!
Comments
NO, stay with the current scale, more grades is a bad idea.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
YES, more grades is a good idea.
The TPG’s would love it. Can you imagine all the extra revenue from the resubmissions on a coin grading MS89 and the collector insists that it an MS91?
Not a good idea at all.
Disclaimer: I'm against changing the Sheldon Scale, but I wanted to hear other thoughts as well.
Proud follower of Christ!
PCGS brought it up at a luncheon (at FUN I think) years back. No traction thankfully. Turned on the regrade conveyor belt though with the plus grades augmentation. There is way too much subjectivity and arguments on things like whether strike should play a part in grade to make 100 points of precision practical or viable. We have gone far enough from MS grades being only 60, 63, 65, and 67. I cringe at the games that would be played if even AU59 was added, especially with pluses remaining in operation.
Just remembering when it was discussed before gives me a headache and reminds me of how successful the recent 1-10 NGC experiment was. If something ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I had this discussion with Ed Rochette back in 1978 before I started the ANA grading service. He said that it was too late to change the scale. This was before we had graded a single coin.
How many coins have been graded since then? 50 million? 100 million? It’s later than you think.
you mean have grades like 10.0 then 9.9 or 9.8 and so?
no discussion from me but this was tried recently and didn't go far
No!
I would like to stand by all my prior comments when this issue was brought up before on this forum.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
What a catastrophe switching would cause. Let's just go back to raw and take our chances. lol
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
Who wants to have 300 or more slabs regraded?
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Exactly.
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
At the end of the day - even with plus signs and CAC stickers and strike designations - a grade is just an opinion. I think a 100 point grading scale would actually increase the subjectivity and make agreement of opinion on a grade more difficult.
A 100 point grading scale may offer greater differentiation between coins that currently fall within the same narrow grade band, but I don't think we need greater differentiation. We need less. This is especially true of the MS grades above 65. I've always thought 66, 67, 68, and 69 grades were little more than a money grab and a way to stroke egos and get registry points. The difference between those grades is too tiny to really matter, and still they are even more subjective.
As for AI and digital imaging, I would never trust AI to grade a coin for me and I've never seen an image of a coin that was better than the coin in hand. In any case, I don't see how a 100 point grading scale would benefit either.
It seems the only end of the scale really being discussed is the vaulted MS 60+ area. Why not just include decimals instead of the silly plus thing? Bam, 10 gradations between say 65 and 66. Now just settle on the differentiation between 65.0 and 65.1, but that’s another thread.
The original idea was that a 70 coin was 70x more valuable than the same coin in a PO-01. That of course is wildly inaccurate in today's market (and probably in Sheldon's day too) but it's too far into the game to change it now.
One thing that seems odd to me, there is far more difference between a really worn out slick PO-01 and a borderline 'almost FAIR-02' coin than there is between 60 and 70. Me personally, I don't care at all about a 64 vs a 65, but I care a lot about those low 1-8 grades for rare old stuff like 1790s copper.
The problem with precision is that it infers accuracy that isn't there. A 100 point scale wouldn't solve this. There have been arguments for it for many years. QDB came out and said it's more logical probably 20 years ago. With all due respect, so what? The current scale as adapted from Sheldon is well understood and well accepted. The deficiencies in expressing the condition of a coin do not lie in the numeric scale chosen to represent it, but rather the fact that you are attempting to project a multidimensional assessment of condition comprising surface preservation, luster, strike, and eye appeal, onto a 1-dimensional grading scale which can then be translated directly into a 1-dimensional pricing scale using a price guide, which, at the end of the day, is the grading scale everyone uses in the marketplace.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I kinda liked the idea of using the plus and minus in the rarity scale, just saying
I like the Sheldon scale and don’t wish for it to be replaced.
Someone with some $$ behind them will come along at some point and offer third party grading on a 1-100 scale. The potential is too obvious and enticing. Imagine the potential market caps being conjured up in investor pitches projecting even modest traction and actually getting say 5-10% of all coins in TPG holders sent in for 1-100 regrading.
Similar to the way SGC came along in sports cards……although what they did was more elaborative of the engrained 1-10 grading scale rather than what is being theoretically proposed here in the coin market., which is essentially recalibrating the entire system. Expanding the grading scale was SGCs way of cracking into the market. Now they’re a fixture.
I remember the initial resistance from MANY coin enthusiasts when JA fired up CAC. Now they’re considered the crème de la crème. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Again, I’m fine with our current 1-70 Sheldon scale. But I think we should always expect change and innovation to come along. Coin enthusiasts will always figure out a way to recognize great coins from average.
If the Sheldon scale weren’t so universally accepted, a 100 point scale has some logical appeal. But it is just too intrenched—sort of like Americans with the imperial system of weights and measures!
No. Why change our established system? Imagine if we adopted a system like schools...you are graded on a test up to 100...sometimes there is a bonus where you are awarded extra points, so then you actually score say, 105 on a test. You miss a question or answer wrong, suddenly you are at 90 or 85. Perhaps you miss half of your questions, you get a failing mark of 50. Then that gets translated to a letter grade later on...A, B, C, D and F. Then there are intermediate levels as well...A+, A-. B+, B-, C+, C-.....was there ever a D+ or D-? Why was there never a grade of E? Then those letter grades get translated to a number once again...He is so smart, he has a 4.0 grade average...or he is just average with a 3.5 grade average. Some classes would refuse to use grades like these and offer a passing grade of P or comments of "needs improvement"
When NGC offered up the X grading system, why didn't they switch over completely? They're still using the Sheldon scale and their novelty X system. If another grading system of 100 points was added, then we would have more grading dilution...
I stick to my original answer...NO.
No - it’s way to late for a 100 pt system.
Furthermore it would be too costly / converting to the 100 pt holders.
I believe we should keep the current grading system with the following exception.
Assign a grade to BOTH SIDES of the coin. This would have no impact on registry sets or price guides but give a clearer picture of the coin and perhaps the reasoning for it's pricing. For example should a Morgan $ that graded MS64 Obverse/MS66 reverse be worth more that one just graded MS64? Would not that example be more actively sought that the one grading MS64?
Thoughts?
The TPG's should use the 100 point scale for all foreign submissions and leave the awkward 70 point scale for American coins, like we do with the metric system.
The grading services would want the 100 point scale because it would give them the opportunity to grade and reholder virtually every coin, token and medal that has ever been certified. Collectors don’t want to waste their money because a bunch of newbies don’t want to learn the basics of the grading system. Most of them couldn’t grade a piece regardless of what the point system is.
The spectrum of survivors wouldn’t change and a larger scale wouldn’t do anything to address its flaw of where subjectivity in weighting crosses into financial motivation.
Beside most collectors don’t even comprehend the formula so the inclusion of more variables does nothing.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It should stay as is; they could do a 700 point scale, which would be a refinement in a sense and be simpler than 70 to 100, or 10 with the NGC scale. Not a fan of metric and remember all the pressure back in the 70s pushing it.
With the lack of objective standards and the grading inconsistencies using the 70 point grading system, it would be a pipe dream to think grading could be as or more consistently accurate using even more grades. At the same time, it would be a dream come true for the grading companies.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand the advantages to the Metric System for measuring lengths, weights and liquids because of the ease of using base 10 numbers. I don't understand what the Metric system would do for coin grading which is far more subjective than physical measurements.
This is a brilliant idea. That is why I did it when I started the ANACS grading service back in 1979.
TD
Graders have difficulty with consistency between 1&70. Let’s not complicate it further. We already added A, B, & C coins, plus signs and stars in the mix. Take it to a thousand.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
As the first person to add numerical grades to the Sheldon System (I added MS-63 and MS-67 when we launched the Grading add-on to the ANA CERTIFICATION Service in 1979, after consultation with others), I advise caution.
Back when I used to teach the Grading Class at the ANA Summer Seminars, I used to start by giving the students a mental exercise. Imagine that you had an original mint-sewn bag of 1881-S Dollars. I chose 1881-S so that we could ignore strike and luster as factors, since they all come nice those two ways.
Take those 1,000 coins and lay them out (raw, of course) of a REALLY LONG table so that each coin is better than the one before it. You have an infinite amount of time to compare coins to each other.
Once you have the coins in absolutely perfect ascending order, determine the two coins where MS-63 ends and MS-64 begins, the two coins where MS-64 ends and MS-65 begins, the two coins where MS-65 ends and MS-66 begins, etc. Now photograph each coin in ascending order. Number the photo files 001a and 001b for obverse and reverse, etc up to 1000a and 1000b, making notes as to where each new grade began.
Have somebody else randomly (but carefully, of course) pick up 20 coins here and there and place them in plastic tubes. Place the tubes in a vault and wait a month. Redo placing them in order and determining where the grade breaks are. See how you did reproducing your results.
I did not object when the industry added MS-61, 62, 64, 66, 68 and 69, as they seemed logical, but they made discerning the border line between one grade and the next more difficult to discern.
.
I questioned the use of + signs on top of those numbers, as everybody seems to think that their child is the most beautiful child of every child in a group. It seemed to me that they made "reproducability of results" harder and harder to achieve.
Adding more grade levels would make "reproducability of results" almost impossible to achieve, which would make Third Party Grading irrelevant. I don't think we want that.
Tom DeLorey
Think what it could do for registry scores, so instead let's go to 100 point scale with two decimals. My 94.75 is way nicer than your 93.99!
Now if only the TPGs could consistently get within a few hundred basis points of reality.
And it could be a boon for lowballs, think about finding a 0.01 XP (extra poor).
So what is keeping any grading company from doing this?
Would this not help a potential buyer?
Would this not help a seller justify his pricing?
What is keeping this from not being implemented across the hobby?
I see more upside reasons than I do downside reasons.
Discussion please.
As just one of many randomly selected examples that could be provided, maybe the grading companies already realize that they wouldn’t be able to distinguish an MS or PR 96 from a 95 or a 97 (or maybe even a 94 or a 98) to an acceptable level of consistency. Do you really think that grading to the nearest point (or plus grade) under the current grading scale is accurate and consistent enough to warrant an attempt at being even more precise? I don’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark
My comments were concerning grading both sides of the coin.
Perhaps I was misleading in not mentioning that in the beginning.
Thanks!
Thank you - you might want to edit your post to include that vital detail. And now that I know what you were asking, I think that could be beneficial for the hobby but apparently, the grading companies don’t see adequate demand to make such a change.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
islemangu@yahoo.com
"Every peace has its enemies, those who still prefer the easy habits of hatred to the hard labors of reconciliation."
It seems to me that before one could realistically overhaul the current grading system, one would need to have a consensus driven, absolutely defined grading scale and criteria. As it currently stands, how a coin receives its grade is a mix of art and science, but if you want greater grade values (for greater "precision") then you would need to define those grade values to an extent that has never been done previously.
So, to expand the scale meaningfully would require a complete overhaul in the definition of grades.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
No. Not needed. Bad idea.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
oye vey
This idea seems sound to me, I just hate to change an already flawed system that has too many grades imo
( im getting to old for this )
Imagine if PCGS and NGC went this way, but CACG did not (JA already believes we have too many grades). Since people naturally resist change, I think his company would receive most of the U.S. coin grading submissions!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Bonanza for the grading companies, they can "reconsider" your MS 83 slab up to MS87, charge you for the increase in the coin's value (as they do now), and how can you challenge the subjective and meaningless grade bump when no published standards exist?
Commems and Early Type
No!No!!!
There is only one scenario in which I can see a 100 point system being implemented and actually accepted. The much discussed computer grading system would have to gain the skills and market acceptance to be considered valid to small degrees. in this scenario, coins would get a sticker similar to the CAC style but with a specific numerical (1 to 100) grade. I doubt the vast majority of collectors will ever embrace having their coins switched to new slabs but many would consider the sticker approach. Just my opinion. james
Horrible idea. If TPG's thought it could get traction, it would already be in play. Sheldon scale is plenty fine-
The sticker idea is a good one for the new 100 point scale. The TPG can just apply the appropriate 1-100 number sticker on the already Sheldon system number graded slab. Serial number of slabbed coin is printed along with new number on the sticker to thwart fraud. $5 a pop unless 25 or more slabs submitted then a discount can be applied to make the cost say,$4/slab. Fresh sticker with new number is applied over the existing grade number. Count me out if the new system involves $h!tcanning a lot of plastic. Let's be sensible about this.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.