Change Grading from 1-70 to 1-100
ScarsdaleCoin
Posts: 5,434 ✭✭✭✭✭
I feel its going to happen sooner or later.....
any bets who will be the first to make the change and when it will happen
It makes sense to me for several reasons...
1. When all coins are graded it will give the services new chance to make even more money
2. Most lay people understand concept of 1 to 100 but do not understand what the 1 - 70 means
3. The Sheldon Scale dates back to 1940's sorry but it really doesnt apply to todays market/value
4. There is no #4 because I really dont like the number four....four is only a good on the scale
5. People like change
6. Condor wants new slabs
add your own reasons...but serious I bet it happens in the next five to ten years....
any bets who will be the first to make the change and when it will happen
It makes sense to me for several reasons...
1. When all coins are graded it will give the services new chance to make even more money
2. Most lay people understand concept of 1 to 100 but do not understand what the 1 - 70 means
3. The Sheldon Scale dates back to 1940's sorry but it really doesnt apply to todays market/value
4. There is no #4 because I really dont like the number four....four is only a good on the scale
5. People like change
6. Condor wants new slabs
add your own reasons...but serious I bet it happens in the next five to ten years....
Jon Lerner - Scarsdale Coin - www.CoinHelp.com
0
Comments
There already too many numbers in the current scale that a never used.
When was the las time you saw a f13 or a au57?
A scale of 1-10 or 1-20 might be better or maybe ms1-10 and circulated 1-10.
Men use the 1-10 scale to grade women all the time
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
K S
FOR EXAMPLE, I could see the scale introduced as part of an attempt at automated computerized grading. I could come up with many less controversial scenarios, so don't dwell too much on the computerized grading angle. The point is that other major changes in the grading game will take place in conjunction with the introduction of the new scale.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
As for a 1-100 grading scale, all I can say is...
Please no...
so why not just let the plastic co's use decimals, like someone else suggested? ie. if you allow .5 between each unit grade, you suddenly have 139 grades to choose from!
why is the idea ridiculous? because plastic co's can't grade consistently now worrying about just 70 pt.s
K S
I'm sure the slabbers would be all for a grading scale change. Then, they get to grade ALL the slabs all over again, without resorting to their current business strategy of planned misgrades to encourage resubmissions.
Some people may like change but I like it just the way it is.
<< <i>FOR EXAMPLE, I could see the scale introduced as part of an attempt at automated computerized grading. I could come up with many less controversial scenarios, so don't dwell too much on the computerized grading angle. The point is that other major changes in the grading game will take place in conjunction with the introduction of the new scale. >>
Yes, this is the way it could be done. It would be a Good Thing to have a computerized grading system on a different scale than the Sheldon scale, and 1-100 is an obvious range. With today's technology, it should be easy to program a computer to grade coins based on technical merits (obviously, that elusive "eye appeal" is more difficult to quantify).
This ties with the other thread about the feasibility of setting up a new grading service. In my opinion, it would be impossible to set up a new service using the old and busted Sheldon scale. However, an entirely new service, with new technology and a new scale, seems to me to be a potentially viable player. It would fill a niche currently not served -- consistent, accurate technical grading.
But as far as PCGS or NGC switching to a 100-point scale: will never happen.
Then people can argue if it's an 86 or an 87
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Then people can argue if it's an 86 or an 87 >>
Not with computerized technical grading. If it's an 86, you can scan it as much as you want, and it will always come back 86.
Now, that's not to say that it might be appealing in other ways, and therefore garner a market price higher than what an "86" normally brings -- but from a technical standpoint, the grade is solid.
Just Little Ole MapMakers Opine.
Decimal Grading?
in which several of us made the case for fractional points for high end MS coins, as well as breakdowns by the TPGs of separate grades for strike, luster, marks, surface originality, and eye appeal.
I think this will eventually happen, for those coins that merit the attention.
of course, no one is going to spend much time arguing if a common barber dime is Fine 13 or 14.
But it can make a big difference if your rare date morgan dollar is MS 65.3 or MS65.8!! for such coins the "premium service" is inevitable, again, IMO.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If this were to happen, there will be "old scale" slabs forever. The easy issue will be "Ok I have an MS63 old scale coin, what's that
equivilant to on the new scale?" There will obviously be a crossover scale & then there will be no need to participate in the new method.
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
Even when delivering a techical grade, you have a human factor envolved that, in my opinion, cannot be duplicated by a computer.
<< <i>MS70, If this change happens, would you change your name to MS100? >>
LOL! Maybe I better do it now just in case! Otherwise everyone will think I'm old if it happens!
If I did my math correctly, to crossover between the scales you would multiply the subject grade by 1.428571. For example:
To cross an MS65, it's 65 X 1.428571 = 92.857115. So you'd have an MS92, or MS92.85!
Hmmmm.... So close to 93. Better send it in for a regrade! Hehehe.
PO1 = PO1
FR2 = FR3
AG3 = AG4
G4 = G6
G6 = G9
VG8 = VG11
VG10 = VG14
F12 = F17
F15 = F21
VF20 = VF29
VF25 = VF36
VF30 = VF43
VF35 = VF50
EF40 = EF57
EF45 = EF64
AU50 = AU71
AU53 = AU76
AU55 = AU79
AU58 = AU83
MS60 = MS86
MS63 = MS90
MS65 = MS93
MS67 = MS96
MS68 = MS97
MS69 = MS99
Hmm...I think it only adds to the confusion, I vote to keep the scale the way it is now.
<< <i>Here's how the scale would transfer. These figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. PO1 = PO1 FR2 = FR3 AG3 = AG4 G4 = G6 G6 = G9 VG8 = VG11 VG10 = VG14 F12 = F17 F15 = F21 VF20 = VF29 VF25 = VF36 VF30 = VF43 VF35 = VF50 EF40 = EF57 EF45 = EF64 AU50 = AU71 AU53 = AU76 AU55 = AU79 AU58 = AU83 MS60 = MS86 MS63 = MS90 MS65 = MS93 MS67 = MS96 MS68 = MS97 MS69 = MS99 Hmm...I think it only adds to the confusion, I vote to keep the scale the way it is now. >>
So PO01 stays at PO01?
After I went to work for PCGS in 1999, I had lunch with Louis Crain, the man who was behind PCGS's abortive attempt at computer grading in 1989-1990. Lou is a VERY bright guy, and studied the subject of computer grading very thoroughly. He told me that while the computer could grade maybe 8 or 9 coins out of 10 accurately, it completely missed the mark on 10% to 15% of them. (Artificial toning was particularly troublesome.) That is a huge error rate, and was basically too high to be of practical use.
I mentioned that in 1989 or so, computers ran at around 30 or 40 Mhz, typically had 8MB of RAM, 100 MB hard drives and rather primitive video cards. I asked him given current technology (1999), which on most of these measures had increased by a factor of 50, what the result would be?
His answer: "We would make the same mistakes, only much faster."
On the subject of the "70" scale (as most of you know) it is an accident of history. $70 happened to be what a common 1794 large cent in full Mint State Red was worth in 1948. A brown one was worth $60. If Sheldon had waited until 1953 or so to write his book, we could have well ended up with our ideal "100-point" scale.
The fact remains that unintuitive as it is, Sheldon's scale has seen widespread use outside of early copper for around 30 years, and is well ingrained in at least two generations of dealers and collectors. Changing it would be neither trivial nor widely welcomed, in my opinion.
Remember as well, the grading scale uses only about 30 of the 70 available numbers. So no argument can be made that we're "running out" of numbers. If it ain't fix, don't broke it.
Director of Numismatics
PCGS
<< <i>On the subject of the "70" scale (as most of you know) it is an accident of history. $70 happened to be what a common 1794 large cent in full Mint State Red was worth in 1948. A brown one was worth $60. If Sheldon had waited until 1953 or so to write his book, we could have well ended up with our ideal "100-point" scale. >>
So with that logic, what we really need is a 10,000 point scale!
If only Mr. Sheldon had waited a few years this would be a mute point.
He came up with a darn good grading system and, with a few ammendments,
it should serve the coin collecting world well for another 50 years.
According to John Kleeberg, who has surely done a load of research on the man while working at the ANS through the court battles to recover the coins stolen by Sheldon, "Sheldon insisted rigidly on a 7 point scale for somatotypes. Sheldon had many mystical beliefs, in particular about the number 7, which explains why he fit both somatotypes and coin grades into Procrustean scales of 7 and 70."
<< <i>
<< <i>Then people can argue if it's an 86 or an 87 >>
Not with computerized technical grading. If it's an 86, you can scan it as much as you want, and it will always come back 86. >>
Betcha it won't.
<< <i>spy88 I'm not sure about the laser idea, but the amount of data that would need to be managed would be astronomical. You would have to build a database of every type of coin that has been minted, all the different strike characteristics, types of distracting marks, acceptable and unaccepctable errors, etc. Each new variety would have to be taken into account as well as new coins that get created every year. >>
Granted, but the right computer can do incredible things. After all, Deep Blue (or whatever the computer's name is) is the world champion of chess!
Ebay
<< <i>And Deep Blue is history. That's getting close to a decade old. >>
Sorry, I'm not very up-to-date sometimes. I don't even know if Kasparov is still world champ. If a decade-old computer could beat him, what could a "modern" one do? Anyway, computer grading may eventually happen but probably not for a looong time.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>So with that logic, what we really need is a 10,000 point scale!
That does it!
What's a somatotype? Are they the type of people from Somoa?
<< <i>Sheldon insisted rigidly on a 7 point scale for somatotypes
What's a somatotype? Are they the type of people from Somoa? >>
First Discredited as a Scientist, Now Labeled a Thief
The Amazing Fall from Grace of William Sheldon
by David Hewett
Dr. William Herbert Sheldon, born in Warwick, Rhode Island, in 1898, loved America's first large copper cents, the coins struck in Philadelphia in 1793 through 1814. It was a love he had nurtured since childhood.
In 1958 he would write about the cents that belonged to his father: "On evenings when he was feeling especially disposed, the kitchen lamp would be meticulously trimmed, the red kitchen tablecloth would be cleared of debris and brushed, then out would come the magnifying glass, four or five well-thumbed coin books, and the cigar box with the big cents."
Sheldon's vocations centered in the medical and psychological fields, and he became quite prominent in the latter (see sidebar), so it was only natural that when he held a position at Columbia University in New York City in the years between 1946 and 1959, he would renew his love of numismatics.
The American Numismatic Society (ANS), founded in 1865, is in New York City; it has a superb reference library and study collections of nearly one million objects. In 1946 and '47, the ANS acquired a large collection of early American large copper cents by donation from a collector named George Clapp. Clapp's cents were housed in individual boxes, upon which were noted the variety, grade, provenance, where photos had been published, and other information.
Sheldon's research into the varieties and rarities of early large cents led to Early American Cents in 1949. He revised that book and in 1958 published his magnum opus, Penny Whimsy, covering the large cents of 1793 through 1814. The book met instant acclaim and, updated, was reprinted in 1965, 1976, and 1990. William Sheldon had open access to the American Numismatic Society's collections while working on his books, especially the large cents in the Clapp collection.
In 1973 (four years before his death), William Sheldon sold his collection of large cents to fellow collector Roy E. Naftzger, Jr. for $300,000. Naftzger, a Californian, was a veteran collector. In 1954 he had bought a coin collection from the estate of James Clarke, some 700 coins, including a number of large cents, for $30,000.
As stated in documents released in 1997 by the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, Naftzger soon realized something was wrong with both the Sheldon and Clarke collections when he examined them side-by-side in 1973. Some of the large cents in the Clarke collection were of lower grade than stated in the documents that came with them. Some of the cents in the Sheldon collection matched the descriptions of those in the Clarke collection.
Was there a connection? Could the highly respected author of this country's most acclaimed book on large cents have pulled a switch?
William Sheldon had had the opportunity to do so during a period Clarke was ill in 1954, while the collection was in the possession of a Clarke employee.
In New York in 1973 the ANS began a long-delayed cataloging of the Clapp collection of large cents. By 1974 they knew that many of the cents in the Clapp boxes were not the coins described.
In 1976 Naftzger arranged another purchase of large cents from William Sheldon, who would die a year later. An East Coast friend and collector, Denis Loring, served as intermediary for the purchase.
In November 1976 Loring informed Naftzger of the discrepancies in the Clapp collection. Loring wrote that he considered William Sheldon responsible. Naftzger replied that a tendency to "shoplift" was a "quirk" of Sheldon's personality.
In 1983 large cent scholar Delmar Bland began an exhaustive study at the ANS of the Clapp collection. Bland published his findings in 1990. He concluded that 129 coins had been switched or were missing.
Delmar Bland, and others, were well aware that Roy Naftzger had purchased Sheldon's collection of large cents.
Naftzger resisted all attempts by others to examine the coins in his possession, and there the matter rested until 1992 when the ANS formally sought information concerning the missing coins. Within six weeks of that query, Naftzger sold the bulk of his collection to a collector for $7.3 million. The deal was brokered by the New York City numismatics firm Stack's.
Naftzger did not inform Stack's or the purchaser about the ANS query. Two large cents subsequently identified as from the Clapp collection, including the most valuable and rarest coin, were included in the Naftzger collection.
In 1997 a trial began in Los Angeles to determine title to the coins and assess damages, if any, resulting from losses.
On November 18, 1997, Superior County Judge Aviva K. Bobb ruled that the American Numismatic Society had valid title to the 38 large cents still in the possession of Roy Naftzger. Judge Bobb also ruled that Naftzger must pay the ANS $229,500 for the 20 large cents he had sold.
Of the original 129 large cents determined to have been switched by William Sheldon, six have been voluntarily returned to the society. With Naftzger's 38 and the money for the 20 sold, there are only 65 missing.
The judge's decision was unsparing in its assessment of Dr. William Sheldon. He was accused of systematically replacing Clapp collection coins with lesser examples and pulling the switch again on a dying man, when he discovered that the Clarke collection had better examples than the ones he stole from the Clapp collection.
Sheldon abused his position of trust in the numismatic field just as surely as he abused it in his medical position.
(The American Numismatic Society has photos and descriptions of the missing large cents available at its Web site.)
The Pseudoscientific Career of Dr. William Sheldon
When Dr. William Henry Sheldon died in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1977 at the age of 79, there was little vestige of the man whose life's work was featured in a Life magazine cover story in 1951 and who was the author of eight books, one of which is still available in reprint form. The reputation of the old man who spent his last days alone in his room reading detective stories took a heavy hit during his declining years.
Dr. William Sheldon had began his career in the medical field. He was a psychologist at colleges in Texas, Illinois, and Wisconsin and was later a research associate in anthropology. From 1946 to 1959, he directed an institute for physical studies at Columbia University in New York City.
Sheldon held a number of contrarian beliefs. In 1924 he reached the conclusion that African-American children ended their capacity to retain intelligence at age 10 and that Mexican children lost it at 12.
Sheldon, however, really made his name with his theory about the shape of our bodies dictating our futures. He quantified the human body into three physical classes: ectomorphs, endomorphs, and mesomorphs (in plainer language, the lean and mean, plump and funny, and average and adjusted). Sheldon asserted that these classes could be found in varying mixtures in all bodies, and through a systematic study of measurements he could assess the fixed genetic features and extrapolate future development.
Your physique (or somatotype) was your future, according to Sheldon.
There was the problem of acquiring enough data to make the study valid, but that was easily remedied by the academic community. Some colleges had systematically photographed incoming freshman in the nude, with corrective posture programs as the rationale, as early as the 1930's.
William Sheldon took those programs a step further. He arranged that the nude students would be photographed against a network of metal rods, which provided measurements. What began at Columbia soon spread to other schools. Before long, Sheldon had a network of posture-photographing schools that encompassed the entire Ivy League system and had spread as far afield as Seattle.
From his work with males, sometimes funded with money from the tobacco industry, Sheldon published his Atlas of Men in 1954.
It was the nude female photos that proved his undoing. While males had generally been willing subjects, women were not.
A Vermont woman photographed at Mount Holyoke College in the late 1940's told of her experience. "It was horrible," the woman remembered with a shudder. "You had to strip and stand with these metal rods touching you. I don't know how they could have discovered anything about my posture from the way I was posed. I didn't have any problem, but I did crouch somewhat. I was trying to cover myself. I was mortified."
The end of the curious project began in 1950, when Sheldon's team started photo sessions at the University of Washington in Seattle. An alarmed student told her parents about the sessions, and on the next day all hell broke loose. The photos were burned, and Sheldon was invited to leave the campus. School followed school, and thousands of photos went into incinerators.
Nevertheless, the charade continued at some campuses. During the 1960's and '70's, Diane Sawyer, Nora Ephron, Sally Quinn, Hillary Rodham, and a host of other unwilling subjects were caught on coldly unflattering film.
The author of The Varieties of Temperament (1942) and Varieties of Delinquent Youth (1949) would never amass the material needed for his projected Atlas of Women. William Sheldon's theories were dismissed as weird science and his motives as Nazi-inspired. Today, his surviving photos, some 20,000 of them, reside in the National Anthropological Archives at the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution) in Washington, D.C.
For William Sheldon, the gradual unwinding of the scientific part of his career only meant that he had more time to spend with his other great love, numismatics.
Acknowledgement: "The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal" by Ron Rosenbaum, which appeared in the New York Times Sunday Magazine of January 15, 1995, provided an excellent account of those times. We are much indebted to it for information used here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 by Maine Antique Digest