Options
Let's Pretend We Are Presented with a Proposed New 101 Point Grading Scale and Were Asked to Brainst
poorguy
Posts: 4,317 ✭
Total Points: 101
Surface Quality (Contact Marks, abrasions, hairlines on proofs, ect.) 20 pts
Strike (obviously different scale value for weakly struck dates. Buffalo nickels come to mind.) 20 pts
Luster (again, different for different types, proof vs. mint state, matte, brilliant, ect.) 20 pts
Originality (This may sway for more points for fugly coins but I certainly consider it when purchasing.) 20 pts
Wear (1-19 from PO-01 up to MS-20) 20 pts
Eye Appeal (This will be an extra point sort of like a star on NGC coins but will actually count towards the grade.) 1 pt
Problem deductions (These would be mentioned problems with a numerical reduction in the grade based on the severity of the problem.) Up to 100% of the total points given.
So, a utopian MS65 PCGS 1881-S Morgan with attractive color would be graded as such:
Surface Quality: 10 (couple of hits here and there but nothing dramatic and eye catchingly distracting. An MS60 by today's standards with tons of bagmarks would be a 2 while a utopian MS68 would be an 18)
Srike: 19 (damn sharp strike)
Luster: 15 (Quite flashy with a near PL effect) A black and white dmpl would be a 19.
Originality: 15 (dipped and retoned many years ago in an album.)
Wear: 20 (MS60 current coins automatically get 20 points for being mint state) Since MS60-70 differences are detailed in the other qualities. Circ Grades 1-19.
Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive rainbow toning.)
Problem Deductions: -0 No Problems (Always a negative number)
Total Score: 80
So the coin would grade an 80 on my scale. This method is inefficient for grading large numbers of commodity type coins and requires a mastery of the series in which you are grading so I doubt this method or one like it can feasibly be executed. If anyone wants to start building off of this brainstorm taking into account different scenarios or situations where this scale wouldn't work and making comprimises for these exeptions, I would gladly get together with you on it and help develop something better that I can start to apply to coins in our own inventory just for S&G's.
The positive aspect of this scale is that you can see where the points are coming from and buy accordingly. Maybe you dig luster and don't really don't get bothered by little dings here and there. You could search for an example that scored closer to 20 for luster. It would simply detail the aspects of the coin giving both the buyer a better grasp of what to look for and why a coin is special (or not so special), and give the seller specific reasons to praise (or not praise) a coin on it's technical merits.
How would you modify it? Can you think of any scenarios where this would NOT work? Feel free to snag some examples you have at home and apply it to the scale.
Brainstorming, Comments (Good is good but Bad is better), Additions, Subtractions. Let's hear them all.
---------------------------------------------------------Added 12-06-2007-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the current sheldon scale. I believe that too much is pumped into each grade and that some factors are "cut off" to make the condition "fit" into the sheldon scale.
What I propose is that wear is only one part of the condition of the coin and hence, only 20% of the grade. Since there are really only 20 (REAL GRADES in the sheldon scale as illustrated below, why not just number them from 1-20 instead of jumping 5 grades (ex. VF-20 to VF-25). Where the hell is VF-21, 22, 23, and 24? Since they don't matter anyway, just get rid of them.
I've mapped out the sheldon scale to my new system as such:
P0-01 = 01
AG-02 = 02
AG-03 = 03
G-04 = 04
G-06 = 05
VG-08 = 06
VG-10 = 07
F-12 = 08
F-15 = 09
VF-20 = 10
VF-25 = 11
VF-30 = 12
VF-35 = 13
XF-40 = 14
XF-45 = 15
AU-50 = 16
AU-53 = 17
AU-55 = 18
AU-58 = 19
MS-60 and above = 20
So, a grade of a coin could essentially be AU-62. Inversely, a coin could also have the grade of MS-51 or XF-55. This solves the problem of erasing the misconception that MS60 coins are worth more than all AU58's on a general scale.
----------------------------------------------------------------Example Added 12-6-2007-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another example using a coin that is in our archives:
Surface Quality: 14 (No major hits, a couple of scuffies on the reverse. No spots, stains, or otherwise major distracting features.)
Strike: 13 (No weak areas, although some weak areas are typical on certiain overtons) but still not nearly as crisp and sharp as it could be.
Luster: 10 (Has some flash in the protected ares but open field areas are typcial AUish with light rubbing detracting from the overall luster score. No surface haze though.)
Originality: 7 (Moderately dipped some time ago and put in an album where it retoned.)
Wear: 19 (AU58 Sheldon = 19)
Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive toning. Yes, it's subjective but it's only 1 point from 100 and not a grade bump like I see handed out today).
Problem Deductions: No problems. (These are primarily problems preventing slabbing by TPG's today. This allows NCS coins to be graded properly as well.)
Total Score: AU-64.
Note that the 64 is out of a possible 101 on my scale, not a possible 70 like the sheldon scale. Also notice that if the coin were graded MS62 by NGC, it would only get a 1 point bump out of 100. Given that if the surfaces looked exactly the same, but overgraded by the TPG as an MS-62 instead of AU58, it would simply be an MS-65 out of 100 by the new scale. This puts coins of similar quality in the same price range even if the amount of wear is different.
Surface Quality (Contact Marks, abrasions, hairlines on proofs, ect.) 20 pts
Strike (obviously different scale value for weakly struck dates. Buffalo nickels come to mind.) 20 pts
Luster (again, different for different types, proof vs. mint state, matte, brilliant, ect.) 20 pts
Originality (This may sway for more points for fugly coins but I certainly consider it when purchasing.) 20 pts
Wear (1-19 from PO-01 up to MS-20) 20 pts
Eye Appeal (This will be an extra point sort of like a star on NGC coins but will actually count towards the grade.) 1 pt
Problem deductions (These would be mentioned problems with a numerical reduction in the grade based on the severity of the problem.) Up to 100% of the total points given.
So, a utopian MS65 PCGS 1881-S Morgan with attractive color would be graded as such:
Surface Quality: 10 (couple of hits here and there but nothing dramatic and eye catchingly distracting. An MS60 by today's standards with tons of bagmarks would be a 2 while a utopian MS68 would be an 18)
Srike: 19 (damn sharp strike)
Luster: 15 (Quite flashy with a near PL effect) A black and white dmpl would be a 19.
Originality: 15 (dipped and retoned many years ago in an album.)
Wear: 20 (MS60 current coins automatically get 20 points for being mint state) Since MS60-70 differences are detailed in the other qualities. Circ Grades 1-19.
Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive rainbow toning.)
Problem Deductions: -0 No Problems (Always a negative number)
Total Score: 80
So the coin would grade an 80 on my scale. This method is inefficient for grading large numbers of commodity type coins and requires a mastery of the series in which you are grading so I doubt this method or one like it can feasibly be executed. If anyone wants to start building off of this brainstorm taking into account different scenarios or situations where this scale wouldn't work and making comprimises for these exeptions, I would gladly get together with you on it and help develop something better that I can start to apply to coins in our own inventory just for S&G's.
The positive aspect of this scale is that you can see where the points are coming from and buy accordingly. Maybe you dig luster and don't really don't get bothered by little dings here and there. You could search for an example that scored closer to 20 for luster. It would simply detail the aspects of the coin giving both the buyer a better grasp of what to look for and why a coin is special (or not so special), and give the seller specific reasons to praise (or not praise) a coin on it's technical merits.
How would you modify it? Can you think of any scenarios where this would NOT work? Feel free to snag some examples you have at home and apply it to the scale.
Brainstorming, Comments (Good is good but Bad is better), Additions, Subtractions. Let's hear them all.
---------------------------------------------------------Added 12-06-2007-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the current sheldon scale. I believe that too much is pumped into each grade and that some factors are "cut off" to make the condition "fit" into the sheldon scale.
What I propose is that wear is only one part of the condition of the coin and hence, only 20% of the grade. Since there are really only 20 (REAL GRADES in the sheldon scale as illustrated below, why not just number them from 1-20 instead of jumping 5 grades (ex. VF-20 to VF-25). Where the hell is VF-21, 22, 23, and 24? Since they don't matter anyway, just get rid of them.
I've mapped out the sheldon scale to my new system as such:
P0-01 = 01
AG-02 = 02
AG-03 = 03
G-04 = 04
G-06 = 05
VG-08 = 06
VG-10 = 07
F-12 = 08
F-15 = 09
VF-20 = 10
VF-25 = 11
VF-30 = 12
VF-35 = 13
XF-40 = 14
XF-45 = 15
AU-50 = 16
AU-53 = 17
AU-55 = 18
AU-58 = 19
MS-60 and above = 20
So, a grade of a coin could essentially be AU-62. Inversely, a coin could also have the grade of MS-51 or XF-55. This solves the problem of erasing the misconception that MS60 coins are worth more than all AU58's on a general scale.
----------------------------------------------------------------Example Added 12-6-2007-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another example using a coin that is in our archives:
Surface Quality: 14 (No major hits, a couple of scuffies on the reverse. No spots, stains, or otherwise major distracting features.)
Strike: 13 (No weak areas, although some weak areas are typical on certiain overtons) but still not nearly as crisp and sharp as it could be.
Luster: 10 (Has some flash in the protected ares but open field areas are typcial AUish with light rubbing detracting from the overall luster score. No surface haze though.)
Originality: 7 (Moderately dipped some time ago and put in an album where it retoned.)
Wear: 19 (AU58 Sheldon = 19)
Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive toning. Yes, it's subjective but it's only 1 point from 100 and not a grade bump like I see handed out today).
Problem Deductions: No problems. (These are primarily problems preventing slabbing by TPG's today. This allows NCS coins to be graded properly as well.)
Total Score: AU-64.
Note that the 64 is out of a possible 101 on my scale, not a possible 70 like the sheldon scale. Also notice that if the coin were graded MS62 by NGC, it would only get a 1 point bump out of 100. Given that if the surfaces looked exactly the same, but overgraded by the TPG as an MS-62 instead of AU58, it would simply be an MS-65 out of 100 by the new scale. This puts coins of similar quality in the same price range even if the amount of wear is different.
Brandon Kelley - ANA - 972.746.9193 - http://www.bestofyesterdaycollectibles.com
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>Way too complicated. No one would use it. >>
Sure it is more complicated but it's also more accurate. It actually wouldn't be very complicated once people understood it. It might also encourage collectors to understand better what aspects are important when it comes to buying coins as well.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>No debate - too much infomation. Can guys in ketchup-stained Hawaiian print shirts actually even count that high? >>
Oooh. Zing.
<< <i>It is still subjective...and will garner as much controversy as the one we have now. Cheers, RickO >>
Probably so but at least the info would be out in the open and available to people who wanted to see it.
If you want me to K.I.S.S then just focus on the final grade and not the details behind it. The coin I used as an exampe is an 80, nuff said. However, if you wanted to see why it was an 80 or have the ability to guage your searches based on individual aspects, then you can go and look at the individual aspect scoring.
<< <i>If my ultra modern direct from the mint ain't a 101, I don't want it!
I don't think any Ultra Moderns could grade 101 since there hasn't been any chance to garner additional eye appeal via outside the mint aspects. Although, and AT modern could get a 101 and then get downgraded via the Problem deductions for AT a set number of points, say 20, making it closer to the value of a current MS65 ultra modern. Which, if you view ebay, even obvious and stated cheap (even modern) AT coins are being bought by people for higher numbers than natural, non-AT coins.
Hold on tight and dig in those spurs!
WH
<< <i>Way too complicated. No one would use it. >>
yeah, like the current "system" of adding together the factors that make up a grade, and then having the graders apply "market grading" based on the coin/series, and then give a half to one full point bump for nice toning or something subjective like "eye appeal" is a great method.
the 'big 2' have become far too obsessed with market grading coins, and far too little is paid to strict technical grading. At least on a 100 point system, that one point bump for nice color would not have the same impact on a coin (and it's "value") as say, bumping the coin from MS65 to 66.
Your initial description didn't specify that the eye appeal point had to come from "outside the mint aspects". While nice toning is often deserving of such recognition I would suggest that other factors, including possibly mint made ones, should (and are) considered in weighing eye appeal (including by NGC in awarding the *).
WH
<< <i>I don't think any Ultra Moderns could grade 101 since there hasn't been any chance to garner additional eye appeal via outside the mint aspects.
Your initial description didn't specify that the eye appeal point had to come from "outside the mint aspects". While nice toning is often deserving of such recognition I would suggest that other factors, including possibly mint made ones, should (and are) considered in weighing eye appeal (including by NGC in awarding the *).
WH >>
True, but in the case of Ultra Moderns as Bruce had pointed out, there should NOT be that much difference in appearance since mint quality standards are much better than in the 1800's.
Now, if you have a proof buffalo nickel with moderate cameo contrast that would obviously garner that extra point for the contrast since it's so rare in that series. So yes, mint-made aspects in addition to nice patination can be considered for the extra point. Sorry, I should have made that clear.
The designations of cameo, deep cameo, prooflike, and deep mirror prooflike would most likely be an extra designation.
Diamonds, like coins, are evaluated on four factors. However, unlike coins, the factors going into the evaluation of a diamond are not blended together to form one numerical rating for the gem. Instead, a buyer is aware of how the diamond rated on each parameter and can compromise in one area in order to get a stone that meets his or her important criteria.
I like the idea you propose for the reason that it does layout better the individual strengths and weaknesses to the coin. Were we starting over today as wise guys trying to set a grading standard, I'd give serious consideration to such a system that measured each attribute. However, given we're not, and we've been doin' what we've been doin' for so long, we're not likely to change and certainly not in major ways. (Of course you know that and hence the reason you set this up as a philosophical discussion.)
Yet, what you suggest is exactly how we behave anyway even without the 4 numbers on the holder. Dealers and auction houses address the relative strengths and weaknesses in their descriptions. When the customer calls on the phone to ask about the coin, his questions are "How's the strike?", "Where are the marks?", etc., especially within in the attribute that is most important to this collector.
WH
<< <i>I'd rather see them grade the coin on the same scale but grade each charateristic of the grade on that scale . Such as ,Surface-ms65-------Strike-ms66------Luster- ms67----originality- ms66----- eye appeal- ms66. OVERAL GRADE MS66. THIS WOULD CERTAINLY ELIMINATE THE __ __ __ STICKER >>
Sort of like the original ANACS certificates?
<< <i>The fact of the matter is, each individual weights the factors that go into deciding a coin's grade a little different from the other collectors. IMO, the same can be said of grading services. IMO, NGC weights (particularly) surface condition and (somewhat) strike heavier than PCGS and PCGS weighs (particularly) luster and (somewhat) eye appeal heavier than NGC. This is why we are always hearing stories about this not crossing or that crossing at an upgrade. Your scale adds in originality and that does not appear to be rewarded by either service.
Diamonds, like coins, are evaluated on four factors. However, unlike coins, the factors going into the evaluation of a diamond are not blended together to form one numerical rating for the gem. Instead, a buyer is aware of how the diamond rated on each parameter and can compromise in one area in order to get a stone that meets his or her important criteria.
I like the idea you propose for the reason that it does layout better the individual strengths and weaknesses to the coin. Where we starting over today as wise guys trying to set a grading standard, I'd give serious consideration to such a system that measured each attribute. However, given we're not, and we've been doin' what we've been doin' for so long, we're not likely to change and certainly not in major ways.
Yet, what you suggest is exactly how we behave anyway even without the 4 numbers on the holder. Dealers and auction houses address the relative strengths and weaknesses in their descriptions. When the customer calls on the phone to ask about the coin, his questions are "How's the strike?", "Where are the marks?", etc., especially within in the attribute that is most important to this collector.
WH >>
I'm glad you like the idea. I understand where you are coming from in regards to "tradition" but a new generation is emerging and many agree that today's current standards can result in small grade swings that add too much to the value of the coin or take away too much value in a small downgrade. This would help to stop many of the doctors and crackout artists from scoring huge $$ upgrades as well since a swing of a few points on this scale shouldn't result in monster $$ upgrades. It attempts to fill in the gaps between grades allowing one to easier set a between value on the coin instead of taking the label grade and printed prices as the final word in the value of the coin.
.....................................................
Yes, one that points out each characteristic and it's strength or deficit. They will get a better understanding of what to look for when buying coins as well. New collectors would probably grasp this descriptive scale rather than a cryptic (1-70) scale they have to research about to find out what the hell it means. Yes, I get that question at least once a week. "What does MS65 mean?"
Most can't grade on a 70 point scale now. How would we grade on a 100 point scale?
The PRIMARY reason to change it to something more descriptive. If the scale was clearly defined, it would allow someone to better understand the grade it recieved and therefore enhance that person's ability to grade and know what they want in the future.
Say if someone got hammed into buying a 1935-S Texas in NGC MS66 and it just didn't have much luster but they were told that the coin HAD good luster by the dealer. They might not have seen any other texas commems and just went with what the dealer said. When they went to go sell it again, they would be informed that the coin didn't have good luster and probably lose money on it if they paid full retail. Now, if the coin had clear descriptive graded aspects with luster having only a 2 out of possible twenty, they'd have known right off the bat that the coin didn't have good luster. This to me is much better than the Sheldon scale (which is rough for new collectors to get used to, I bet even more than this new descriptive scale that many are saying is too complicated).
The point is, people will know what they are getting. Less people initially screwed in coins = more people staying in coins. This is the information age. New generations of collectors want ALL the data we can get about a coin.
<< <i>I'd rather see them grade the coin on the same scale but grade each charateristic of the grade on that scale . Such as ,Surface-ms65-------Strike-ms66------Luster- ms67----originality- ms66----- eye appeal- ms66. OVERAL GRADE MS66. THIS WOULD CERTAINLY ELIMINATE THE __ __ __ STICKER. It woud'nt take any longer to grade either as this is what grading is about. THIS GIVES THE COLLECTOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ON HOW THEY GRADE. >>
The same concept I'm employing but not retaining the sheldon numbers.
I would imagine the sheldon numbers would only serve to confuse as they take on a whole new meaning when applied to specific aspects of the coin rather than overall.
<< <i>Brandon, It is basically the same concept, but i think the collector can understand it better based on the sheldon scale. Also the grading sevices would't have to retrain their graders as the've been trained on the 70 point scale. >>
I don't think, actually from the questions every week I get when I appraise coins, I know that most people that are green to coins and grading do not understand the sheldon scale easily and certainly can't descern between a Nice MS65 and a low-end MS64. With a new descriptive scale, that information would be self explanitory and obvious.
About the graders needing to be retrained. That's silly. They go through the rounds on each coin about each aspect that is being described by the new scale anyways and just end up calling it a number in the sheldon scale that coincides with the aspects. With the new scale they will just independently score each aspect and total it at the end.
<< <i>Brandon, for some reason the vast majority of new inventory you've posted recently on your site is showing "NO IMAGE AVAILABLE".....can you fix that? I really want to take a look!
I wanted to get it all up and listed since I had about 75% of it already imaged just waiting for website cropping. It'll have images up there by the end of the week. Sorry about that.
<< <i>Thanks, I'll look forward to it. Sorry it's off topic.....
Maybe I should just grade all of the coins in our inventory with the new scale. That wouldn't make it off topic.
and just sit back and listen
<< <i>you could give it a shot...I know David Lawrence has his own system (though it's far more basic but does take into account eye appeal) >>
I'd be willing to bet strong money that a new descriptive scale would be much more successful and quickly favored over the sheldon scale by Gen-x coin dealers and collectors if it were implemented. It's the Information age you know. The more data, the better. It would also allow people who are afraid to get duped into buying an overgraded coin feel more confident in their purchases by explaining in the grade, what is good or bad about the coin. It's close enough to full disclosure. Good coins would sell for more and crappy coins would sell for less.
specific in describing a coin, the cost of TPG would have
to triple. The price increase to cover the complex system
and the increased time involved to grade a coin.
I feel that in time we will develop a new grading system,
however, it must be streamlined ,so as not to clog up the channels
of commerce.
Camelot
<< <i>While I agree that such a system would be much more
specific in describing a coin, the cost of TPG would have
to triple. The price increase to cover the complex system
and the increased time involved to grade a coin.
I feel that in time we will develop a new grading system,
however, it must be streamlined ,so as not to clog up the channels
of commerce. >>
Just reposted from a previous reply of mine.
About the graders needing to be retrained. That's silly. They go through the rounds on each coin about each aspect that is being described by the new scale anyways and just end up calling it a number in the sheldon scale that coincides with the aspects. With the new scale they will just independently score each aspect and total it at the end.
<< <i>The majority of collectors can't grade given the current scale that they understand- could you imagine throwing a new system at them..... >>
It would be far easier to learn the components of grading than to learn
the current system. You already need to know all the components and
then how to rate them.
Most people could do their own grading if we graded the components and
then we'd need the services for pricing, authentication, and double check-
ing our grading.
Obviously grading classics is more complicated but this is their nature, not
the nature of grading.
I do like your reasoning of a more descriptive grade and have even thrown out an idea here on the boards before, which was
soundly rejected!
How about something along these lines:
1) All circulated coins keep the currently used grades of 1-58.
2) Uncirculated coins would start at a baseline of 60, and then each of four factors (strike, luster/mirrors, marks, eye-appeal)
would each be graded on a scale of 1-10 (people are used to using a 1-10 scale for many things).
So, your theoretical coin could grade as follows:
Uncirculated: 60
Strike: 9
Luster: 7
Surfaces: 5
Eye-Appeal: 7
Total grade: 88 (expressed as: 88 9-7-5-7)
Ken
Bruce Scher
You wouldn't believe how long it took to get him to sit still for this.
<< <i>I like a 100 point system..it weeds out some of the high or low for the grade stuff..just take 100 and divide by 70 to get the idea..a 65 would equal 92 or 93..depending on if it was high or low for the grade as a 65..same deal as now just make 100 the top..
Bruce Scher >>
I'd be fine with a 100 point system using Sheldon's scale in conjunction with a version of Brandon's thought process, so long as NO COIN EVER scores higher than 69.9 or 99.
This oughta put a dent in returns at the U.S. Mint
<< <i>While I think the present 1-70 system is arbitrary, it is firmly entrenched and change, even if beneficial, will be fiercely resisted.
I do like your reasoning of a more descriptive grade and have even thrown out an idea here on the boards before, which was
soundly rejected!
How about something along these lines:
1) All circulated coins keep the currently used grades of 1-58.
2) Uncirculated coins would start at a baseline of 60, and then each of four factors (strike, luster/mirrors, marks, eye-appeal)
would each be graded on a scale of 1-10 (people are used to using a 1-10 scale for many things).
So, your theoretical coin could grade as follows:
Uncirculated: 60
Strike: 9
Luster: 7
Surfaces: 5
Eye-Appeal: 7
Total grade: 88 (expressed as: 88 9-7-5-7)
Ken >>
That's basically what I propose just re-arranged. I like the idea, but I also want to blend the lines separating AU58 and MS60 as I'd rather have an AU58 that's choice than an MS60 that's a dog.
<< <i>Lets not pretend. I dont have the money to resubmit all my coins
Therewould be no compelling need. For the main part todays grade would become tomorrows net grade.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>You need to think outside the box. I proposed this one on a different thread. My scale would have components for surface preservation, luster, strike, and eye appeal that would map into the CMYK color space. The resulting color would then be matched to a standardized collection of Dutch Boy paint chips, with the closest color being the grade. It would make even the most self-aggrandizing alpha-crackouteurs sound like interior decorators. "I busted a few of these out of PC Eclectic Plum and made Missoula Blue, yours is no better than Lone Wolf as is, but I might be able to get Surfin USA if I work it." >>
What about fading? You'd have to make the higher grades darker so someone couldn't set it on a windowsil and get a higher grade..........Whoops, that's done out of the holder. Nevermind.
That's a good point, and I would want the nice AU over the doggy MS coin as well.
My main thought was to work with a 1-10 scale for the grading factors as it is something that people are used to doing anyway.
There is no reason AU coins couldn't start at a baseline of 50 with a possible 10 points for each factor (strike, luster, marks, etc).
In that case, a really nice AU could (and should) end up with more overall points than the doggy MS coin.
If you're doing that, you'd probably need a further designation like AU75 vs MS70.
At some point down the scale, I believe the current system works fine, for example XF45 and lower. Sure, there can be a big
difference in eye-appeal between two coins grading XF45, but it is usually readily apparent with just a quick glance. It is the
uncirculated coins (and possibly AU coins) where breaking down the grade into multiple factors would be really helpful.
Ken
Grade should include some kind of idea of die condition as well as angle and strenght of strike.
Someone looking at the grade should have an idea what the coin looks like. This would provide
numerous benefits, some of which might be difficult to predict.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
It's been used for years.
No need to fix what isn't broke.
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
What I propose is that wear is only one part of the condition of the coin and hence, only 20% of the grade. Since there are really only 20 (REAL GRADES in the sheldon scale as illustrated below, why not just number them from 1-20 instead of jumping 5 grades (ex. VF-20 to VF-25). Where the hell is VF-21, 22, 23, and 24? Since they don't matter anyway, just get rid of them.
I've mapped out the sheldon scale to my new system as such:
P0-01 = 01
AG-02 = 02
AG-03 = 03
G-04 = 04
G-06 = 05
VG-08 = 06
VG-10 = 07
F-12 = 08
F-15 = 09
VF-20 = 10
VF-25 = 11
VF-30 = 12
VF-35 = 13
XF-40 = 14
XF-45 = 15
AU-50 = 16
AU-53 = 17
AU-55 = 18
AU-58 = 19
MS-60 and above = 20
So, a grade of a coin could essentially be AU-62. Inversely, a coin could also have the grade of MS-51 or XF-55. This solves the problem of erasing the misconception that MS60 coins are worth more than all AU58's on a general scale.
Here's another example using a coin that is in our archives:
Surface Quality: 14 (No major hits, a couple of scuffies on the reverse. No spots, stains, or otherwise major distracting features.)
Strike: 13 (No weak areas, although some weak areas are typical on certiain overtons) but still not nearly as crisp and sharp as it could be.
Luster: 10 (Has some flash in the protected ares but open field areas are typcial AUish with light rubbing detracting from the overall luster score. No surface haze though.)
Originality: 7 (Moderately dipped some time ago and put in an album where it retoned.)
Wear: 19 (AU58 Sheldon = 19)
Eye Appeal: 1 (Attractive toning. Yes, it's subjective but it's only 1 point from 100 and not a grade bump like I see handed out today).
Problem Deductions: No problems. (These are primarily problems preventing slabbing by TPG's today. This allows NCS coins to be graded properly as well.)
Total Score: AU-64.
Note that the 64 is out of a possible 101 on my scale, not a possible 70 like the sheldon scale. Also notice that if the coin were graded MS62 by NGC, it would only get a 1 point bump out of 100. Given that if the surfaces looked exactly the same, but overgraded by the TPG as an MS-62 instead of AU58, it would simply be an MS-65 out of 100 by the new scale. This puts coins of similar quality in the same price range even if the amount of wear is different.