So...Where Did MS70 Come From...

https://www.pcgs.com/news/the-70th-...pJobID=1321560670&spReportId=MTMyMTU2MDY3MAS2

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Actually it developed out of Sheldon's desire to be able to grade a coin (large cents) based on the 'value' the coin had compared to one in a Basal state. Basal state was 1 and was a gradable coin (not damaged) that you could read the date on. Each grade above that was supposed to reflect that the coin had a value that many times the basal state 1 graded coin. I guess he could not imagine based on his time, that any coin would be valued higher than 70 times the value of a coin graded in basal state. And he was not trying to grade all coins. The scale was simply adapted to other coins later, and of course, the value of the coins are not directly tied to the basal state in such a neat fashion.

 

Very nice explanation. I had wondered the same thing. Thank you.

 

Your comments expand a bit on what the linked article says:

Sheldon attempted to quantify the market values of early U.S. cents (1793-1814) and created a numerical component of the grade to use as a multiplier in arriving at a particular coin’s value.
... Sheldon outlined eighteen “grades” using the numbers as follows: Basal State 1; Fair 2; Very Fair 3; Good 4, 5, 6; Very Good 7, 8, 10; Fine 12, 15; Very Fine 20, 30; Extremely Fine 40; About Uncirculated 50; Mint State 60, 65 and 70. ...These numbers were based on the approximate value of a common variety 1794 Cent in the various states of preservation. The "Basal Value" of the particular variety was multiplied by the numerical grade to arrive a fair value.​

 

Were'd Mint State 70 come from? Why from Wizard Coin Supply, my dear fellow......

 

Poor Sheldon was one of those sorts who had what he thought was a great idea, and he wrote a book about it. The book was wrong, and his idea was outdated before he even published. Unfortunately, his idea of "70" somehow captured the industry in it's death grip, and there's no way we'll ever leave. It's like trying to convince an American that a meter makes more sense than a foot.

Now, if naive Mr. Sheldon had posted on CoinTalk, he would have been instantly ripped to shreds and this whole 70 point nonsense would have quickly been forgotten!

 

I still have problems distinguishing between MS63 and MS64...

 

Was exactly my thoughts when I saw the title of the thread

 

I'm learning that MS 63 looks like it has been around the block a little more than MS64.

 

It's kinda like how the Supreme Court described pornography, they can't tell you what it is, just that they know it when they see it.

To my eye's particularly with Morgan Dollars, there is a big difference between MS-63 and MS-64. Then those differences become smaller and smaller as you go to MS-65, MS-66, MS-67....

Here's a grading curve I just completely made up, but it's how I see the differences in quality as I go up the grading scale from MS-60 - MS-70. Some might say it's more of a straight line, but I think it's more of a curve.

If interested, I could probably plot some points on the curve for the A, B, C grade that CAC assigns. Remembering that CAC assigns the green bean to A and B coins within a grade.

 

I like that, I'll remember that one for next time.

 

Sheldon's "theory" was that the relationship between VALUE and grade was linear. Not that the relationship between EYE APPEAL and grade was linear - I don't know what he thought that relationship should look like.

Also, nowadays the relationship between VALUE and grade is more exponential than linear!!!

 

As far as I'm concerned, Sheldon was a "Monster", and a disgrace to modern science and Mankind. His grading scheme was of sound quality, but his name should be forever banished from print. Let's just call it the 70 grade scale and let it go at that!

 

What did he do that made him a "monster"?

 

perfection is a theoretical concept - so maybe 70 = most nearly perfect coin of its type encountered to date ?

 

I like your chart, but I think of it a bit differently, and I would add in AU55 and AU58 to make it interesting.

I get that you're just showing the MS grades, but there is overlap there. AU58s have a broad range of eye appeal equivalent to up to around MS65. MS60 should have pretty poor eye appeal (perhaps equivalent to an AU53 or a low end AU55), but then MS61 and 62 can have decent eye appeal, especially for gold.

A 63 should jump out at you, and a 65 should jump out at you, but I think of a 64 as being "not quite 65". A 66 should jump out at you, and a 68 should jump out at you, but similarly I think of a 67 as "not quite 68" and a 69 as a really nice 68. I don't put much stock in 70s versus 69s. So I think of it not as a curve but as a wavy line for those grades. In other words, the eye appeal jumps considerably every couple grades, but in-between not as much. A 65 has a definite "look" and should have a very tight range on eye appeal, because if it goes up much it jumps to a 66, and if it goes down a little it jumps to a 64. On the other hand there's a very wide range of eye appeal that a 64 can have between what is acceptable for a 63 and what it needs to have to hit a 65. Likewise 67 is a very broadly used grade with a wide range of eye appeal when compared to a 66 or a 68.

 

The original Mint State grades had 4 grades: 63, 65, 67, and 70. I think of those as the cornerstones, the in between grades are exactly that, in-between.

 

There are allegations that he swapped out some high grade coins at the ANS .......

 

I'm assuming that the cat is referring to Sheldon's profession. He developed a system to categorize behavior based on physical appearance and posture, called somatography. It was and is controversial. I'm not exactly sure what made him a monster, though.

You can read a brief account of his life here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herbert_Sheldon

And a synopsis of his now disregarded work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology