AU53--A "Dumb" Grade?

Close they multiplying factor was applied to the Basal state value of the coin, not the face value. Basal state value was the value of the variety in Poor condition. And the Sheldon scale had NOTHING to do with grading the coin. The coin had to be graded first and then the Sheldon value formula was applied based on that grade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not to mention in some countries where coin collecting is not quite the detailed commercial hobby it is in the US, they often stick with the basic 6 G through MS levels and only that. I have even read foreign-language arguments about how unnecessary it is to have anything more detailed than that, because the US 70 scale only exists because of the commercialization of the hobby in this country, and it's all subjective anyway.

For example (portuguese coin site, talking about official Brazilian grading standards and comparing to both US scales): http://www.forum-numismatica.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3933

 

But the U.S. coins are a lot more aesthetic, advanced, diverse and so forth. They merit greater diversity of grading, plus the market value of all coins graded is many tens of billions of dollars, so quality control is imperative. I realize there are dumb or excessive grading programs as with moderns that is muddying the waters and making the classic old coin grading a lot slower these days.

 

I'm more interested in US coins myself, but to your assertion, I still have to ask: why? How can you justify saying US coins are more "advanced" or "diverse"? "More studied" does not mean "more detailed", in my opinion. The fact that there are more people obsessing about the tiniest details and knowledgeable about the miniscule differences in die and there is documented history of most years' minting runs in great detail does not mean that the coins are somehow naturally superior and deserving of critique that the rest of the world is not.

I agree with this. The fact that there are more people obsessing/competing over miniscule fabrication details and the available detailed (and importantly short!) history of US coin minting means that the US coin market is astronomically larger than others, hence the necessity of more detailed grading.

That was the basic argument from the Portuguese collector. "A tabela USA tem por fundamento principal a atribuição de uma valorização comercial das moedas. ... Não somente o sistema é obviamente susceptível de interpretações subjectivas, mas também é corrente a existência de sérias divergências. Não é inabitual alguém quebrar um "slab" para obter uma certificação de uma moeda segundo um grau superior, e consegui-la. Os USA têm um meio muito mais comercial, mas consequentemente também muito mais competitivo, em todos os sectores. ... Não há dúvida que um sistema mais simples é também mais aberto, logo mais universal."
i.e. "The USA grading method is principally based on attributing a commercial value on coins. [talks about slabbing] Not only is the system obviously susceptible to subjective interpretations, but also it's currently the source of serious disagreements. It's not uncommon for someone to break open a slab to get a new higher grade, and actually get it. The USA is much more commercial, but consequently also much more competitive, in all aspects. [talks about Travers' grading book and how detailed & complicated grading is, how more detailed grading is not applicable to older coins] There is no doubt that a simpler system is also more open and universal."

 

Actually I believe it is dumb that we don't have grades for obverse and reverse. Here is a coin that could easily be 15/30R, but istead I am told it is simply F15.