The Sheldon scale.

Nope, only the "Walk away now". All others are considered, just dull and warn and dirty and ugly are contemplated a bit longer in the deciding process. :thumb:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One thing to consider is the type of coin Sheldon was interested in, large cents. If you know this series you know the early dates are full of low grade coins, so the grades in the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 range get a lot of use. Above around grade 20 most of the early date coins are CC level and known coins at which point the grade is really a secondary concern. Take any specific CC 9 level coin and 5 collectors will all disagree about the grade, but most will agree it's the 9th best coin.

One last point, but the jump from 4 to 6 is a 50% increase in the grade while a jump from 35 to 37 is a 6% increase in grade. Not really worth arguing over 2 points here.

 

And it wasn't a grading system, it was a pricing system. The numbers had absolutely no meaning until you had determined an accurate grade for the coin, and they used all the adjective grades we do today (until you reached the Unc coins). Once you had the adjective grade you then looked up the price of that variety in Poor condition and multiplied it by the multiplier for that adjective grade. The numbers came from the historical ratios of prices between the grades at that time. A VG tended to sell for twice what a Good coin did, a Fine sold for three times the Good price or fifty percent more than the VG price and so on. A Good tended to sell for 4 times what a Poor coin did. And that was how the multipliers were established. Poor-1, Good-4 (4 times Poor), VG-8 (8 times Poor or 2 times Good). Fine-12 etc. Sheldon thought he had found some kind of natural law for the pricing of large cents or at least 1794 large cents which was what it was designed for. He thought that because cent prices had been relatively stable for 25 years. But as more collectors entered the hobby naturally they pursued the better coins and this changed the ratios so now the numbers have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

 

The only UK TPG, CGS, uses a 100-point system.

 

General Question. I have 2 BU cents. One is a 1937 and the other is a 1968s. Both are beautiful and have no damage. The 1937 is full of detail and the 1968s is not. If my 1937 was able to grade at a 65, does that mean that my 68s could never grade that high because it was never struck with the same quality as the 37 was ?

 

No. They factor in that some years have weaker strikes than others. If that was the case.

 

Thanks. Ive also noticed that my 1968p has more detail than my 1968d, which has more detail than my 1968s. Does denver and san fran get "hand my down" dies ?

 

Thank you GDJMSP, you just made my very interesting hobby into a very, VERY interesting hobby. Ive also realized I let alot of nice coins go because I thought they were worn out yet had very little nicks and scratches.

 

Just a silly thought to the original question as to why there are so few jumps in lower and MS grades with greater spacing for grades in mid grade coins:

Couldn't the reason all come down to marketability? Take a look at the two ends of the spectrum: 1916 D dime you see the ranges of PR 1, FA 2, AG 3, G 4 all slabbed. My guess is that values for each of the respective grades matters so much that there had to be a need to have all four levels, plus I'm sure there are more dimes that are submitted that fall into one of these four grades than in mid grades of VF, XF, and AU, so spacing in the mid grades makes since as there are less examples and less demand to determine a specific value of these coins. In addition, I'm sure these smaller differences in grades helps with population reports as well. If one uses a modern half dollar I'm sure the other end is true. Mid ranges are common, but distinguishing mid to high-end MS grades is important for the collector in relation to value and population so the demand to have specific MS grades is needed. (Again, just a silly thought as I don't collect TPG coins and haven't even researched the above statement, just a guessed insight)

 

That also explains why some of my uncirculated coins are lighter than others.

 

It would be that bad, whatever grad it would be you would divided by 1.427 to get you back to the 70 point scale.

 

I wonder how much of a 'discount' one would receive when they get their already certified coins re-slabbed on the new scale?

 

According to Numismaster a 1890S Morgan
in XF40 is valued at $40.30. And in AU50 at
$44.30. Or a unit cost 40cents per point. And
you can propably see the difference in 10 points
without a scanning electron microscope. But
when you go from MS63 @ $93.50 to MS64 @
$275 you have a unit cost of $181.50 for 1 point.
And if you can't find the point, ask your TPG
psychic for a tarot reading.

Now who do these circulateds think they are to
get so much for so little? They should be made
to suffer the same diminishing marginal returns
to gradings as BU's. Yes we need 100 point grading.
For real equality we need a 1,000 points. And an
alphabet too for supplementry information.

 

I've bought military tokens from a dealer
whose grading scale was = average - below
average + above average.

 

The Sheldon Scale was shoeboxed in to fit the "grading" of all US coins, not the primary 1793-1799 Cents and half cents that he specialized in. It was strictly a pricing system where a 2 was worth twice as much as a 1 and a 4 was worth twice as much as a 2 and so on. Even when he wrote it, probably 75% of all the coins he worked with were F-15 or worse ... that's why the lower end is so crowded. It was never meant to be used for 60 and above, especially for grading. A 1 point difference above 66 is worth thousands for many coins. Before they were just all "UNC".

 

I Remember a couple of years ago my local coin dealer talking about how much easier grading would be if it was a 100 point system instead of the current 70. I say they would still find a way to complicate it :headbang: :too-funny: