Before the Sheldon Scale

Did collectors go more on eye appeal, than nit picking weather a coin is a 63 or a 64? I ask this because it seems alot of collectors are hung up on the numerical grade and may sacrifice eye appeal. I have seen 62, 63, with much better eye appeal sell for less than 64's that may have unatractive toning or other blemishes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If I recall correctly, the Sheldon scale was originally designed for early copper only and was more of an explicit dollar grade than today's implied preservation grade. That is, a VG8 was meant to be worth twice what a G4 was worth and only one-fifth what an EF40 was worth.

Today, the Sheldon scale has been adapted to follow surface preservation and wear instead of tracking general value. It has also been greatly expanded in its everyday used grades and this is especially true for the MS grades.

 

Eye appeal, years ago I used AG,G,VG,F,VF,XF,AU and UNC.

 

From Wikipedia:

William H. Sheldon in his book Penny Whimsy is credited with coming up with the Sheldon Scale in the 1950s, a numeric system going from 1-70. It was intended to be a reflection of the relative value of a 1794 Large Cent, which was then worth $1 in Basal State and $70 in Uncirculated MS-70.

 

I think most serious collectors still go on eye appeal and laugh at numeric grades. That number doesn't say anything about the look of the coin.
Guy

 

Agree on this one for sure. For uncirculated, there were also sub categories of BU, Choice and Gem--that would probably correspond to MS 60-62 as BU (usually applied to white coins). Choice, which was probably 64 but just short of MS 65 and Gem--65 and higher.

 

Something I've always wondered about pertaining to the eye appeal/numerical grade debate is this. When looking to complete a set in a given grade range, say a set of mercs in xf/au, baring any real rarities that you can only get in say f detail without breaking the bank. Do you think most would be willing to break that xf/au continuity for a lesser coin? You then end up with a full set of nice xf/au coins but have an oddball at say f detail because one was choosing eye appeal over grade. Now granted some will say an f isnt going to look better than an au due to grading criteria, but this is all just an example and hypethiwtical to make a point. So would one sacrifice continuity for appeal when putting together a set?

 

I think real old-timers had two grades

new and used

 

My dad had 3 grades of coins. "Good" (cause he needed it to fill a hole). "Better" (than the one he had). And "Uncirculated" (which he found in circulation). I didn't understand how he got the name for the last one, so I just called them "Shinny".

 

before the Sheldon grading system there was my wallet , you put money and and I said buy this and not that..lol..

 

Believe it or not few collectors were much concerned with quality of uncirculated coins before 1978. Any collector worth his salt would always grab the better of two examples but the primary interest was in obtaining an example of everything in a given condition. It would be very difficult to get a premium for a Gem so most were simply sold as Uncs. The few exceptions would be in areas where all collectors were pretty sophisticated like bust coinage, but even here nice specimens usually didn't command significant premiums. There was a sort of unoffoicial split between "unc" which included some pretty bad specimens and "bu" for nice original coins. The demand for high grades started in Morgans in the late-'70's. Therse were coming onm the market in the tens of millions because of higher silver prices and the big government releases and collectors noticed a huge spread in quality. In 1977 I could buy BU morgans as they came out of the roll for $4 or pick and choose all day at $5. A third gradation of grading uncs emerged around this time and that was "Gem". It didn't quite mean the same as MS-65 today but it's pretty close and included all the higher grades as well.

The influence of the grading companies and especially PCGS can be overestimated in the current grading system. To a large extent they do simply reflect market demand but to some extent they've also led this demand. The existence of the net has made it possible to make a market for these coins and it is most unlikely the market will go away.

 

Actually 63 and 67 were introduced in 1980. PCGS started using all 11 MS grades (in theory) in 1986, and all eleven were added to the ANA grading guide in 1987.

 

I still wonder how you tell an MS70 from an MS69.

 

So were purchases just based on eye appeal?

 

Each collectors has his own idea of what a coin should look like. If a coin was "marred" in some way from the ideal he was less likely to want it and if it exceeded this he was more likely to make the asking price. But collectors weren't so condition conscious. They were primarily concerned with the date and mint mark. Almost any coin would sell but an ugly Unc that might have also been a slider was more likely to end up with an unsophisticated collector and Gems were a little more likely to end up with a collector like Pittman.

In 1964 collectors were setting aside tons of brand new coins and ungly worn out cull 1924-D cents from circulation. There were lots of varieties in circulation and every year the mints made lots of Gems and coins that would be very valuable now but nobody paid any attention to Gems and varieties. The market for bu rolls crashed in 1965 and collectors began concentrating on only old coins.

Things come in and go out of style in all walks of life. Some of this is predictable and some isn't. Just because high gradesare in style now almost to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean this won't persist. I doubt collectors in the future will be quite so obsessed with only having the very finest except as part of a finest collection but the desire to have only high end coins of high grades regardless of what one collects is likely to go out of style eventually.

Just as we found out people forgot quality (Gems) and scarcity (varieties) in the mad dash for quantity (and slightly better dates) in the 1960's we'll probably discover people lost sight of rarity (many moderns) in the mad dash for quality today.

People tend to do the same things without even noticing it. We all buy high and sell low. Natural trends are exascerbated by the tendency of people to act in unison. We simply would rather be in good company than just about anything.

 

Unless you buy a sight-unseen slab, that's still how purchases are based.

 

Before the Sheldon Scale, every coin you bought from a dealer was BU Gem, and every coin you sold him (even if it was the same ones) were AU.

 

He he he he.