Ancients: Grading ancient coins

For some reason I have a desire to update some of my web pages but have no firm idea on what to do to make them more useful to more people. I was going to do the photography pages but they are such a mess I decided to take an easy out and tackle grading first.

Perhaps it is a problem that I don't believe it is possible to grade ancients. There are just too many factors and too many opinions on how various situations rank in comparison to each other. US coins are easier because we have some idea what to expect and what an ideal coin should look like but few ancients can be addressed using those same standards. To demonstrate this I have a page on a few coins I considered impossible to grade.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/impossible.html
Perhaps you remember when we discussed these.


My earliest grading pages identified situations found on coins and separated them into things that happened at the mint (Conditions of Manufacture) and things that happened after the coin fell from the dies (Conditions of Preservation). Without attempting to assign values to the situations, I illustrated a number of examples of coins to define the terms needed to describe the condition of our coins. I failed at my attempts and never posted a system to assign numerical values to these situations. Perhaps that 'no answer' is still the best answer. If nothing else, those pages might help a new collector understand the standard terms used to describe coin defects. Opinions on how to improve these pages are solicited.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html

Do you consider grading ancient coins to be a necessary subject to address or are you happy to omit that information from your catalog on the theory that a photo can do the job a thousand times better?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

grading or other folks assigned grades for ancients has never been my cup of tea really.

 

I have no desire to try to grade my coins. It's one of the things that attracted me to Ancients in the first place. I have a photo for every catalog entry and believe the image speaks volumes over arbitrary grading letters. Besdies, getting everyone on the same page of grading would probably prove to be very difficult if not impossible.

I will take a look tomorrow and try to provide some feedback. Thanks for all the good work you do to advance our hobby.

 

...let me add to that, DS, please keep your page on grading. it was a good into for me when i first read it...not so much for grading but minting problems vs the effect of time (i assumed all the less than perfect attributes of ancient coins were just the due to the ravages of time...i bet many other people do also).

 

I never grade my ancients nor do I pay much attention in dealer descriptions. Its eye appeal for me followed by any issues I could live with.

 

I never pay attention to a seller's grading => but I'm definitely a sucka for a seller who is able to take a sweet photo!!

However, I must admit that I usually keep the "Other" comments, which include the coins rotation, it's colour/toning and often it's "grade" for lack of a better word ... but I add this info merely because it is usually listed by the seller => do with it what you will, but I am also the first to agree that the grade is basically a moot-point since a purdy photo will certainly trump any grade-comments that the seller tries to toss-in!!

 

Well said! And how I also collect.

 

I agree with collecting based on personal appeal.

Knowledge of grading can be helpful in understanding prices though (and for negotiating), so thanks for your efforts, Doug!

 

The website is amazing, and I am sure a lot of work went into it. As far as grading, nearly impossible. I agree with most eye appeal or a good photo are what I go with. Something I would like to know is there any quantities of these coins anywhere? That is something I would be interested in seeing. From what little I know I believe that is really the only way to grade ancients is by rarity, no?

 

I can't think of a way to improve those pages, Doug, but being a newcomer to ancients, that probably doesn't mean much.

I found the "Conditions of Manufacture" and "Conditions of Preservation" pages very instructive. Those are a few of the first pages of yours I read, and they went a long way helping me view lots with a more educated eye.

As far as letter grades go, I'm also uninterested in outside assignations. Those kinds of grades imply some sort of objective valuation, and even if that were possible, it would mean nothing to me.

If I'm interested in a particular coin, I'll research past auctions and prices asked by various dealers. I'll also look at as many examples of the coin I can find to give me a general idea of the range of conditions in which it's available. Then I'll decide what I'm willing to pay according to my budget, and if I can't afford a nice enough example, I'll simply pass. Grades like aF or vG make no difference to me whatsoever.

 

I guess I will be a contrarian and say I believe everyone should learn to grade. We have compared notes on grading over the years Doug and I believe we grade similarly. We both learned how to grade ancients, and I believe we are for the better for it.

I problem I would believe would come up would be the notion that a grade is a critical factor. Its not. I have chosen a gF over a VF numerous times. Grade is only a part of the decision on deciding which ancient coin you like best. Also a huge component is style, as is design completeness, and flan condition, etc etc.

So yes, real grading should be learned by all, but at the same time they need to understand ancient coin collectors do not bow down on the alter of grading and sacrifice all unlike US numismatics. We simply use grade as an indication of its overall condition versus a theoretical perfect specimen, and use that information as a PART of our decision whether to buy or not.

I remember Glenn Woods. Nice man, bought a couple of coins from him. He was a big "condition census" Franklin half guy before moving into Byzantine gold. I remember conversations with him, and he bragging this coin is "condition census" highest grade. He didn't like my response much, when I said "Who cares? Its poor style, and I would take a gVF with a fine style over it any day". He thought I was a poor collector, I thought he was a misguided dealer. He never really "got" the idea that ancient coins are much more than some absolute grade figure. Desirablity of an ancient coin can never be summarized like that, its impossible.

 

You sound like you are contradicting yourself med-man. Sure, knowing grading is fine as you say, but

.

I agree with you on all accounts.

 

Sorry I was unclear. I am saying knowing how to technically grade is still a good skill to know, but in ancients its not AS important as it is in US coins. Most ancient collectors will on occasion choose a nice gF over a technical VF. Knowing how to technical grade should never change this.

I simply like knowing how to grade ancients properly so I can understand the dealer. If I know an ancient is technically a gF, if some dealer is trying to sell it to me as an XF or (shudder), AU, then I know to be careful of the man. If I find a great dealer like Frank Robinson who has never sent me a coin I would label as overgraded, then I know I can trust his judgment on coins.

 

You are right about Frank. I don't think I've ever seen him grade his coins too high. In fact, the opposite is probably true.

I think we are in agreement on this issue.

 

I also don't pay much attention to the grade of a coin. I admit I have some coins in my gallery listed with a grade that was copied from the sellers attribution, but ask me to tell you what they are with out looking and I can't. I guess it only really matters when assigning a price, but there are so many other factors in determining price that it seems, to me, that grade is a small part when pricing a coin (or judging a price to be fair or not).

 

I have a fairly extensive US coin collection but recently have been nibbling on ancients. I am stunned by the scope of this new (to me) coin arena and have found few sources to help guide me through it. The most informative source that I have found is Doug's site and particularly the section titled "impossible to grade?".

I would suggest that a simple sort on a parametric scale for "liking" or "eye appeal" among a naive panel of humans might yield similar rankings.

I've done similar sorts with Morgans across a variety of blinded PCGS graded coins with my grand children, friends and neighbors (none are numismatists for sure) and get high correlations with the TPG rankings.

Interesting stuff. Thank you Mr. Smith.

 

I don't really grade my ancients but my favorites and the ones i tend to spend most money on are always the ones that are struck well and/or have fine detail. Nonetheless I care more about the history behind the coin rather than the grade, hence I love trying to identify the most horrible of coins haha.

 

For those new here: I have a very old set of grading pages that show why I really don't believe in grading ancients. On it I added two major areas of consideration to the standard letter grades for wear trying to make the point that the two really outrank wear when it comes to the desirability of a coin. First I named Conditions of Manufacture. These are things that went wrong (or right) before the coin left the mint. The second was Conditions of Preservation. This covers what happened to the coin between the mint and today. Each was illustrated by a photo of a coin with that condition.
Examples from Manufacture:
Pre-striking flan adjustment marks:


Off center:


Examples from Preservation:

Chippy Patina:


Pitting:


In each case here, these words tell you more about the coin than does the term 'Fine'. Not all ancients have severe problems but almost none are completely free of something that would be a footnote if grading a modern issue. I once considered trying to promote a grading number with two digits ranking coins according to the two major areas. The Caligula (last above) might be VF 82 since it was pretty well made when it left the mint but was really wrecked afterward. The Alexander (second from top) might be F 27 since it was a dog when made due to the centering but is not bad in terms of surface and tone for something that old. I decided it would never catch on and dropped the idea. It still would not tell you the difference between a coin compromised by centering and one well centered but weakly struck, for example.

Those who want to see these pages can start here and follow the three links:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html

The Impossible to Grade page mentioned by JB Good is here:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/impossible.html

 

I apologize for the above repeat reply. I failed to notice that someone revived a year old thread. It sounded like an interesting topic so I replied. I guess it should have since I started it in 2013.

 

We all do it Doug when a thread gets necroed. No harm, especially when it was a good thread to begin with.

Regarding grading, I still feel like I did in post #11. I contend a properly grade AND description would give a person an idea of all of your "problem grade" coins. An example would be Frank Robinson's auction, where he grades and describes each lot, and its actually better to rely on this than his crummy pics, (he is the only dealer I know who photographs coins almost as bad as I do).