OK grasping the concerns and concept of a coin fresh from the mint is technically perfect as intended .. Which goes to state that if I pull a coin out of a mint set it is technically perfect as intended by the United States Mint and should be graded as such or as close to it. I find it although quite hilarious but some coins that I have that work on a technical scalewhich were pulled out of rolls from the mint are graded MS 70 by the company that slap them. I'mspace no way condoning this but find it kind of funny that you can have a coin graded by let's say Thomas Lee's coins as 70 because it was pulled out of a box and then sent to a green company. And I can pick you up. From a roll send it in to be graded and it would come back and ms65
I don't believe there are any Mint specifications that don't include margins for error. They aren't trying to achieve perfection. They are merely trying to meet their quotas and keep their jobs. Chris
There are plenty of things that could be imperfect on a coin from a roll or mint set. Sure some companies will grade anything MS-70 or PR-70, but that is just because they are bad grading services.
I personally agree with both your points but, it is that some companies what grade something ms70 just because you send it in a orginal roll . of course this excludes legitimate grading companies I have seen some coins. That we're giving the grade - 270 now and all purposes they may might be refresh. Nice clean. No problems, but I still don't see how are appointed great men state 70on a technical scale . because even the mint allows for errors
The Sheldon scale was intended to provide us with a basis for communicating the state of preservation of a coin relative to its ideal state - my own perception being that MS70 applies to the best coin that could possibly be made for that particular issue. If that means that the finest 1926-D Buffalo nickel is not even close to razor sharp for the series, so be it . . . the best 1926-D Buffalo nickel is therefore ineligible to receive a grade of MS70. Similarly, if a coin has marks or spots on it, that coin is also ineligible to receive a perfect grade. To apply inconsistently that benchmark from which all lesser coins are graded, simply because some dates exhibit different attributes, does a disservice to the intended purpose of the scale.
well said..so in essence , as hard as it was for my chicken scratch to convey . the sheldon grading system is a tactical effort to convey the coins description and value , and even if fresh from the mint does not guarantee that the coin being graded will hold its value even if fresh from the mint packaging
What you wrote, except that the Sheldon Scale is intended to compare the states of quality / preservation of different coins, but not their value . . . the buyer and seller decide the value, often independent of the assigned grade (Do I sound like Doug)?
That may be true today, but the Sheldon when initially introduced was designed as a way to assign a value. A coin with a 60 grade was supposed to be 60 times more valuable than a basal state (grade 1) coin. That never worked out but that was the intent.
Agreed . . . although the Sheldon grade multiplied by the basal value worked only for widely available issues. He employed other factors for determining the value of scarcer coins, and that is where the use of the Sheldon Scale diverged from determining both grade and value to determining grade alone. Today, that relationship has dissolved even for the most common of coins.
There's one thing missing here. When Sheldon created his grading scale, it was applied to large cents and only large cents. He never intended his method to be used to grade any other coin. As for this comment, it is absolutely not true. It wasn't true when the ANA used technical grading (the 1st two editions of their grading book were based solely on technical grading), and it isn't true today either. And no, it doesn't matter if you use the TPG standards or the ANA standards. There are many, I would even say the majority, coins found in the Mint Sets that are no where near worthy of being graded a 70. Now I will readily agree that there are some people who think that comment is true. But they are mistaken. edit - the point I am trying to get across here, is that technical grading never worked that way.
And he didn't intend for it to GRADE the large cents either, just establish the price. The grading had to be done BEFORE the Sheldon scale was applied.
