A Sheldon 100 Point Grading System??

Unless, in practice, no coin ever actually grades above 97, which I could see happening; or, grades above 97 need to be differentiated under higher magnification than 5x.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You have to make a decision, sooner or later on a grade. If we keep adding +s and -s, and decimals, the grading will be too specific and meaningless, in my view. Those with 70s will have coins regraded to 69.66667 or whatever. Change is not necessarily bad, but with coin grading I think a 70 scale is good enough.

 

I am surprised, given some of the animus that PCGS has shown towards some who have mentioned CAC on its message boards in the past, that PCGS doesn't start labeling coins with A, B, and C descriptors to compete more effectively with CAC. Maybe that is what a 100 point scale would accomplish except with additional numbers instead of letters.

 

I notice in the British system they have FCD, AFDC and NFDC. I think I know what the FDC stands for (at least in ancient coins) but is the A = Almost and N = Near, and does that mean Almost is better than Near? My head hurts.

 

They have the + modifier, but they don't seem to use it below XF45. I suppose it'd be a small step to start using it all the way down to VG (because who hasn't seen a VG10 that was just a hair away from F12, but not quite there?).

Is there a minimum labelled grade that CAC will sticker? If not, I'd love to get a look at a PO-01 CAC.

 

I think there is or was a chain cent on Great Collections at one point

 

http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/251670/1793-Chain-Cent-AMERICA-PCGS-PO-01-BN-CAC

 

That's awesome. CAC whiffed on that one though.

 

I wonder what the motive was for submitting that piece to CAC.

 

Yup. The coins would all become worthless (relatively speaking) unless they could land in an MS100 holder, and then they'd lose their promotional label.

 

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this issue since it came up (again). I believe that if Sheldon had wanted a 100 point system he would have done so in his book Early American Cents. As I remember, he only wanted to use his system for large copper cents. Others picked up the idea that adding a number to grading all coins in this way somehow made grading objective. (I remember somewhat humorously back in the 1990s when I went to a flea market and a vendor was trying to pawn off a definite Fine 1909 Lincoln as mint state. And he wanted MS price! He said: "it is all in the eye of the beholder." I didn't buy it.)

Then comes the computer. Theoretically, a computer/scanner could laser scan the entire coin, count the number of minute stirations and cleaning marks and bag marks and spit out a scientific number based on whatever we all could agree would be an 85/100. Remember, a computer needs to be programed by a human being. We would need to program the computer to be very specific and rule out any subjectivity. But is that what we want? I think that is one of the beauties of a third party. They take the 70 point scale and interpret to the best of their professional ability.

So the real question is, I believe, do we collectors/numismatists really want a scale that stretches the Sheldon to 100? Are there that many subtleties between a 66 and 67? Or a 68 and a 9? Do these subtleties make a real difference, both in value and eye appeal? Do we grade a coin a zero if it is a slug? Do we have two or more scales if the coin exhibits toning or an imperfect planchet? What do we do with those pesky milk spots?

I am not advocating that we abandon what we now have or if all coins should be resubmitted and regraded with a 100 point scale. I am just wondering if all the effort in going to a new scale will make any difference in the long run with value and eye appeal. Redoing the scale would take an enormous amount of effort by many individuals both nationally and internationally now. Is this what we really want?

 

Why don't we just switch to metric?

We're 25+ years into this TPG 70 point grading scale. I don't see it changing. The TPG's and collectors use labels to slice the scale further.

I get why this topic has resurfaced. The TPG's U.S. revenue stream is shrinking. The vast majority now comes from new issues. They still have World and Ancients as a growth area, but at some point that will shrink as well. Seeing that PCGS is a public company, I'm sure the pressure will continue to mount from their investors to increase revenues.

Things are going to get very interesting in the next decade. It will be fun to watch.

 

I think a system using sequential numbers with decimals would simplify grading, especially for new entrants to the hobby. I doubt if a new system will be created anytime soon, although I'm sure the TPG's would lobby for it. If, however, a new grading system were implemented, I could see a period of time where the old system would survive side by side with the new system. New slabs would indicate both grades until the new system gained general acceptance.

 

Sure thing. I just wonder who is going to monitor it and in the end if this change (if it happens) will boost the hobby or make it go sour.

 

Sure just like how in order to make switching to the metric system easier we have both english and metric weights or volumes on what we buy. (And that has been going on longer than we've had the TPG's) I don't think we are any closer to going metric.

 

I'd suggest to stay with 70 and add a second scale for eye appeal/toning or any other subjective criteria. E.g. technically a coin can be an MS62 but could have 5/5 on the eye appeal scale. Another coin could be 2-3 grade points higher, but only have a 2/5 and would be less desirable. A super-nice type set coin could have 5/5 and maybe even a STAR regardless of its grade.

 

Do you know Geekpryde? He would never have bidden on a coin w/o a sticker LOL