Circulated Coin Grade Descriptions versus the Grade Numbers

A contemporary thread on CT Coin Chat forum regarding the AU-MS divide prompted this post of a thought and question that has been floating around in my mind for some time. I am posting in the US Coins forum since it applies exclusively to those and also because I know less than nothing about World and Ancient coins. I apologize for the length of this post and hope it possesses enough of interest to reward the persevering reader.

The topic is why do we bother to retain the English language grade descriptions when they are completely anachronistic and do not seem to perform any function other than to respect tradition. I give them no regard whatsoever. When I am talking about a coin, I will use terminology like “it’s a 45 coin”. I never call it an “Extremely Fine” since that is already embedded in the number “45” whereas the distinction between a 40 and 45 coin is not embedded in the description “Extremely Fine”. This situation is even more pronounced in the Very Fine and About Uncirculated grades. You can see this in the grading tables presented below.

In addition to the inefficiency of having to say and write two different grading designations, there is the question of why there is a two grade and 10 point spread for Extremely Fine but four grades and a 20 point spread for Very Fine. The only reason I can devise for this is that is what it took to make Sheldon’s numeracy work and he felt the need to respect traditional grading nomenclature.

So why do we persist now in still using the old descriptors? Anybody care to illuminate this?

Grading Scales and Spreads

We all know the 1-70 Sheldon Scale was developed so that Dr. Sheldon could warp the result of his arithmetic to result in the market value of large cents in their various conditions. When he did this, he retained the previous English language designations for coin condition that he then correlated with his 1-70 number scale. I have reproduced his scale next to the current ANA/PCGS/NGC values and English descriptors for the range of Good 04 through About Uncirculated 58.

Sheldon ANA/PCGS/NGC

Good 4 Good 4

Good 5

Good 6 Good 6

Very Good 7

Very Good 8 Very Good 8

Very Good 10 Very Good 10

Fine 12 Fine 12

Fine 15 Fine 15

Very Fine 20 Very Fine 20

Very Fine 25

Very Fine 30 Very Fine 30

Very Fine 35

Extremely Fine 40 Extremely Fine 40

Extremely Fine 45

About Uncirculated 50 About Uncirculated 50

About Uncirculated 53

About Uncirculated 55

About Uncirculated 58


Looking only at the current ANA/PCGS/NGC scale, it becomes immediately apparent that there is a large disparity between the number ranges of the various English language grades, i.e.:


For Good, two grades and a four point spread (8 minus 4).

For Very Good, two grades and a four point spread (12 minus 8).

For Fine, two grades and an eight point spread (20 minus 12).

For Very Fine, four grades and a twenty point spread (40 minus 20).

For Extremely Fine, two grades and a ten point spread (50 minus 40).

For About Uncirculated, four grades and a ten point spread (60 minus 50).


I calculate the spread as I have because a coin that is almost a Fine 12 will be graded as a Very Good 10 but the spread for the Very Good grade is still from just below 12 down to 8.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sorry, the grading scales did not format properly when I pasted them in from Word. Here it is properly formatted.

 

@Publius2 Let me say this about that: I have been collecting since 1948. All we ever used was the alpha designations. I am very familiar with those and am not macho enough to care if it is 45 or 47. Coin collecting based upon those numbers is more of a status seeking approach than an "I have a nice coin" approach. I collect based upon eye appeal. And, I like coins that worked for a living - if they stayed healthy.

Differentiating between all those numbers takes the hobby to a level that is no longer fun. There is only one reason to draw those fine lines - mine is better than yours and probably worth more. I am at the end of my career and it really doesn't matter. But, I still have two cents to throw in.

 

No it's not, and a 47 isn't a grade used. It's funny how demeaning so many are when someone doesn't do it the way they want.

Or to actually grade things properly as opposed to just letting dealers convince people of their price.

 

Because that's how it's been done for a while. Same reason people fight even relatively minor changes, coin collecting in general isn't exactly a hobby that embraces change or improvements very easily. Forums are more biases with thing must be this year because I said so than the hobby as a whole, but while the letters really just create more confusion than good it will likely be sometime before they are eliminated. We would need an actual continuous scale for them to be eliminated, it wouldn't change a whole lot but there would be a lot of the sky is falling

 

I have a friend who is a part time collector/part time dealer....he sometimes sets up at a show. Any way Paul always talks numbers...meaning no matter the coin he will address its grade by number.
He's like well its a nice coin but not at 66 money.....so I guess to him grade as well value are interchangeable.
And Paul has a great eye too... he always a sweet coin in hand...

 

Thank you. We always appreciate your positive reinforcement of other members opinions.

 

Yes I will always be very positive when people make posts demeaning collectors for their likes and claiming things such as your quote of "All we ever used was the alpha designations. I am very familiar with those and am not macho enough to care if it is 45 or 47. Coin collecting based upon those numbers is more of a status seeking approach than an "I have a nice coin" approach."

Super positive about your talking down quote.

 

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares about your opinion. This entire forum revolves around opinion. Yours is only one.

 

Lol.

I could actually say a lot, but I'll get off the lawn. If you want to demean people as you did I might say something if I see it but otherwise do what you want

 

Just to clarify for anyone that might be confused about my meaning - I am not advocating going to a continuous number system nor changing from the 1 to 70 Sheldon number system. I am merely questioning the continued use of language descriptors and also the numerical grade range disparities between language range descriptors. Neither makes any sense to me nor seems to serve any useful function.

@baseball21 probably has a big part of the answer with his "it's tradition" answer and I agree that's a big part of it.

@Inspector43, I have to say that describing the grading system as nothing but an ego trip is somewhat myopic. For example, used cars (other than Ferraris) are graded not primarily for the purpose of inflating egos but to serve the purpose of creating a viable market. Does ego act in coin collecting? Duh, does a bear, etc. But ego acts in all human endeavors. Nevertheless, every market must have a means of establishing value.

Even a commodity like toilet paper has to have a means of establishing a value differentiation between products even if it's only "Our TP Super has smaller and less jagged wood chips".

The days of just saying a coin is EF or Choice Gem BU are long gone, except in the raw market of EBay and they only use language descriptors because I understand EBay prohibits sellers from putting grades on raw coins. You will not find a slabbed U.S. coin from the big four without a numeric grade, except for Details grades.

So back to my question. What purpose does the language descriptor now serve that the numeric grade does not do more simply and less ambiguously?

 

When I go to buy Walkers as 90% silver I ask the dealer if he has any EF coins in stock. I don't say EF40 or EF45. If I am typing about a coin in a comment box I usually put MS63 or AU50, etc. Sometimes when I am guessing a grade I only put the numbers or the letters.

In the end, you are correct, both are not needed but often used.

 

There are examples of TPG slabbed coins without a numerical number.

 

But, those coins where either paid less for to just do that then really grade it or were because they didn't meet a minimum grade from the submission.

 

When you said "...We would need an actual continuous scale...", would that scale include a 47?

 

QWERTYUIOP

 

The line is at 58/60 not sure why you would ever ask that.

 

ASDFGHJKL

 

Tradition is a part of why it remains. Also, there are uses for the words. An "uncirculated" coin technically means it was not in circulation or does not show the wear you would see from circulation. "About Uncirculated" technically means the coins shows signs of wear/circulation.

If we were to do away with the AU/UNC line, then the descriptors could easily go away too.

 

Yeah, why is it like that?