Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."

Though many feel these terms are synonymous and are used interchangeably, there is a difference between them, correct?

"Condition" refers to the state a coin is in: Fine, Very Good, Mint State, Extra Fine, etc.

The "Grade" refers to the numerical score out of 70 on the ANA-modified version of the Sheldon Scale.

Thus MS62 = Mint State condition, graded 62/70 on the Sheldon Scale.

The exception is a proof coin which really isn't a "condition" but a specially-prepared planchet, though they can be graded obviously (PR69).

Do I have this right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can agree with that but opinions are going to vary. So is Grade a refinement of State?

 

I would say so, yes.

 

Except those would all count as grades as well

 

For me "condition" implies whether the coin would straight grade or be flagged as a details grade.

 

The grading scale goes from zero to 70 and applies to both business strikes and proof strikes. Proof is not a condition, but rather a method of manufacturing. The planchets are not special in the proof process, the dies are. I see no difference between "condition" or "grade" as it applies to coins. You're not going to have a "good condition" coin that "grades fine".

 

That's what I am trying to find out here: if the two terms are technically different or are in fact synonymous. Wasn't sure what experienced people like yourself think. Thanks.

 

Except for now adays and the market standards where an AU coin can be graded as an MS.

 

My understanding is that the planchets themselves are prepared differently and that you can't make a regular planchet a proof one.

 

There is a difference in the planchets

 

How could that even happen?

 

I view the numbers as a more precise refinement. We probably would be better off ditching the letters and just going with the numbers

 

Which it's about time the hard 58/60 line eroded. The system itself was horribly flawed and just dumb from the start. It wasn't a grading scale it was two scales stacked on top of each other pretending to be one scale. A touch of rub on a high point on an otherwise pristine coin shouldn't mean that it's stuck being graded lower than a horrific bagged up just survived a knife fight MS 60.

The hard line should have never existed in the scale and it always should have been more fluid which thankfully it is becoming.

 

I use both interchangeably, along with state of preservation. But with regards to the number, I almost exclusively use “grade”

 

This is a semantic exercise. Numerical grading always was and still is edited. The numbers correspond to the price structure of large cents in the 1920s-1940s. (How many of us were collecting large cents 70+ years ago?) Now, the numbers are used as a shorthand for grade, so they mean the same thing. MS65 means gem uncirculated. VF35 means Almost Extremely Fine. Use the terms interchangeably.

In other words, for most of numismatics, condition and grade are synonymous.

However, in early copper, "condition" refers to the quality of the surface, independent of the amount of wear (grade). A coin at any grade level can be typical (average), better than typical (choice) or worse than typical.

 

We are probably better off ditching the numbers and just going with the letters.

And this shows how you abandon FUNDAMENTAL numismatic definitions to stoop in favor of the TPGs. An uncirculated coin has no wear, period. An MS-60 has no wear so it is uncirculated by technical definition only, but it has crap eye appeal from being at the bottom of the mint bag. An AU-58 has just a touch of wear and was protected for the rest of its life, so it is naturally going to have better eye appeal than an MS-60. This has been a well-known fact for decades, and AU-58 coins sometimes sell for more than their MS-60 counterparts (until the registry sets started awarding more points for a 60 than a 58).

As soon as you change fundamental definitions like “uncirculated”, you open the door for additional fundamentals to be altered.

 

You're confusing "grade" with "price." They are not the same thing.

 

No I'm not. I'm saying that the scale itself was extremely flawed to begin with. There never should have been that hard-line that was drawn in the sand at one point. The scale should have always been a fluid 1-70, not the 1-58 with a 60-70 stacked on top of it.

It is becoming more fluid in the last few decades which I am completely in favor of and believe that scale makes much more sense for it to be more fluid and have the nicest coins grading the highest and dogs getting knocked down below 60 whether they have friction or not

 

Believe it or not, I'm not wishing to get into a flame war, here, but despite your "view," the numbers are in no way more precise. Whether you grade by adjective or number, the grade is just an opinion, and opinions vary. There is nothing sacred about numerical grading, though too many collectors seem to think there is.