Here is, for example, a Sestertius of Marcus Aurelius from their inventory: And here is the coin: That one literally jumped at me because i have one from the same obverse die: The "grade" of 45/70 is translated as "good very fine" by the seller. Mine is only "very fine" (reverse "good fine"), so would that be a 35 or 40/100? The "rarity" of 30/100 can only be in terms of ancient coins (if it were a modern american coin, it would certainly be extermely rare, but with Banti listing 10 specimens of RIC 795 and 65 of similar types, it is not hard to find for a Sestertius, so I can agree with that). The "metal and patina" seems to correspond to NGC´s "surface" criterium. A grade of 75/100 would mean that, while this coin is above most of the rest, there must be something missing here. While the graded coin has a neat obverse, there is a (die?) flaw running over the reverse. Or can the absence of a dark patina be a minus (Moruzzi sometimes gives 80% for a dark patina and 90% for a light green patina)? The style of 90/100 corresponds with David Sear grading this as an "elegant portrait". But what on earth does a "coinage" of 90/100 mean in this context? Maybe the same thing that is called "strike" by NGC? Lastly, there is no provenance given but still a provenance grade of 60/100 listed. Coins that have a 21st century auction listing receive a 70/100. What would a coin need to receive 100% here? A century-old pedigree? Mine is from the Stöcklin collection, so maybe that would do for an 80/100 . What do you think about this grading system, as compared to NGC, for example?