The Sheldon scale...created by a theif?

The coin grading scale that we use everyday may have been created by a common, albeit well educated, thief. He also liked, it appears, to "type" things other than coins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/434955/the-truth-about-dr-william-h-sheldon

 

After reading the second link it seems Sheldon would have been the type of person who would have done well in the older sanitariums. Judging people by their looks and body mass, he probably would have had most who did not fit into his idea of normal under the knife for a frontal lobotomy.

 

Imagine Sheldon working with Nurse Ratchet and meeting up with McMurphy in the Cuckoos Nest!

 

Thanks @green18 it's amazing what studying numismatics will learn ya! Had no clue what somatotype was until today!

 

His system must be replaced

 

And here we are, still waiting.....

 

Nobody makes the connection that cannot be avoided. During the same era when all these completely discredited theories were taken seriously, we also assumed it was necessary for currencies to have precious metal backing them. We now decry those theories yet we (the coin community) still cling to our now discredited theories on currencies. Why are we so selective? Science, even social science, maybe especially that kind of science, needs ALL its past beliefs questioned hard and closely. Why don't we want to do it and selectively long for that particular paleo-belief? Precious metal backed currency is every bit as discredited as eugenics is. We need to grow up.

 

If that shocks you don't read up on Breen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Breen

 

No idea why he still gets recognized

 

Someone or maybe many of us should challenge the Sheldon system by getting the trade papers to do an expose on his background. A good question for Dave Harper of Numismatic News. Not only should the Sheldon system buckle at the knees but every other confounding grading system for every collectible, comics, postcards, stamps, all of them. I was perfectly happy with the old system of learning to grade myself the old fashioned way, no numerical system involved. It was straight forward, easy to understand and respected for a very long time. But what would replace the Sheldon system? Probably and likely something much worse like the 100 point system that has been bandied about for years. The only people who would make money would be the TPG's.

 

Thanks for the link, read it, and now I'm certain he was a nut case and thief.

 

Because he was arguably, with David Bowers, the most prolific numismatist of his generation.

Personally, I dislike judging people's professional work by their private deeds, it amounts to an ad hominem attack. For the record, Sheldon and Breen's numismatic contributions are both a mixed bag. Sheldon's grading scale is awful but his early copper work still stands up. Breen's breadth is impressive, but he was more than willing to ignore the difference between speculation and fact.

@V. Kurt Bellman, very interesting points. I have a slightly different take away message from that era of social science thought, and it ties in with the Sheldon grading scale. Remember that the scale was originally meant as a value scale more than a grade scale. The value of a coin was simply the basal value multiplied by the numeric grade, so a coin graded 20 with a basal value of $2 had a value of $40 while the same coin in a 12 was valued at $24.

This was the same approach he used in his medical work, trying to compare easily recognized features and force them to have deeper, more meaningful, connections. The problem is, social science is good at finding correlations but not as good at finding causation. Combine this with our brains bias towards pattern recognition and narrative, and you can end up with a lot of garbage passing for knowledge.

 

Anything that completely overturned the current grading system would be the death of the hobby. Too much value would be lost which would chase a large portion of collectors away, and another large group would leave for having to learn to grade all over again. Pretty much the only collectors left at that point would be people collecting pocket change for the love of it, but no matter how much someone loves a hobby if you take a huge hit in value because the entire system was turned on it's head or risk taking a huge hit that love can quickly turn to resentment. The current system is here for the long haul. It can be tweeked and improved, but not completely dismantled

Breen was prolific yes in terms of volume of material he put out and that's about all he was good for in my opinion. He was and is known to have made things up or say anything when he needed money. If his work couldn't be challenged I would agree, but when you have to double check his work to make sure it was actually accurate it holds no value as a reference. In the end we know that his work was a reflection of him as a person, complete lack or morals and integrity.

Sheldon was what he was but his system is here to stay and that's fine. Breen is completely different story though. Researchers have to be trustworthy and be trying to find the truth, not just saying things to fill books to try and make money. I won't bother to ever touch or read anything Breen did, it's to much work to have to make sure it wasn't made up.

 

He was very controversial to say the least...his grading scale, came at the right time I guess.

 

Both men were good for the hobby and I have to respect the work they did. It's tough to respect them as a person because of the stuff they did.

 

Did he have a "thing" with the number 7? (from the articles)
And that's why the scale goes from 1-70?
Too late to switch to a decimal 1-100 scale, this is the scale we have, and it's not going anywhere.
He and Shockley and Hitler had similar "theories".

 

I have a very simple grading system. I either like the coin or I don't. If I like it, the question then becomes, what am I willing to pay for it or even can I afford it. I might look at the posted grade, but only as a reference point. Such as, if the vendor has an EF grade on a VF coin he is very likely to have an EF price on it. A collector should try to be as knowledgeable about grading as well as any other aspect of his interest as he or she possibly can. That way the collector can either avoid or profit from the mistakes made by others.

 

That's the very definition of the ad hominem fallacy.

If there's a problem with a system, attack the system, not the person who invented it.

If there's a problem with a person, attack the person, but don't treat it as an attack on the system the person invented.

Also, "beating a dead horse" (or numismatist) isn't a logical fallacy, but it is unproductive.

 

Sheldon's "research" into psychology was pseudoscience. It was also very influential for a long time. I recall an exhibit (at the Smithsonian, I believe) on somatotypes long after the notion had been debunked in the field.

The Sheldon system was never intended to be a grading system. It was a PRICING system, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than large cents from 1793-1814. We can blame the ANA and dealers for telling everyone it is a grading system and using it for other types with then intent that people will believe coin grading is quantitative. It is not, and it can never be.

Though he called it "a science of cent values," his pricing scale was also pseudoscience. It had zero predictive ability, and scientific theories must have predictive ability.

There was an article on Sheldon in The Numismatist not too long ago that excessively praised him for both his numismatic and psychological study. It was heavily rebutted by several prominent early copper specialists. The Numismatist was embarrassed. Specialists in the systems he studied know the truth.