Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;halfcent1793, post: 2805266, member: 86853&quot;]Sheldon&#039;s &quot;research&quot; 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. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Sheldon system was never intended to be a grading system. It was a <i><b>PRICING</b></i> 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. </p><p><br /></p><p>Though he called it &quot;a science of cent values,&quot; his pricing scale was also pseudoscience. It had zero predictive ability, and scientific theories must have predictive ability.</p><p><br /></p><p>There was an article on Sheldon in The <i>Numismatist</i> 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 <i>Numismatist</i> was embarrassed. Specialists in the systems he studied know the truth.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in