Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Conder101, post: 872803, member: 66"]Since the ANA can be looked at as a recognized professional organization, (Charted by the US Congress), the ANA Grading Standards can be said to be an official industry standard.  That doesn't mean that everyone is going to use it. I also wish people would NOT call it "the Sheldon Grading Scale" because Sheldon NEVER created a grading scale.  The "Sheldon Scale" actually described a price ratio relationship between the different grades AS THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME. (The numbers had NOTHING to do with the grades themselves.  if you want to know why the numbers they used were chosen just ask and I'll be glad to explain it.) The grading "standards" already existed and you had to grade the coins accurately before you could apply the "Sheldon Scale" and the numbers were only intended to hold true for early date large cents.  They had no relationship to and did not apply to any other series. As to the the ANA and "Sheldon Scale" a bit of history. The ANA began authenticating coins (not grading) in April 1972.  At the time there were no "official" grading standards but the most commonly used reference were the standards published in James Ruddy's Photograde.  Standards were set forth in the book for AG, G, VG,F, VF, XF and AU coins. In May 1975 the ANA took the first steps towards producing an "Official" grading standard with the creation of a grading arbitration board to settle grading disputes between dealers and collctors.  In July of that year a Grading Task Force was created to create the official set of standards for each grade.  Work was done slowly with many starts and stops along the way. In July of 1977 Glen Smedly was appointed to head the final editing of the grading guide and it went to press in November of that year.  I do not know at what point in the process someone thought it would be a good idea to still the numbers used by EAC for the Early Large cents onto the grades in the official guide.  There was absolutely no reason to.  The numbers were not widely used by any firm other than Paramount, even for the large cents at the time.  (Even EAC had pretty much given up on them and they only hung on due to tradition.)  The numbers have absolutely no meaning other than an 8 is better than a 4, and a 12 is better than an 8 etc.  The numbers are NOT REALLY NUMBERS they are NAMES for the grade.  We had G, VG, Fine etc, now we had G-4, VG-8, and F-12.  It's like having three guys Tom, Dick , and Harry.  They are absolutely no different if you give their surnames as well Tom Smith, Dick Jones, and Harry Fields.  They are still the exact same people.  Remember the grades and the grade descriptions came first, the numbers were tacked on later as an after thought. The original grading standards only had three grades of Mint State, 60, 65, and 70 and 70 was considered to be more of a theoretical grade that would never be used in actual practice. In 1978 the ANA board gave ANACS permission to try a six month experiment applying grades to the coins being authenticated beginning on March 1st 1979.  This may have been the beginning of Third Party Grading in the US.  (It is possible that INSAB may have started a few months earlier.) MS-63 and 67 were officially added to the grading system in 1980 in response to pressure from the marketplace and the growing gap in prices between the MS-60 and 65 grades. By 1985 pressure was rising again for the addition of the MS-64 grade because of the rising gap between MS-63 and 65 but no action was taken. In Feb 1986 PCGS began operations using all eleven MS grades.  In July after meeting and discussion by the ANA Board about whether to add the MS-64 grade it was decided to go all out and adopt all eleven MS grade plus the addition of the AU-58 grade.  This marks the point at which all eleven MS grades became part of the "Official Grading Standards".[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches