Who is in favour of the 7 Point grading system?

Personally,I have always been in favour of the 7 Point grading system.It
is the system that we are very familiar with over here in New Zealand.

G. - Good.
VG. - Very Good.
F. - Fine.
VF. - Very Fine.
EF. (or XF) - Extremely Fine.
Unc. - Uncirculated.
BU. - Brilliant Uncirculated.

Sometimes we use the terms 'Proof-like' & 'Proof' as well,even though these are not really grades as such,but ways of striking.

Are you,the members in favour of the 7 Point grading system? If you are either in favour or not in favour,please cast your vote in the poll & post your reason(s) for your choice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not in favor. There's a lot of room between XF and Unc. It is good to be able to pigeon hole coins into these broad categories but I belive there is good reason to have a more continuous scale (as opposed to this discontinuous one)

 

Here in New Zealand,we do not understand the grades such as 'MS-65' & 'MS-67',so that is why the 7 Point grading system is so familiar.To me,it is
a much simpler way of working out the condition of a piece.I don't understand why Canadian coins are not graded on a simple system.

 

Well I voted yes because I think I would like it that way....

Back a long time ago that is how US coins were graded and I think that it might be good to go back to that.

Now don't take me wrong...MS grades are fine but I kind of like it the old way.

Speedy

 

Nope, not for me...there is too much room between VF to EF to AU to MS, etc.

Wait...maybe I will change my mind if somebody wants to buy my coin and I deem it AU58 instead of AU50. When I am buying, I like the seven point system if I can buy the same coin at AU50 dollars instead of AU58.

Numbers are quantitative! Adjectives have too much room. For instance, when I buy gasoline, I buy either 87, 89 or 93 octane. Now I have seen octane levels at 88, 90, 91 and 94 too! This is when oil companies advertise SU2000+ or Super Clean Plus or whatever. Call it whatever you want, I WANT NUMBERS!! 2+2 = 4...there is NO other answer.

Since we are judging grades and offering a subjective opinion, could you imagine if figure skating, diving, or other Olympic events had a 7 point grading scale? We would have "judging scores" of:

-Poor performance
-Not good
-O.K.
-Not bad
-Pretty good
-Excellent
-Perfect

Well, a 6.0 is better than a 5.9 and I understand that better than "grades" of "not bad" versus "pretty good"!

Dr. Sheldon put numbers to grading almost 30 years before grading services entered the numismatic community. Numbers work!

Let the debate begin!

 

The 7 point grading system would SIMPLIFY things but would probably put the grading services out of business. Collectors and investors who are in the hobby for the big bucks would never go along with this simple scale as there is to much money at stake here! With the MS system a simple point or grade can be the difference of hundreds of dollars so I can understand why so many would be against this 7 point system. I, myself, being an old school collector (30 years) find myself basically using AG, G, F, VF, EF, AU and UNC so what does that tell you? Throw in PR and I am set to go!

 

Seems logical.

I'd like to see AG (About Good) used to describe coins that are barely recognizable.

AU (About Uncirculated) used to describe coins that have only a slight amount of wear.

Ch. or Gem BU used to describe coins that are remarkably well struck and having few, if any, blemishes.

But, as stated, this would make it too easy for collectors, and would eliminate the demand for TPG's.

 

I am in favor of the 70 point system currently in use in the U.S. The main problem with the 7 point system is that you can take a group of 100 coins from any one of these grades and line them up from best to worst. They would all be the appropriate grade, but there would be a significant difference between the best and worst from this group. The 70 point system attempts to close the gap between these differences.

Not that it's a perfect system because of the human element involved in the decision of which of the 100 coins would go where, but it's a start.

I've purchased a few EF coins from Australian coin dealers and I was very happy withi the grades, most would grade AU in the U.S.

 

Anything that eliminates numbers then i'm for it, never liked numbers, never liked maths.

If switching to a 7 point grade system puts grading companies out of business, then i'm all the more for it. What are we waiting for switch now! Bye bye slabs!

The one thing i hate most about the coin collecting sphere is what i'd call 'commercial consumerism', people cashing in and making money on the industry. Yes i realise dealers are making money, but some one has to sell you the coins. But i think third party grading, national mints cashing in on the hobby by producing countless forced commemoratives, commemorating pure drivel for the sake of the mint making money. Look at some of these commems and sets, available in about 3 or 4 different types of packaging, so that if you want the full set you have to get all the diffeent packaging, then there's the coins being struck in a wide variety of different alloys, gold versions, silver versions, proof versions, BU versions, VIP proof version with leather case, delux BU set with commem, delux without, delux in silver with, piedfort proof... the list of junk goes on and on.

Well all that's for commercialism, likewise i think a 70 point grading system makes more fuss out of grade and $$$ of the coin, than the beauty and history of the coin. Who cares about the extra high grade as long as the coin looks nice and fits in with the rest in your set?

I realise grading is something we have to live with unfortunately, but i'd rather have less than more. I depends it all comes down to whether you view yourself as a buyer or a seller.

I am a buyer, when i buy a coin i don't give two hoots what it'll sell for later, i buy to keep, not to resell for a profit. If a VF coin fits in my set, and looks the part, in the set it goes.

And i practice what i preach cos i will buy overpriced coins if it has the look and the history. Money comes, money goes, but there is one sure thing, you can't take any of it with you, so why worry about it? Buy the coins you like whilst you can, you can't buy them when you're dead no more than the money you saved will give you any pleasure. I once had a great great uncle who was tightfisted, scraped butter onto the bread and scrapped off more than he put on, he saved all his life, counted every penny, and when he died, my aunt inherited half of it and blew the whole lot in a month. The money he'd work so hard to protect and hoard for 90 years did him no good, he got no joy out of it.


So if you make a profit it's plus, if you overspend by $50 (like i just did), who cares? My monthly bus pass costs me $75 more than that and i get less fulfilment or joy out of it. So if a 70 point system drives up the prices (and it does), then why keep it? I'd rather have cheaper coins to buy.

 

I like Syl's comment. Collecting ancients, it is nice to just use simple grades with adjectives when needed. I have a Canadian catalog from the early 60s that uses 8-9 grades, though I'd disagree on the "G". (The G in the book is basically the modern British "fair" which can range from AG to VG)

 

I suppose we are biased because of what we collect. You collect ancients, i collect hammered coins of the 12th-16th centuries. To us it's less about grade and all about history, eye appeal, a nice strike, well centred with as little damage or clipping/chipping as possible. Although damage can be a bonus in some circumstances, if it's of an historical nature.

 

Australian Grading

The Australian grading adds just a few more grades but it makes it much easier that 70
see below
GRADING STANDARD

For Australian Circulation Type Commonwealth Coins

FDC: “Fleur De Coin” French: Flower of the Die- PROOF
A Perfect or virtually perfect coin. Fully struck up. No Contact- or other Detracting Marks visible with the naked eye, and only minute superficial imperfections, relating to the manufacturing process rather than any other cause, may be visible under magnification. Fully Lustre or Mint Bloom is present. Toning on Silver coins (if present) must be attractive. Brilliance (Color) on Bronze Coins should be 90% plus. Eye Appeal is outstanding. Rarely available, with most early dates of George V never seen this nice.

Brilliant Uncirculated (BU)
A coin of this grade will show no blemishes or sign of wear. The design and legend will appear sharper than the average, a result of early mintage. Full mint luster will be seen over all the coin, sometimes giving the effect of a proof-like finish.

Brilliant Uncirculated
Also referred to as FDC (Fleur de Coin - flower of the die). Although struck with normal dies, a coin described as BU is pristine, almost prooflike in appearance, being perfectly sharp, absolutely flawless and showing no signs of wear or bag marks. On the US grading scale, such a coin is described as MS-65. Grading at this superior level has become more complex in recent years with distinctions being made in many catalogs between (from highest to lowest state of preservation) - FDC, GEM Uncirculated and Choice
GEM: GEM Uncirculated
A superior coin with an almost perfect Strike. May show just a few minute Contact Marks, barley visible to the naked eye. Virtually Full Lustre or Mint Bloom is present. Degree of Brilliance (Color) on Bronze Coins may be expressed in per cent (%). Thus, GEM-50%B refers to a coin with half its Brilliance still intact. Overall, exceptional Eye Appeal is present.

CHU: Choice Uncirculated
A fairly good Strike, but some weakness in this area is acceptable. If seemingly excessive but common for type, then this may be mentioned separately. Just a few but relatively insignificant Contact Marks may be present. Better than average Mint Bloom or Lustre should be apparent. Remaining Brilliance on Bronze Coins should be expressed in per cent (%). Pleasant Eye Appeal.

UNC: Uncirculated- Typical
Possibly but not always a Weak Strike. A few scattered Contact Marks, but if of a fairly eye catching or serious nature, this should be mentioned separately. Lustre or Mint Bloom may be present, but possibly be subdued. Some minor rubbing or Cabinet Friction (from storing coins) may be tolerable, but must not be obvious wear. Limited Eye Appeal may still be apparent, but unattractive toning should be separately mentioned. Brilliance on Bronze expressed in per cent (%).
NOTE: From this grade on and below, quality of Strike should not be of great significance when considering grade, but may be mentioned separately if excessively inferior, as it may slightly affect value.
aUNC: almost Uncirculated
Similar in most respects to UNC but with light traces of Wear on the highest points of the design. A fair degree of lustre or Mint bloom may still remain. Important Note: Coins graded aUNC due to light Wear may be visually more attractive than others graded UNC. Reasons for this may be a better Strike or fewer Contact Marks. However, light Wear results in aUNC.

gEF: good Extra Fine
Shows a little more Wear (2%-5%) on the high points of the design. Usually features non-serious Contact Marks, obvious from circulation. Lustre still possible, but more likely found in protected areas. Reasonable Eye Appeal should still be present.
NOTE: For circulated coins, exceptional Eye Appeal may lift the grade by 1/3 of a point say EF to gEF; or aVF to VF. Alternatively, particularly unattractive coins should be downgraded by a similar margin.

EF: Extra Five
Light overall Wear, (5% to 10%) from the high points of the design. A few more Contact Marks than for gEF, (but still nothing serious) may be apparent. Centre pearls on the Obverse of George V coins are strong and divided, except with 3 Pence, where small size may prevent detail. Traces of Lustre still possible in protected areas. A pleasant but obviously used coin.

aEF: almost Extra Fine
Wear is now around 10% to 15%. Lightly scattered Contact Marks are obvious. Hairlines on George VI coins and Centre pearls on George V Obverse quite strong, though some allowance must be made for small Three Pence. Overall, a pleasant but circulated coin.

gVF: good Very Fine
Wear is now around 15% to 20% from the highest points of the design. Contact Marks are obvious but still not serious. Centre pearls on George V coins may just blend together or be marginally apart in a strong strike. A very acceptable condition for collectors.

VF: Very Fine
Wear is around 20% to 35% from the highest points of the design. George V coins should feature a full outline of the Centre Diamond on the Obverse. Contact Marks are moderate but no more than for a coin that has seen average circulation. Significant Contact Marks must still be mentioned separately. In most instances, this is the lowest grade a serious collector should accept.

Fine: Fine
Wear now is around 35% to 50% form the high points of the design. Intricate details are well worn away. Coin may still have a pleasant but well used appearance.

VG: Very Good
Wear may be uneven and is 50% to 75% from the high points of the main design. However, all outline of the design are still fairly raised and intact.

GOOD: Good
Wear is above 75% to 90% form the high points of the design. All Outline of the design is still apparent, though marginally so in some areas. For the true blue collector on a budget.

 

The British Standard,. this is how much an average British catalogue will bother with the issue of grading. Coincraft's description as thusly follows;

UNC - There is no wear on the high points, but may not be fully struck. Copper/broze may or may not have lustre.

EF - Wear on highest points only, may be lustre

VF - Details clear, wear on high points most detail shows clearly

F - Details starting to take shape

VG - Coin readable, finer details there.

G - Lettering there, date easy to read

Fair - you can easily identify the coin

Poor - nearly a blank disc, but you can identify the coin to a type.


As for Seaby's descriptions;

FDC - Flawless, unused, no wear, scratches or marks, usually only applied to proofs.

UNC - Coin as new from the mint, not necessarily perfect.

EF - Little sign of circulation, faint wear on highest points.

VF - Some wear on raised surfaces, limited circulation

F - Considerable wear

Fair - Coin worn, but main features and inscription still distinguishable

Poor - Very worn, no collector value unless extremely rare.


They usually also give pictures of three coins, in this case an Edward III groat, a Geo. II Halfcrown and a Victorian Halfcrown in three grades, F, VF and EF.

And this is typical of British catalogues, the Coincraft doesn't even give pictures. The only way you can learn to grade UK coins is by going out and doing the field work and handling as many specimens as possible from all across the grading spectrum. You have to handle and see the highest grade specimens possible and work the rest out from there.

Thee's no book to describe it, you just have to know the coin designs, and how they wear, where the high points are and where things go first.

So Charles II sixpences for instance (i've never seen a grading guide illustrating a Chas. II coin) but i've had to figure it out for myself based on what i've seen. The laurels in the hair nearest the ear are the first to go.

 

The physical wear on a coin cannot be visually measured. There are an infinite number or points of wear from when the coin is first struck to when its no longer recognizable as a coin. Therefore, we are creating artificial bins to divide visually discernable stages of this wear into convenient categories.

A silly but accurate analogy is feet vs shoes. Given a person's foot, what shoe size (grade) would you assign it if there were only three choices, small, medium and large? Most everybody could visually grade feet accurately in that system (but not very precisely). Now try visually grading the size of person's foot using the sizes 1 to 13 with 1/2 incriments. We could get close (more precise) but would probably disagree on some (less accurate).

With only 7 bins, a wider range of coin wear would be put into each category. With 70 bins, it may not be possible to distinguish between adjacent bins.

One way to overcome this is to use precise and accurate objective measurement of wear. This leaves out subjective virtues such as eye appeal and will probably not be embraced by the hobby.

Another way is to use a "floating bin" system. For example in the 70 point system I would say the coin is a 32 plus/minus 5.

My point is that grading is subjective, based on visual observation, and not likely to be treated scientifically any time soon. Till then, just recognize that which ever system we use, is up to us and is not necessarily more correct than another.

 

Good points pcrdnadave. I am 6'5" and wear size 13.5 shoes. Now after size 12, shoe stores chuck the half sizes. I have to try a number of shoes on between 13 and 14 to get a pair that fits.

I am glad shoes are not sold as petite, small, average, large, "water skies", because there is too much room between one "grade" versus the other. Just like the octane levels when you buy gasoline...if I want 93 octance, that's what I want. If Amoco Premium measures out to only 92, then I am not happy. Market the gasoline anyway you want, I still am going to look at the octane levels first before I fill up.

Also the Sheldon scale first came out in 1949. Let's see...PCGS didn't slab there first coin till 1986. NGC followed a year later. Nope, can't agree that the Sheldon Scale was attributed to those nasty "slabbers". They just used a scale that made sense because grades were quantified instead of a subjective desciptive terms like: slightest, faint, sharp, etc.

Sure we not agree with the graders, but chances are the TPG's grading is +/- one Sheldon point compared to something defined as Gem or Gem Plus.

 

I am absolutely not in favor. The 70 point system imparts much more information. If I have a collection of MS-67 coins (which under a seven point system is BU) I'm not going to be happy paying MS-67 money for another BU coin that shows up as MS-63.

I think the idea is to be as informative as possible without going to such extremes (like 1 1000-point system) that it is impossible to discern the differences.

There's nothing to stop you from designating your own coins with the 7-point system, while those who find the 70-point system preferrable can continue to use it.

 

I voted yes although about every country in europe has a different interpretation of the grading
For instance FDC means fleur de coin and is litteraly the flower coming out of the die
Whatever crossreference you use , it is difficult to imagine something better then FDC
Uncirculated the Germans use two grades StrikeLustre and Bankfresh
The wording says it all ( Stempelglanz und Bankfrisch )
In the XF or EF category I had a discussion with an American coindealer
( he is my penpal ) I showed a picture of a Superb 20 FF gold coin with about 50 % mintlustre left and he said that to him it was not EF because of the 36 or so leafs on the reverse one leaf had the central line in it missing ( it was the high point of the reverse ) and something missing makes it VF
He also says he has often seen beautifull MS 60 and ugly MS 62 coins
So in the end you have to define in what grade the coin is on your own scale especially here in europe were virtually no coin is slabbed
And then pay for what it is worth in your own opinion

 

Grading Standards

Collectors and dealers will always see a coin in the light favoring them. Regardless of the grading system used. This is the nature of collecting.

I think that the indusrty's attempt at making grading a scientific perfection has failed. I'm for accepting the basic 7 grades of circulated coins with the addition of AU. I'm in favor of using only 3 Grades of MS coins -- Uncirculated., Brillant Uncirculated, Gem Uncirculated. These would match current MS-60, MS-63, MS-65.

Next make sure both dealer and collector understand that these are the grading standards. Now everyone knows what is expected. If there is a disagreement in grade they can break out the book and talk about the grade.

catman

 

Just to avoid any confusion, Dr. Sheldon's system for grading Large cents, bears little, if any resemblence to todays Market grading system, especially when it comes to uncirculated coins.

 

I voted no, I like and prefer current 70 scale system mainly because I believe it's a more accurate way to show a coins wear. Granted it is a human who decided it's grade, but doesn't that also go for the 7 point system?? You might think it is a "pretty good" coin where as I believe it is an "excellent" condition?? You see? We being humans there will never be 100% agreement between peoples no matter what system you use--