It appears grading standards differ around the world.

One of the news headlines on the NGC home page reads ?Important Polish Auction Includes Hundreds of NGC-Certified Coins?. Yes this is a publicity opportunity for NGC and this is not the first world auction to host large quantities of NGC-certified coins. To me however, this is a very important step in the international standardization of coin grades. Those of us that spend a lot of time on eBay bidding or just looking to checkout the market have seen the number of world coins in NGC, PCGS and other holders routinely increasing. Many of these are US sellers but there are numerous world sellers also using these grading services. From my point of view, I can not stress how important this development is to me because I truly believe grading standards differ around the world.

For example, I have an old handbook from Seaby?s (England). And just like the Red Book it gives guidance on what a coin should look like in each grade. How do you think an AU is described? In this book it was described as an uncirculated coin that is not very pleasing to the eye!!!!!!! That is right in order for the coin to be AU it must first be UNC. This AU would most likely equate to our MS-60, 61 or 62. I offer my 1915 MS-62 Barber Quarter as an example of a coin that I really believe would be graded AU in England using this definition.

Further I was once told by some I respected a lot, that a European FDC equates to no less than an MS-65 in the US. However, if you go to a (KM) Standard Catalogue of World Coins they equate an ?UNC? to FDC. Well it is my understanding a simple UNC equates to only an MS-60 to 62. And if FDC were to only equate to our UNC, what term(s) do they use that compare to our Ch. UNC and Gem UNC? Simply, I think KM has it totally wrong.

So in summary I believe we have

US MS-60, 61 & 62

Other places = AU

US MS-63 & 64

Other Places = ?

US MS-65

Other Places = FDC

If these are in fact real differences then it must follow that there are differences in the lower grades.

I am not going into details here but believe me because of these differences in grading standards I have netted some real windfalls buying US coins from sellers/dealers overseas and having them certified here in the US. Also be aware this situation works the other way in that a coin from England (for example) certified here in the US might not be accepted in England at that same grade. So if you buy a certified English coin (for example) and pay for it using the Spinks Catalogue as a guide, you may have overpaid and may never get your money back during your lifetime.

Differences between grading standards is a concern to me but there are other problem areas. There may also be problems with grading terminology. In England there appears to be a new grading service called the CGS (Coin Grading Service) of the UK. I was checking out some of their coins listed on eBay. They use a 100 point grading system. What do you expect a coin graded UNC-88 to be? Well believe it or not the label said it was a Proof but the grade was UNC??? Also I have had experience with a major Auction House in Australia using the term MS for circulated coins, i.e., MS-50 instead of AU-50. They may have been confused by the NGC or PCGS grading forms which ask to you designate ?MS? or ?PF?.

Such problems with terminology are not limited to just countries outside the US. We really very seldom use just the term ?UNC?. We typically start the lowest grades of Uncirculated with BU (Brilliant Uncirculated even if the coin is not brilliant) and not simply the designation ?UNC?. In effect UNC and BU are the same even though the Red Book does not recognize the designator ?BU?. Then we have the KM Standard Catalogue of World Coins that use UNC as the low end of Uncirculated and the BU as the next step up. So here BU is better than UNC but then again BU is a term not recognized in the Red Book. I think everyone agrees the second highest level of Uncirculated is Choice UNC or Choice BU but the Standard catalogue of World Coins did not opt to use this designation. Can you imagine someone overseas with a Standard Catalogue of World Coins trying to figure out what is what? We use UNC, BU, Ch BU, Ch UNC, Gem BU, Gem UNC and Superb BU or UNC.

However, one area that drives me up the wall is that overseas cleaned coins apparently are totally acceptability to the point that this condition need not be stated in auction descriptions. I am not talking about someone in Europe selling off their coins on eBay I am talking well known auction houses. I tell you from personal experience there is a 50/50 chance that a coin bought from Europe has been cleaned and I would say there is a 3 out 4 chance a coin bought from Australia has been cleaned. I can only hope that overseas grading service will be as diligent in designating impaired coins as are US services, but based on what I have seen on eBay I do not believe this is the case.

This is the 21st century. With the internet the world is becoming smaller and someone like me sitting at a computer can sell something to anyone around the world. I have sold coins to every continent except Antarctica. I think it is time the numismatic communities around the world start working together to standardize as much as possible of the basic concepts related to grading and describing numismatic related items. Ideally I would love for the world to come together with one universal grading standard but that is not at the top of my list. Here is my priority list.

1 ? Agreement on what constitutes an impaired coin and agreement that these impairments be listed on any grading label or in any auction description. This would include what constitutes a cleaned coin.

2 ? A standardized chart should be developed for inclusion in all numismatic handbooks and reference catalogues. This would be similar to the one in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins but then again different. The chart currently in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins is intended to show what term in other countries corresponds to a given term used here in the US. For example EF in the US would be designated 01 in Denmark. The problem that results is that this does not mean the detail on our EF coin equates to that on a 01 coin in Denmark. Just like my MS-62 quarter would never be considered a FDC in countries that use that term regardless of what the Standard Catalogue says. The chart I would like to see would equate grades of similar detail and would be jointly developed by an international team of numismatists that are recognized within their own country as true numismatic experts.

3 ? A world wide standardized grading system. If this was to come about the item 2 above might not be needed.

So yes I would like an internationally accepted grading standard developed and I think NGC and PCGS should be part of whatever organization is formed to develop that standard.