• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sheldon scale

28 posts in this topic

Much like it was when I was 14.

 

"I got a new Morgan today in BU condition!"

"Beat Up, right?" :grin:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much like it was when I was 14.

 

"I got a new Morgan today in BU condition!"

"Beat Up, right?" :grin:

 

 

Yes, I agree. The application of the Sheldon scale tightened up the language of grading, which was a good thing. Before the numbers, some dealers got to be too cute with the words they used to describe the state of preservation of their offerings. It was hard to understand what they meant, and usually what they met to do was to pump up over graded material. TPG expanded the coin market because collectors with less expertise felt more comfortable about buying more expensive material. It also brought in new collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Authentication has been a tremendous help. Grading was helped up to the point where companies started trying to differentiate single points - then it became an uncontrolled scheme.

MS 60, 63, 65, 67 offered discernable differences in surface marks for uncirculated coins, but all the intermediate numbers and stars and plusses and other things are just gimmicks.

 

Sheldon’s 70 pint scale was never intended to be linear or subdivided.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheldon’s 70 pint scale was never intended to be linear or subdivided.

 

The Sheldon scale was originally intended to be an evaluation tool for varieties of early large cent. In 1948 Sheldon came up with this “scientific method” set values on large cents in his first large cent book, Early American Cents . He theorized (although I’ve heard from those who knew that most things for him were not theories) that a badly worn, but attributable large cent (Basal State or BS-1) was worth 1/70th of a “perfect” Mint State piece. The scale, which was not linier, was set up for each grade level. There for a Fine-12 was worth twelve times as much as Basal State -1 piece, and EF-40, forty times, and so on.

 

It was obvious by 1958 when Sheldon published Penny Whimsy that the system was flawed, but he tried to jack it up anyway with multiplying factors for finest known and Mint State large cents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The largest abuse of Sheldon's very limited "system" was Virgil Hancock's insistence that it was somehow applicable to the condition of other coins. Now, we have this goofy rollercoaster set of numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think coin collecting would be like today without the Sheldon scale and the TPG's.

Honestly? Probably much more enjoyable.

 

For one thing, coins would be cheap, much cheaper than they are now, and that would allow me (personally) to own a lot more. For another thing, there would be far fewer people buying coins, with less demand meaning lower prices. And also, we collectors who like to gather 'round and talk coins would... talk coins, rather than argue endlessly and senselessly on whether this coin is better than that one by a point (or half a point, or a sticker, or a plus, or a designation, or grading service, ad nauseum).

 

And contrary to their own stated goals, I bet coin doctoring would be much less of a problem if there were no TPGs to act as a crutch for hyping coins.

 

It's nice to compare condition of coins from one example to another, when you have them to compare to each other. But the endless discourse about "grade" is pretty darned silly when you think about it, since it isn't even part of the coin, and is wholly subjective anyhow.

 

Oh well, I guess I could start up a paper cup collection by brand and type... but there's undoubtedly someone somewhere who grades and certifies them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The largest abuse of Sheldon's very limited "system" was Virgil Hancock's insistence that it was somehow applicable to the condition of other coins. Now, we have this goofy rollercoaster set of numbers.

 

The number grading system has never bothered me in the least. Back when it first appeared in the Paramount auction catalogs, circa 1973, I embraced it because it put some precision in the grading system. One need only to have read the old ads and auction catalogs to have known what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One may want to refine the OP's question and define TPG's, because as we all know, there are still TPG's out there that abuse the Sheldon Scale and what it stands for in order to benefit from the naive and the uninformed masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One may want to refine the OP's question and define TPG's, because as we all know, there are still TPG's out there that abuse the Sheldon Scale and what it stands for in order to benefit from the naive and the uninformed masses.

 

You mean like PCGS and NGC who claim that a MS 60 to 65 can have visible wear? Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not really those that you mentioned, I was thinking more along the lines of self slabbers and basement bargain slabbers who put high grades on every coin removed from a government package or *bump* grades by several points, then give you a well known price guide figure to go along with the inflated grade.

 

Several so-called companies come to mind, but not the ones you have mentioned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like PCGS and NGC who claim that a MS 60 to 65 can have visible wear?

 

I find this hard to believe. Can you provide documentation backing up your statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like PCGS and NGC who claim that a MS 60 to 65 can have visible wear?

 

I find this hard to believe. Can you provide documentation backing up your statement?

 

I think I've seen one MS-65 graded coin in a major certification company holder that I thought had wear on it in all my years as a dealer and a collector. As for the coins graded MS-60 to 62, seeing a coin with wear on it on one of those holders is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like PCGS and NGC who claim that a MS 60 to 65 can have visible wear?

 

I find this hard to believe. Can you provide documentation backing up your statement?

 

Although the 65 that I stated above was a typo--I meant 64--the following 3 coins were purchased in and then cracked out of PCGS/NGC slabs. (The 109 [second coin] was PCGS; the other 2 were NGC)

 

These

107O.jpg107R.jpg

109o.jpg109r.jpg

132o.jpg132r.jpg

 

Which is a 58? the 62? or the 64? In hand, all 3 show rub and should be AUs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the Sheldon scale is that as collectors have gotten heavier, the scale does not work as well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

 

If the world consisted only of planar surfaces I would agree with you here. However, many non-planar objects do indeed exist. Often the first sign of wear that I see is from the fields contacting non-planar fingers while being used in commerce.

 

Maybe bust halves were only used by sliding them across the bar to pay for a pint, but most coins see other types of use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Bust half dollar in my type set is in a PCGS MS-63 holder, and it's an AU-58 IMO. It's one of the few mistakes I've made over the last five or six years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

 

If the world consisted only of planar surfaces I would agree with you here. However, many non-planar objects do indeed exist. Often the first sign of wear that I see is from the fields contacting non-planar fingers while being used in commerce.

 

Maybe bust halves were only used by sliding them across the bar to pay for a pint, but most coins see other types of use.

 

No one said the last point of contact was the fields. But the fact remains that the posted definition of AU (both from the ANA and from both TGPs under discussion) is minor wear detectable on only the HIGHEST points of the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

 

If the world consisted only of planar surfaces I would agree with you here. However, many non-planar objects do indeed exist. Often the first sign of wear that I see is from the fields contacting non-planar fingers while being used in commerce.

 

Maybe bust halves were only used by sliding them across the bar to pay for a pint, but most coins see other types of use.

 

No one said the last point of contact was the fields. But the fact remains that the posted definition of AU (both from the ANA and from both TGPs under discussion) is minor wear detectable on only the HIGHEST points of the design.

 

The ANA definition is wrong. The fields count too. If the luster is impaired by a rub in the fields, the coin is not really Mint State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

 

If the world consisted only of planar surfaces I would agree with you here. However, many non-planar objects do indeed exist. Often the first sign of wear that I see is from the fields contacting non-planar fingers while being used in commerce.

 

Maybe bust halves were only used by sliding them across the bar to pay for a pint, but most coins see other types of use.

 

No one said the last point of contact was the fields. But the fact remains that the posted definition of AU (both from the ANA and from both TGPs under discussion) is minor wear detectable on only the HIGHEST points of the design.

 

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But posted grading guides are just that; guides. I haven't looked at the TPG's grading definitions but sometimes you have to allow for circumstances not covered.

 

If I have a coin that has luster breaks in the fields due to handling but I can't detect any wear on the high points I'm still going to call that coin an AU, probably an AU58. Would you call that coin MS or drop it down to EF since it can't be an AU?

 

Looking back at your original post, maybe you would call it an AU50 or AU53, but does that work with the posted definitions? Do they describe all four levels of AU and say which ones can have wear in the fields and which ones can only have wear on the high points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill's comment is consistent with what I learned to grade from Frank Katen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that an AU 55 to 58 can have wear in the lowest portion of the coin (ie, the fields) instead of merely on the highest points of the design?

 

If the world consisted only of planar surfaces I would agree with you here. However, many non-planar objects do indeed exist. Often the first sign of wear that I see is from the fields contacting non-planar fingers while being used in commerce.

 

Maybe bust halves were only used by sliding them across the bar to pay for a pint, but most coins see other types of use.

 

No one said the last point of contact was the fields. But the fact remains that the posted definition of AU (both from the ANA and from both TGPs under discussion) is minor wear detectable on only the HIGHEST points of the design.

 

Ok, I see where you are coming from. But posted grading guides are just that; guides. I haven't looked at the TPG's grading definitions but sometimes you have to allow for circumstances not covered.

 

If I have a coin that has luster breaks in the fields due to handling but I can't detect any wear on the high points I'm still going to call that coin an AU, probably an AU58. Would you call that coin MS or drop it down to EF since it can't be an AU?

 

Looking back at your original post, maybe you would call it an AU50 or AU53, but does that work with the posted definitions? Do they describe all four levels of AU and say which ones can have wear in the fields and which ones can only have wear on the high points?

 

According to the current posted definitions (and back in the day while I was learning to grade in reality also) it would be an EF. In today's market it would probably bring strong AU money, but market prices have nothing to do with actual grades. That's the major problem I have with the TPG market ranking coins rather than actually grading them. In other words, if it takes what the price lists say is AU-58 money to buy an EF coin then change the price lists not the standards for AU-58. The same with AU coins--if it takes MS 63 money (again, according to the sheet) to buy it then the sheet is wrong--not the standards for AU coins.

 

 

 

Gradeflation exists. Contrary to the conclusions one might easily come to based on my above posts I actually accept the fact and have learned to live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am of the opinion that acceptance of Sheldon's scale helped make this hobby more understandable for new comers in this field of study. Without it, it was like a Secret Society, and you had to be very active and well known in a very small circle of nerds who spoke in tongues with secret handshakes.

 

Than, some decided to fix a problem that really didn't exist and added all these additional " Fantasy " grades and created another secret circle , what we know of today , as Third Party Graders. To further complicate matters, as if there was room for that, now we have green beans, gold beans and sometimes you even see stars and other symbols. But as the Wise Man say's, " It is what it is " .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the Sheldon scale is that as collectors have gotten heavier, the scale does not work as well....

If those danged collectors would just take the time to wash and shave, they might not get so heavy. And if graders would do the same, maybe hairs wouldn't end up in slabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hairs in the holder ?

 

Happened mostly in the Year of the Rabbit....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the sheldon scale was not available/known/used then i think anx in the early 1980's ie. abe kosoff

 

and then adapted by ngc/pcgs in the later 1980's

 

would have come up with a 100 point scale and this would be used currently

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites