Should there be a linear 1-100 grading scale for US coins?

[RWB]

...possibly by scrapping the current confused mess and using better defined, evenly spaced intervals between adjectival descriptions?

[cpm9ball]

I'm sure the CAC would love the idea!

 

Chris

[BillJones]

In a word, NO. It would only be an excuse for the grading services to collect a lot more revenue.

 

Why are some people so hung up on a 100 point scale? If you are going to be a collector or a numismatist, learn the point system. It's not that hard.

[SkyMan]

As an aside did you know that the reason we use a 60 system for some of our accounting is because of the Babylonians?

 

In case you can't tell what I mean by a 60 system, just think of seconds in a minute and minutes in an hour.

[RWB]

I agree the 1-70 point system is not difficult to learn - it is simply confused and misleading. Examples: 11 uncirculated nuances (60--70); 8 digits to cover AG-G-VG; 15 digits for VF and so forth. At its core the Sheldon system is illogical, unnatural and corrupt (much like its instigator); but so is the "English" system of measurement in common USA usage and we all cling to it like an infant to mommy's teats.

 

Just hoping to promote some thought….that’s all.

 

[GoldFinger1969]

I agree the 1-70 point system is not difficult to learn - it is simply confused and misleading. Examples: 11 uncirculated nuances (60--70); 8 digits to cover AG-G-VG; 15 digits for VF and so forth. At its core the Sheldon system is illogical, unnatural and corrupt (much like its instigator); but so is the "English" system of measurement in common USA usage and we all cling to it like an infant to mommy's teats. Just hoping to promote some thought….that’s all.

100% agree....it's very easy to understand, we have movie ratings with 4 or 5 stars, I think knowing that the best coins are in the 60-70 range for Mint State is pretty easy to understand.

 

I don't know what constitutes a lot of qualifications for the lower rankings -- AU, EF, VF, F, etc. -- probably because I don't really collect coins in that range (sticking to DE's and Morgans for the most part). But it's not that difficult.

 

The last thing this hobby needs is a brand new competing grading system.

[coinman1794]

...possibly by scrapping the current confused mess and using better defined, evenly spaced intervals between adjectival descriptions?

 

The adapted Sheldon scale is fine for grades 1, 2, 3, & 4. The problem begins at 6 because there is only one easily definable step between 4 and 6, not two, as the numbering would suggest.

 

We do not need a 100 point scale to define just 30 current grades (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 53, 55, 58, 60-70), and I feel the confusion would be solved be simply re-numbering them from 1-30. Better yet, Circ. 1-19, MS 1-10.

 

[yonico]

we need to start using the metric system first, and Celsius temperature scale.

 

it is a lot easier.. easier to remember that water freeze at 0 degrees and boil at 100, rather than 32 and 212...

 

i agree that the 70-point system is not very hard to learn and not too complicated, but it sure is easier when a scale goes from 1 to 100. in any case, it is way too late to start a new grading system now...

 

 

 

P.S seems like this grading company beat you to the idea and is using a 1 to 100 grading scale..

weird, but no other way to justify these being MS66

they seem to also not mind any problem coin. whizzed? harshly cleaned? polished? bring it over

 

i feel like "MS66" is a customary grade they give to everything....

 

 

 

 

 

[Conder101]

POGS floated this boat several years ago discussing going to a 1-100 system. It was shot down. So they went with the + system and in house grade to a tenth of a point giving them 101 grades of MS.

 

There is one service that does use a 1-100 grading scale and that is CGS-UK in Great Britain. I don't know if they grade US coins though.

[RWB]

The rough suggestion does not envision any change in definition of an uncirculated subgrade - only a linear and decimal application.

 

[Hard Times]

NO

[AegisIII]

...possibly by scrapping the current confused mess and using better defined, evenly spaced intervals between adjectival descriptions?

 

I'm not sure that there are anything that can be understood as intervals in coin grading. I view numerical grades as abbreviations in numerical form of descriptive grades, and as such there is no real way to define how big of a gap there is between two grades. I also think a 100 point system is a bad idea, and only amplifies the problems of a 70 point system. The reason is that a 100 point system would mentally "feel" to be more of an objective measurement, and thus would further disguise the subjectivity inherent in coin grading, due to the multiple considerations of what we consider to reach a grade.

 

 

[AstroTrain]

Stay with 1-70...

My logic is on a scale of 1-70 a 65 is an A, if we change to 1-100 overnight I will have a bunch of D's because I'm not paying to regrade!!!

[RWB]

Ahhh....true grading on a curve

[Raisethis2]

Actually, what we really have is more like 50 usable graduations. Anything under Fine 15 pretty much belongs in the dreck pile and anything above MS 66 is damn near impossible. The practical grades are in the middle.

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

IMHO, I believe we can agree that the current grading of coins is subjective and not objective, ie an art and not a science. There are no objective standards to grade a coin.The grading variables that exist are subjective. Strike, Luster, Appealing or unappealing coloration are all based on the interpretations of the human eye. ANA guidelines, EAC guidelines, whatever, all are subjective. That being the case, any grading system, Sheldon, 1-100 etc. is limited by the subjective interpretations of the condition of any specific coin. Face it, no truly objective grading standards exist. Objective grading standards cannot exist when dealing with subjective grading conditions.

 

You can invent any seemingly objective standard you wish, but when you are attempting to quantify an elusive, subjective element--it just doesn't work.

 

Stick with Sheldon and continue the arguments. Shifting to any other "system" just changes the argument.

 

Carl

[dadams]

I've been at this a couple years now and have just really started to get the hang of the Sheldon Scale . . . now you want to go and change it! Sheesh.

 

 

Looks like RWB has “AnyGrade” or "AG" for short up and running:

OK…here’s the business outline –

 

It will be called “AnyGrade” or "AG" for short.

 

Collectors send coins and tell us what grade they want them. . . .

 

We’ll grade any coin or thing that looks like a coin – even the latest Chinese pieces.….

P.S seems like this grading company beat you to the idea and is using a 1 to 100 grading scale..

weird, but no other way to justify these being MS66

they seem to also not mind any problem coin. whizzed? harshly cleaned? polished? bring it over

 

i feel like "MS66" is a customary grade they give to everything....

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

...possibly by scrapping the current confused mess and using better defined, evenly spaced intervals between adjectival descriptions?

The factors that go into grading (many) coins are inherently multi-dimensional, not linear. For example, in a continuum of 1-100, how would you fit in an 1881-S dollar in MS-65 PL versus a MS-65 DMPL?

 

That said, I have informally worked out a two-dimensional system that might be suitable....

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

"Why are some people so hung up on a 100 point scale?"

 

I actually think it's a condition of the human being. People seem to like things in tens. The ten-based number system is just an easy system for us to work with; easy to multiply, easy to divide, etc.

[physics-fan3.14]

...possibly by scrapping the current confused mess and using better defined, evenly spaced intervals between adjectival descriptions?

The factors that go into grading (many) coins are inherently multi-dimensional, not linear. For example, in a continuum of 1-100, how would you fit in an 1881-S dollar in MS-65 PL versus a MS-65 DMPL?

 

That said, I have informally worked out a two-dimensional system that might be suitable....

 

The PL and DMPL designations, just like FBL, FSB, FT, etc, would probably continue to be modifiers like they are today. They wouldn't change the number. A 65 PL wouldn't become a 65.5 while a DMPL is a 65.7, for example - they are two separate things.

[WingedLiberty1]

18 Gradations of MS and PR grades between 60 and 70 implies there is accuracy to approximately 1/2 a point. Clearly this is not the case as if you sent the same MS or PR coin in to any service one hundred times, you would see a spread of grades of about 2 to 2.5 points. With this kind of inaccuracy in a single grade, it's dumb to use a system that implies a 0.5 point accuracy. I would rather have the TPG's use fewer numerical grades so the assigned grade stays more stable upon multiple submissions.

 

The system they have is sort of like a speedometer that reads 60.38459 MPH ... when the error on the speedometer is +/- 2.5 MPH

 

This is PCGS scale ... I am sure NGC's is about the same.

 

 

Honestly I like the idea of Circ grades of 1-19 and MS/PR grades of 20-30 as someone above suggested ... but there are still too many grade increments.

 

Honestly I dont care that much about the circulated grades and having 19 gradations is ok ...

 

But for MS/PR II would use whole grades in increments of 2 and just have 6 MS/PR grades ... 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30

 

In that kind of system its more likely that a coin would get the same grade if you submitted it multiple times.

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

The 100 point scale smacks of the metric system which I don't care for.

[RWB]

A "100 point scale" is silent -- like most of the letters in the French language....

 

How about a scale using only prime numbers supplimented by astrological signs and a secret handshake?

[BillJones]

I wish that the proposals for a 100 point grading system would go away ...

 

I have no desire to pay the grading services and the shipping companies a fortune to have my entire collection re-holdered because the grading numbering system has changed. I doubt that most collectors would like it.

[RWB]

I was not making a proposal - merely soliciting thoughts....Astrological signs could be added to current 1-70 usage: real stars?

[Nutmeg Coin]

One way to do a revamped system would be to expand the 70 point scale to a 700 point scale, with coins automatically earning a 10X their current grade with the potential for a better score: i.e. MS 60 has the potential for being an MS 609 and an MS64 has the potential for being an MS 649 if regraded, hence an incentive for a regrading with a guarantee of a minimum that is 10X the current grade. I realize this has no chance of reality in the current economic environment. But the grading services would make more $$$ on an expanded grading scale and probably their sales people could make it happen if they wanted it badly enough.

 

The 100 point scale is never going to happen. I could make many arguments against the pretentious metric system, with the snobbery that pushed hard for it in the ivory tower environments, it may be more convenient but is frankly irritating to try to make conversions all the time.

[RWB]

I think the point of any "system" of measurement is not to make conversions -- otherwise you risk crash landing on Mars.