F15/F16 Grade Designation

Wouldn't bother me any. But there are some real sticklers out there.

The Sheldon 70 point grading scale is archaic anyway. I actually prefer the British system the best. There's Fine, Very Fine, Extremely fine along with the qualifiers "about" and "good" for each grade, which translates to a +/-. So you end up with a scale that goes, about Fine (F-), Fine (F), good Fine (F+), about VF (VF-) etc. This is much more intuitive to me than the nearly meaningless numbers after the grade.

The systems seem fairly compatible to me....just depends if you speak "the Kings English" or "American English".

British Grade USA 70 point equivalent Notes
Poor P1
Fair F2
About Good AG3
Good G4 - G7
Very Good - About Fine VG8 - VG11
Fine F12 - F14
Fine+ to Good Fine F15 - F19
About Very Fine VF20 - VF24
Very Fine VF25 - VF30
Very Fine + VF31 - VF34
Good Very Fine - About Extremely Fine VF35 - VF39
Extremely Fine EF40 - EF44 Sometimes called 'XF40' not 'EF40'
Extremely Fine + EF45 - EF49 Sometimes called 'XF45' not 'EF45'
Good Extremely Fine AU50 - AU54 The lower American 'About Uncirculated' (AU) grades are allowed to have a little wear so this prevents them being a British AUNC.
Good Extremely Fine + AU55 - AU57
About Uncirculated AU58 - AU59
Uncirculated MS60 - MS62
Select/Choice Uncirculated MS63 - MS64
About Brilliant Uncirculated MS65 - MS66
Brilliant Uncirculated MS67 - MS69 Usually full lustre
FDC MS70 Unobtainable with mass produced coins.
Proof Proof Not a grade of course, but a specially stuck coin using special dies etc.

Good observation nonetheless my dear Watson.

This is the only F-16 of which I am aware.

In his 70 point grading system, Dr Sheldon was attempting to equate the value of Early Large Cents by using a numerical grade. To accomplish this he first determined the value of the various Cents in what he called "basal" state. This he defined as "identifiable and unmutilated". For basal state he assigned the numerical grade 1 (one). Everything from here on is predicated on the basal value. By examining auction records and dealer price lists, along with a little interpretation on his part, he determined that a coin grading "good" was worth four times basal so he assigned the numerical grade 4. For a coin grading "fine" he determined that it was valued at 12 times basal and assigned the numerical grade 12 and so on up to "perfect uncirculated" which he determined to be 70 times Basal. So in effect, the 70 point system was chosen because it provided the multipliers he needed for his system to work (in most cases) with regard to common dates and varieties that were readily available.

The mid points are coincidental, not meaningful within the original "muliplier" process. Fine 12 is the accurate math process he suggested. Deviating from perfectly useful and accepted norms is just perverse and needless as with some other questioning of nitpicking types.

Pity though that in our quest to stabilize intermediate grades, we can't also be vocal about stabilizing their prices. You would think a coin caught exactly inbetween two grades would be easily valued. That it should hold 50% of the ascent. Never happens.

Actually, I've always found this to be too simplistic. It depends on the nature of the pricing gaps.

If you look at Newfoundland, it is frequently the case there is a gap-up pricing between grades. For example, let's look at the trends of a 1882H 20c:

G-4: $11
VG-10: $18
F-12: $30
VF-20: $70
EF-40: $400
AU-50: $850

So, rather common looking pricing until suddenly the coin looks like it is a semi-key.

Now, why would a VF-30 be properly priced at exactly half way between VF-20 and EF-40? The market is clearly indicating a grade rarity difference exists between VF-20 and EF-40. So, you would think that it is possible the VF-30 should be much closer to EF-40 than VF-20.

Now, psychologically, it might be the letter grades are like $N.99 v. $(N+1).00 where people are willing to pay a major premium for EF-40, whereas they simply will not pay it for VF-35.