Bowers And Ruddy Morgan Dollar

I was hoping to stir this discussion along just a tad. I am learning a bit here...!

No. Keep in mind, in that day the concept of "MS70" could just as easily have been seen as "the finest-known coin of that type" as the "perfect" we consider today. The term was, in reality, undefined. Everybody in the industry was just beginning to wrap their minds around the concept of multiple grades for Uncirculated coins, much less 11 separate grades. MS60-MS70 numerically wasn't even a theory then. The Mint just didn't do stuff that good, and if they did, it was a matter of sheer luck. And a Proof strike. And collectors, as a whole, didn't differentiate. I would not trust a numerical grade from that era. Nobody had it locked down.

In 1978, the idea of a production car which made 500hp while offering a supple ride and ice-cold air conditioning would have had you put in an asylum. Today, half a dozen manufacturers can meet that threshold. Maybe more.

Things have evolved.

The Sheldon Scale, as defined by Sheldon, actually had essentially nothing to do with a coin's "condition." It was money-based. An MS70 coin was whatever condition achieved a price in the market equal to 70x a Basal State coin. 100% market-driven. It wasn't until the time period we're discussing that it was being shifted to reflect actual coin conditions - numeric representations of a coin's grade, and let the price fall where it may. Exactly opposite Sheldon's intent.

So, the whole concept of applying a number to describe a coin's actual appearance was kind of in its' infancy. I would contend that what was considered "MS-65" then might not have much resemblance to MS65 today, if only because that grade defined everything between what we'd call MS-63 to MS-68.

If you assume this coin is the same one listed on the invoice there are many possibilities. Most of them have been listed. I want to add one more.....over the last 30+ years the surface characteristics have been altered enough through storage and/or handling to change the grade.

Biokemist6 beat me to the punch, I too want to chime in that in the mid 70's there was not the "fine tuning" of the MS grades that has been thrust upon us in the last 2 decades by the TPGs and the price pressure that results from the slightest increase in assigned number. (and please don't get me started on the whole crack out and resub industry that has come about)
But I digress, my point is MS grades had different standards in the 70s. Here is a Redfield MS65 coin (sorry for the poor scan image)


Nice coin, original surfaces, minimal bag marks. Probably representative of the better coins in the Redfiled hoard (which by the way I read were all run through a counting machine...what were they thinking?) How would it grade today? I don't generally collect US coins anymore so I have no idea but if I sent it to the big three TPGs 6 times I bet I get at least 2 if not 3 different grades. I bought many coins from Bowers in the 70s and 80s and some were spot on for grade and some were under graded and some were over graded. I doubt he looked at every coin that past through his company on the low end of the price scale, you bought coins from him because you could be assured they were genuine and he had a "no questions asked" return policy. At coin shows dealers had stacks and rolls of Unc silver dollars and you could look through and cherry pick the one you wanted, same price on all of them. The coin that started this thread is a great coin and the Bowers receipt adds to the charm. Buy the coin because you like the coin enough to pay the price or don't buy the coin but splitting hairs over 65 or 66 or 64 in my humble opinion is a madness inflicted upon us by the TPGs.

I totally agree. However, I think we'd have gotten there with or without the TPG's - we're human. We're competitive. I want nicer stuff than you've got.

Knowledgeable numismatists have always looked for the nicer examples of what they're collecting. And we're compulsive researchers and record-keepers; it's in the DNA. We'd have found a way to split the hairs, even without TPG's to cram it down our throats.

Then again, TPG's were inevitable, as well. The only objection, IMO, is that they evolved as for-profit businesses. I strongly believe it's time for the ANA to get back into the grading business again.

I have no problems with the TPGs being for profit. I mean really, would YOU sit and grade coins all day every day for free? Of course you wouldnt. My complaints stem from the elitism shown for PCGS and NGC, but I have beat that horse plenty elsewhere. Ooooooooo, we need a beating a dead horse smiley!!!!!!

Anyway, I need to find the original system as written by Sheldon. I always thought it was pretty much the same as today only tweaked over time, not completely morphed as you said SD. That whole learn something new every day thing.

But if the Redfield grades were generally within one up or down, then I would say they were pretty much where we are today.