Terms That Annoy Me: BU, Gem BU, Choice BU

I understand where everyone is coming from. A great analogy would be Metric Units vs. Standard Units of measurement. I have no clue why USA is stuck on the standard units system. It's overly complicate and makes no sense. Metric units make complete sense and are very simple. I wouldn't be surprised if USA adopted the metric system in the next 50 years. However, it's not going to happen in the near future as the people in most fields that use these systems were taught using the standard system and will continue to use that system until forced to change. It's only natural to resist change that goes against what you believe. The same is true for coin grading. If you were taught using the BU/Choice/Gem methodology you see no reason to use the Sheldon Scale.

Sap, if you moved to the USA would you continue using the Australian grading scale but trade locally with people who used the USA TPG's scale? If you continued using your scale while trading locally do you think issues would arise? If I bought from you often I would catch on to how you grade vs. what I expect from each grade and adjust my prices accordingly. That's what I'm doing with most sellers who use the older system in lieu of the Sheldon Scale. That doesn't make things impossible but with every hoop that must be jumped through buyer confidence is lost and the odds of a disagreement increase. To reduce those disagreements and increase buyer confidence the same language must be spoken. If I order two yards of rope and you give me one meter I won't be happy. If you give me two meters I'll think I've been shorted slightly but deal with it. That is why the Sheldon Scale came into existence.

@eBay: you can use the sheldon scale but you can't use it the corresponding numbers. I can define a coin as XF-AU range. I can define a coin as MS and use flashy words. I can't say MS-67 without having a top tier TGP support my statement. I do think it's a bit silly but I see why the rule is in place.

@Sheldon Scale isn't the best: This isn't about what the "best" method for grading is. This is about communication. If describing a MS-60 coin as BU is of greater value to buyers than calling it MS-60 then the market will shift to support that decision. I don't care what system is used as long as it's concise and consistent with what everyone follows. If two scales are being used you've introduced two levels of inconsistency: the grader and the systems. If the same system is used then only the graders can vary.

?...never implied anyone was ignorant or stupid.






Precisely!

Given that there are 10 points on the MS scale, it is very difficult to get agreement as to whether a coin is MS-63 or MS-64, for example. The difference in grades is so fine, it becomes a judgement call at some point. I don't even trust that if a TPG says MS-64 it is MS-64, much less a dealer who is even less experienced grading. So, in some ways I prefer the terms BU, Choice, Gem, etc. because it acknowledges the fact that "I am not 100% certain of the MS grade".

Case in point, I was recently at my local dealer looking at an MS 1928-S Lincoln. A tough date. It was raw and marked MS-64 RB. I inquired about the price and the dealer said "hmmm, wow - there's a big jump between grades here." I think he almost didn't want to even tell me the price but I said "what are you looking at on that one" and he said "$600" in a tone that said "no way are you going to go for that" (he was right). He said "if it was a 63, it would have been $120".

So - here we are - and I could very easily have said "well, it is a 63" but then it is my opinion against his and who really can say who is right? My guess is that coin sits in the case for a long time at the 64 price point though. Call it "choice" instead and maybe there's a deal we could have worked out as I think the coin was probably worth $180 or so.

Just my "contra" opinion.

I sincerely hope that the controversy regarding grading will not end, ever. It's impossible to create an "everything fits" grade description for a scale with the granularity of Sheldon. It imposes the necessity upon us as collectors to become sharp graders, and that can only help us in the long run.

Although the descriptive grade terms ContraJame uses in the OP see more use these days by those who don't know better, it should be noted that there are still a plurality of experienced dealers still in business who predate the widespread use of Sheldon and are therefore just as comfortable with the "old" way of doing things, especially with raw coins.

And that is exactly how I feel. When I was a kid there was only G, F, Unc and Proof and no one had a problem. Then people started with VG, VF, AU and things started to get a little confusing. Then suddenly we had AG, XF, and naturally someone popped up with First Strike.
Even the famoust Red Book still uses F, VF, EF, AU on pages 369 for example.
I never could figure out why someone decided on a 70 point system. Why not a 100 point system? Why not a 1,000 point system. Why not a decimal also such as a EF-49.29574 approximately?
And everyone should remember that probably 99.84733%, approximately, of the entire world never heard of a 70 point system for coins.
Aand remember that BU could stand for a lot of things. I'd only start to worry if you start to see ABU, ACBU, And AGBU for those only with a ABOUT first. Would you really worry if someone came up with a AABU for Almost About Brilliant Uncir.

My father used BU, Choice BU and all those other terms and probably knew them as well and accurately as the world-class experts at PCGS, etc...
Its a tool, completely nuetral. Remember, grading is subjective, even when submitted to PCGS. Well, a SPECTRUM of subjectivity...even experts don't always agree...



I agree for the old timers, it was a general grade, since grading is not too easy on uncirculated coins, give's wiggle room.

Plus you pay what you think is the value not what some one says it is graded... my Two Cents

Great. Fantastic. Exactly what I was saying. However, they should consider a decimal system too. Then we really could have AU-84.3359 approximately.

I don't mind folks using either system. What I don't like is those ebay sellers who use the old system ( so as not to break rules ) but don't know what they are claiming with them.

They say something is GEM BU ( huh? ) which is it? Or that it is BU, and ask a price that is BU-range, yet admit it is circulated in the UNC/CIR description field and in reality it is low AU at best by anyone's standard!