The Sheldon Scale Must Die - Another Rant

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Author	Replies: 28 / Views: 6,181	Page: of 2
SteveCaruso Pillar of the Community United States 1796 Posts	Posted 02/19/2013 11:15 pm Poll Question So here I go! Let me sink my teeth into the soft underbelly of my problem-du-jour. This something has been hashed over again and again, and I feel that now's the time for a fresh round: *The Sheldon Scale MUST Die.* [IN TECHNICOLOR] Here lieth my manifesto against this relic that is nearly as old as American coin collecting, itself. (Granted at this point it's more of a rant as it's not as well sourced and laid out as a manifesto.): 1) The Sheldon Scale is not one scale, but two separate scales duct-taped together. Sure, Sheldon didn't have duct tape in his era, but that didn't stop him. We all know the divide: 1-59 is "circulated" where 60-70 is "uncirculated." The problem is that there are plenty of AU coins that are much more pleasing to the eye (and are much more intact) than your average MS60. Furthermore, where the "circulated" scale is much more quantitative (generalized patterns of wear and metal loss are quite easy to track) the MS scale breaches into art and divination and is FAR far to granular. How many bag marks and hairlines does it take to land an MS64? Is strike taken into account? Isn't it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What about toning? I've seen some really UGLY coins (due to toning) in the high MS range, and frankly should one be paying more money for an ugly coin than one that really shows off its design? 2) We don't even use the whole scale. The "circulated" side of the scale isn't a steady progression. Out of 1-59, only 13 (sometimes up to 19) grades are used. These vestigial "between grades" add nothing to the scale. (When was the last time you say a G5 or an AU51 on a slab?) Comparing this to the sudden 10 points of granularity on the MS scale where the coin isn't supposed to have any wear at all, and things are very poorly laid out. For something to be a true scale or spectrum there should be some even, quantifiable, regular measure that progresses through it (be it linear, exponential, logarithmic, etc..) 3) The grade MS70/PF70 does not exist. And yet we have it. There is no such thing as a "perfect" coin and when people see MS70 that's what they think they're getting. Everyone has seen PF70s with hairlines and fingerprints, or problems that develop after the coin is encapsulated. Also, comically, in some graded series that are submitted directly for grading (such as ASEs) they tend to only come in two flavors: PF69 and PF70 in a pattern that defies their actual quality due to their submission in bulk to TPGs by dealers and how TPGs cherry-pick them. If it's a joke, why use such a designation? 4) TPGs keep pushing to make it more granular. A picture is worth 1,000 words. I posted this info-graphic a couple years back to try and express my frustration with how TPGs handle pennies: Granted, this is an exaggeration, but making things more granular is for marketing purposes only. Additional designations are also a problem, as you can see (be it the color of the copper, or "+"). 5) The scale was NEVER intended for this in the first place. Sheldon wanted to use this as a means to grade particular coins as a multiplier of base value at a particular period in history. In essence, he was trying to find some means to regularize prices and dictate value. Today the stage has changed and prices are all over the place, making that original vision unsuitable. Extrapolating this scale onto modern coin collecting is in many ways like using an adjustable wrench to drive phillips-head wood screws into concrete. It's the wrong tool, and the wrong vector for the job. So here is my radical suggestion: The 10 Point Scale. (Yes! I'm going there.) Here's how it works: 1) "10 points" is a small lie. It's really 0-9. There is no 10. 10 is imaginary. 2) The coin is graded on quantifiable physical characteristics and rated from 0-9 vis a vis how well the design of the coin comes across. 0 is it's identifiable. 9 is the higher 1/3 of MS. Bad strike, late die state, and wear are treated equally as they all mean the design is not as crisp as it should be. No designations like FBL, or FS, or FH, are then needed. End of story. 3) Other good considerations are given a "+1". Very appealing toning? Red? DCAM? PL or DMPL? +1. (Yes, this does mean that there could be a "9+1", but it will NEVER be written as "10" on principle! :-) ). 4) Distractions are given a "-1". Scratches or damage on an otherwise beautiful coin? Dings on the rim? Really UGLY toning? Serious bag marks? Cleaned? -1. 5) Coins with "+1" and "-1" are simply listed as "Â±1." (Ex. " 8Â±1: Gorgeous toning and a rim dent", etc.) I would consider expanding this to a scale of "16" or "20," provided the progression is even. So, what to you all think? Suggestions? Comments? Your own rants? Poll Choices I agree with you! Excellent ideas. I agree with your criticisms, but your scale won't work. I agree with MOST of your criticisms, and MOST of your ideas to overhaul the system. I agree with SOME of your criticisms, and SOME of your ideas to overhaul the system. I disagree with your criticisms, but I think your scale might work. You're nuts. Leave Sheldon alone! What we have works! ...Sheldon? He's that guy on Big Bang Theory, right? Report this Post to the Staff

Wade Pillar of the Community Canada 2781 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 12:13 am good points, but I think it would be hard to change something so entreched in the hobby. personally I use the 3 point YES/NO scale: do I like it? does it look good? can I can afford it? Edited by Wade 02/20/2013 12:25 am Report this Post to the Staff
Mr T Pillar of the Community Australia 2180 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 12:30 am As someone who was 'raised' with the adjectival system (if that is the correct name), I have to agree. I've never seen an explanation of why only some of the numbers are used, where strike quality comes into it or how many scratches/dings are too many for a certain grade. I also agree that the spectrum of different states of being uncirculated is excessive. Granted the term uncirculated doesn't tell the whole story, but 11 different types of uncirculated is too much, and I get the impression that the price jumps between different types of uncirculated can be pretty big even though the differences are small. I don't know if toning should come into the grade though. Report this Post to the Staff
sel_69l Bedrock of the Community Australia 21788 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 01:31 am Steve: I agree with what you have said. I run with the WADE scale and have done so for 40 or so years. I am glad I am not working for a TPG. There can be huge differences in prices for truly rare coins in MS grades, and I'll betcha more than one TPG has already been threatened with litigation. I have about 100 or so U.S. coins, in a collection of about 4,000 or so. 20% of them would be more than 250 years old, and Sheldon doesn't come into it. Report this Post to the Staff
january1may Pillar of the Community Russian Federation 5174 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 08:44 am Back in the distant past of 2010-'11, I used to ask a specific experienced collector (for the record: the Coined For Money guy) about the actual values of the coins I bought. I soon realized that the whole "shiny/non-shiny" business is far from enough description of grade to assign reasonable values, and my mental imagination of various grades was also rather far from reality; so I found a site about general US grades - and since then, every time I posted these lists of coins, I always consulted that particular site (unless it was a US coin, in which case I used Photograde Online). However, these distinctions were too large a step for me... and I didn't take the obvious choice of using numerical stuff like VF-25! No, I made sure to say a specific coin was "VF++" or "XF-" or sometimes "F-ish" (that latter one mainly applied to designs that didn't give obvious visible ways to guess a grade more precisely - usually those without small details). That left me a possibility to say that a coin was "AG+" for something between AG-3 and G-4 (and "G-" was yet a different grade). It also meant, coincidentally, that the highest grade I could possibly assign was "AU++" - which approximately meant "either high AU or above MS-63" (even now I have next to no idea how to tell high AU from middle MS - nor do I care, really - but a MS-61 probably would've got only an "AU+" grade from me). End result: the Sheldon scale as I use it has little to do with the original numeric one; Sheldon's G-4, G-5, G-6 and G-7 would likely be "G", "G+", "G++" and "VG-" in mine, but that's the closest they come. And if anything the original has far less than enough distinction in the PO-1 to G-4 range (for example, an 1923-S Peace dollar I have is a clear "AG-" grade in my scale, meaning it's slightly below AG-3 but still closer to it than to FR-2 - but there's literally no way to say that in any commonly-used Sheldon scale version). So of course your scale has far less divisions that it really should! I think my scale has 36 possible divisions (PO-FR-AG-G-VG-F-VF-XF-AU times "+", '++', "-" or nothing), and it doesn't even get into representing high MS in any way (presumably that would mean adding MS to the list of base grades, so there'd be 40 possible divisions in total). In fact, the base grades themselves (assuming EF=XF - they're short for the same thing anyway) are already at ten possible points, so your system would either lose one of the lower base grades or end up with just a single MS grade (and granular or not, there should be more than one MS grade - in your system especially, or you'd risk anything that isn't FBL/FH/FS/whatever* being lumped in with AU). I voted for "I agree with your criticisms, but your scale won't work", by the way (though I would've rather voted for "I agree with MOST of your criticisms, and SOME of your ideas to overhaul the system" if there was such an option). Oh, almost forgot: you said that "bad strike, late die state, and wear are treated equally as they all mean the design is not as crisp as it should be". What would that mean for coins Struck Through Grease? ) And these telltale signs of weak/strong strike don't only exist on US coins; it might be a little obscure for most of you, but just in case anyone here happens to be familiar with modern Russian coinage: when was the last time you saw a plated-steel (post-2006) Moscow mint 10 kopeck with any detail on George's head that wasn't a wide rim 2007? I did eventually assemble a full year set of these (up to 2012 anyway) - but let's just say it was much* harder than finding die clashes! Report this Post to the Staff
Freedom Pillar of the Community United States 526 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 09:31 am I thought this post was about the "Big Bang Theory" :) Report this Post to the Staff
CoinsKelly Pillar of the Community United States 3453 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 09:48 am Report this Post to the Staff
just carl Bedrock of the Community United States 20753 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 12:27 pm Quote: I thought this post was about the "Big Bang Theory" :) The TV program or the real one? Way, way, way back when I was a kid, there was only G, F, Unc and Proof. I really didn't like that much since G was Good and a coin that was G was really shot, poor, worn, etc. At least with F for Fine a coin looked OK or Fine. And Unc for Uncirculated ment it was like new. Naturally a P or Pr for Proof was just that, a Proof. Today everyone wants to know EXACTLY what their coins are grade wise. A 70 point system is just not good enough. What we need is a 100 point system and with decimals. In other words a coin could be a 75.9335. No letters either. Not necessary Just numbers. A coin with 27.4438 is just better than a coin with 26.9973 of course. And a coin graded as 99.9999999999999 is almost perfect. Of course that is just wrong. No coin should have more than a 4 decimal grade. Report this Post to the Staff
austrokiwi Pillar of the Community 2087 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 12:49 pm The American system of grading just amazes me( Confuses as well). As a recent collector( since 2003) I have worked with the non American grading system G, F, VF,XF AUNc UNC (Proof shouldn't be used as it describes a type of coin not a grade) Just those 6 categories can create confusion. I also think grading can be misleading I have seen VF coins that have a wonderful patina and seem far more attractive than an Uncirc grade. I suspect the complicated number grading is more useful to TPG as it makes their product more mysterious Edited by austrokiwi 02/20/2013 12:50 pm Report this Post to the Staff
matthewvincent Pillar of the Community United States 3486 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 1:09 pm 1) The Sheldon Scale is not one scale, but two separate scales duct-taped together. The problem is that there are plenty of AU coins that are much more pleasing to the eye (and are much more intact) than your average MS60. * AMEN, BROTHER! I'd rather have a nice AU or even an XF rather than a MS in ugly shape. It is no secret I love Barber dimes. Took 25+ years to whip a complete set into shape. The colors of the toning are way all over the map. BUT, the girlfriend of a favorite dealer tells me that I am a strike man. That is, I chose to buy coins which are sharp no matter the grade nor toning. [This is a fine+ to AU set - not too shabby.] 2) We don't even use the whole scale. The "circulated" side of the scale isn't a steady progression. * In the olden days, a precious few dealers came up with Good, VG-7, VG-8 VG-10 and fine. In the world of Barber coins this system STILL makes sense to me. And no plastic involved. Just the coin and a knowledgeable seller and buyer. * 3) The grade MS70/PF70 does not exist. And yet we have it. * "Perfection" is in the mind of the beholder, and subject to market change. * 4) TPGs keep pushing to make it more granular. * And a few of we coin coin collectors refuse to play this game! * * And I won't even get into your fifth point. Steve, look at what Third Party Grading was SUPPOSED to accomplish: trading coins sight-unseen, as easy as stocks and bond. A failure. What we are left with is a PROMISE that a PROFESSIONAL grader is better than we collectors who know a particular series. Another failure. I grow more anti plastic every day. Not because it does not serve a purpose but because it is an easy excuse to claim: "The grade is exact because a TPG said so." NOT TRUE!! But alas, we are unheard voices lamenting in the wind. Either drink heavily or take up yoga. Just please stop banging your hear. That eventually hurts. I vote "agree" but with a big "BUT!..." It won't fly. Edited by matthewvincent 02/20/2013 1:11 pm Report this Post to the Staff
matthewvincent Pillar of the Community United States 3486 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 1:23 pm AH! The Wade scale. Me like. Third point first: "can I can afford it?" Lately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot afford to pass on a superior coin. My last was $2500 and I could turn it around today for $2600+. It is THAT nice! [I have only had it for two months] Second point: "does it look good?" Here, you have to have the courage of your convictions. And some humility. If a coin grabs you, then it will grab others. Conversely, if you think to yourself, "Nice, but ..." then others WILL feel the same way. First point: "do I like it?" A difficult guide unless you understand what it entails. Ask yourself: "I like it, but will others like it?" If you cannot answer "YES" than pass. If you can answer "YES" then BUY IT! I LIKE the WADE Scale - short, sweet, to the point and it can be summed up it two words: EYE APPEAL! Without eye appeal, the grade means nothing. Edited by matthewvincent 02/20/2013 1:31 pm Report this Post to the Staff
onecenter New Member United States 34 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 2:03 pm The Sheldon scale was intended to grade early American large cents PERIOD. How it ever morphed into the "be-all, end-all" of grading American coins and then applied to many world coins is something I have never understood. Report this Post to the Staff
jbuck Moderator United States 188770 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 3:09 pm Quote: ...Sheldon? He's that guy on Big Bang Theory, right? What am I not surprised this one is leading the poll. Coin Collector Since 1978 Avatar Old Avatar 7070 Eisenhower Australia Canada World CCF Members on eBay CCF eBay Search Engine Report this Post to the Staff
cheezyfryes Valued Member United States 359 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 3:09 pm Another follower of the WADE scale here! Report this Post to the Staff
Conder101 Bedrock of the Community United States 17884 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 3:47 pm Quote: 5) The scale was NEVER intended for this in the first place. Sheldon wanted to use this as a means to grade particular coins as a multiplier of base value at a particular period in history. In essence, he was trying to find some means to regularize prices and dictate value. Today the stage has changed and prices are all over the place, making that original vision unsuitable. The Sheldon scale never had anything to do with grading. It was strictly a PRICING scale applied AFTER the grade had been determined using the adjective grading scale. Grade first, then apply the "sheldon scale" to arrive at the price. And it was worthless without having a chart of the basal grade values What people need to realize is that butt applied today the numbers have no meaning whatsoever. They are NOT numbers they are NAMES. Two 4's don't equal an 8, an 8 plus a 4 doesn't equal a 12. (Which they did back when Sheldon developed the scale) Whether a coin is a VG or you call it an 8 doesn't matter, in either case you are using a name to indicate a grade. VG-8 is merely a repetition of both names. When the ANA developed the "official grading scale" all they did was take the existing adjective grading scale and stick the number names onto them. It really had nothing to do with Sheldon's PRICING scale. (Which even EAC had abandoned years earlier.) Report this Post to the Staff
CoinsKelly Pillar of the Community United States 3453 Posts	Posted 02/20/2013 3:51 pm It sounds like what is happening today is not the Sheldon Scale. Stupid question alert: So is there an official name to the PO-1 to MS 70 scale or it just what it is? Report this Post to the Staff
	Replies: 28 / Views: 6,181	Page: of 2

Last 15 Replies

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

All Forums Category: General Numismatic Forums Forum: Main Coin Forum

The First Dollar, your premier source for bullion and rare coins. See our bullion list on the site and the coin inventory on ebay.

Silver Gold Bull US is the United States leading bullion dealer. We deliver gold coins, gold bars, silver coins, silver bars and precious metals to your door. Order today!

View Last 100 New Topics

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum

It took 0.55 seconds to rattle this change.