| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 3,568 |
|
Valued Member
United States
77 Posts |
As you know the lowest grade on the grading scale is 01 which is poor. Poor is a coin that's so worn that there's almost no details left has only enough detail left to be identifiable by type. I propose one for 00. Such a coin worn be so worn that no details are left and has essentially become a completely worn out disc. Some possible descriptive grade designations include: UI-00 (Unidentifiable-00), ND-00 (No Details-00) and CWA-00 (Completely Worn Away-00.) Perfect for low ball registry sets. Organizations like the ANA, PNG, And the TPGs could offer advice on how to tell the difference between coins graded 00 and circulated blanks or planchets.    |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
They really need to KISS, Keep it Simple & Stoopid. Why not a grading definition expanding on P-01. Utilizing an additional alphabetical designation as a double capital letter as VP, XP RP and PP, sequentially on the 1/4 decimal scale as follows:
VP=Very Poor at .75 of 1.0 Poor
XP=Extra Poor at .50 of 1.0 Poor
RP=REALLY Poor at .25 of 1.0 Poor and lastly when it cannot hardly be distinguished from a polished planchet,
PP=P**s Poor at .00 of 1.0 Poor
Why not? It is totally whacked as it is and varies from one series to another among expert graders, what's another wrench in the Monkey works!
Be careful, you may find some of the satirical humor you and I appear to enjoy not quite acceptable here.
Edited by Crazyb0
04/25/2018 7:52 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
I like satire humor a lot when it's clever
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Um. No. No. No.
I do not like it Sam IM.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34410 Posts |
Yes very funny @rbjr85. I also like @crazyb0's concept further splitting of the P-01 grade. We definitely need finer gradations in our scale. You inspired me to break out my Early American Cents to re-read what Dr. Sheldon was thinking about what sort of coin would be graded as a 1. His words are: Quote:
Years ago, when as a high-school boy I used to appraise cents from my section of the country for one of the coin dealers of that day (Chapman), I standardized a numeral scale which progresses from 1 to 70. On this scale, 1 means that the coin is identifiable and not mutilated. With that in mind, I hope you don't mind me proposing the descriptor term "Unidentifiable Numismatic Object" (UNO) for coins that are too worn to be rated P-01.  "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12477 Posts |
My suggestion is to lose the 00 altogether and just go with FUBAR as the designator.  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4963 Posts |
This is just basal state.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Having a designation for a completely slick unidentifiable planchett is not only unethical it's fruitless . I say leave well enough alone .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7191 Posts |
I have a slick dime found in a roll that is oversize compared to current dimes. it has but a faint outline of liberty's scalp and also faint "10" at the bottom of the reverse. identifiable as a bust dime but could be in the category we are discussing.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
How about this new grade? Current grade: AU Details, cleaned New Grade: Gem BU, Uncirculated, Tough Date, PQEdited by SilverDollar2017
04/26/2018 10:14 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Wait what !  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
To be honest, I agree that the Sheldon scale doesn't have quite enough gradation in the 1-4 range. Good to AG to Fair to Poor are all huge jumps in grade.
In particular, the Poor grade really deserves a lot of sub-grades (even if some of them would be extremely rare); notably, "PO-1" 1793 chain cents come in a wide range of extremely to ludicrously worn (the chain is basically the last part to disappear, so they're still identifiable well below what is conventionally called PO-1, and the type is in sufficient demand that even such examples are very collectible).
|
|
Moderator
United States
34410 Posts |
Quote:Does anyone remember Kurt's 'CR' grade? http://goccf.com/t/34812#272443 That thread was posted here well before I joined, but I am in shock that there is someone else out there who thinks just like @crazyb0. "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
My suggestion is to lose the 00 altogether and just go with FUBAR as the designator. You may have just given Me an Idea for My dateless 1 year type coin, or coins that still command premiums for dateless examples. Edited by Optimist-numismatist
04/26/2018 7:29 pm
|
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,568 |
Posted 04/25/2018 8:01 pm
