Grading Criteria For Early Coins

Grading is grading.

It's as subjective as criticism of literature, art, cinema, or music.

There are fundamentally no differences between grading a coin struck in 1600 and one struck in 2020. Sharpness, luster, color, strike, defects/damages, eye appeal, and other aspects of grading are equally applicable in both cases.

Vast oversimplification incoming here, but generally speaking, there are two or three schools of grading in popular use at the moment here in the US, along with some outlying systems like Rick Snow's 15 point PDS system for Indian Head cents.

The TPG's generally -- but not always -- grade on sharpness first and then luster, and will apply Details designations to coins with issues. They grade based on the standard ANA grading system (Poor 1 to Mint State 70) that has been used in some form or another for the last 40-odd years. Once upon a time, TPG's such as ANA/ANACS would "net grade" coins instead of assigning details designations, but that has not been the case since the mid to late 1980s.

At the other end of the spectrum lie grading systems like that used by Early American Coppers (EAC) collectors. While the same basic scale is in use (1 to 60) coins are most often net graded based on issues with the coin (as above) but also assigned subjective ratings for things such as eye appeal (e.g. Jack Robinson's choice / average / scudzy) and color. EAC collectors tend to prefer descriptive (auction-style) grading, which is a written explanation of the rationale behind a given grade, or notes about the coin's specific variety or other interesting features such as its color, rarity, or eye appeal.

Circling back to the question at hand, there is no difference between the grading of the early dimes being posted lately vs. a brand-new coin struck yesterday. The technology in use at the Mint at the time (early 19th c. and before) made it very difficult to achieve full sharpness, a complete strike, etc. and that many of the planchets (coin blanks) in use for copper and silver issues of the era were of varying metallurgical quality. Whether or not any, all, or none of those issues matters when determining a grade is entirely subjective.

I believe that it would be confusing, pointless, entirely unnecessary and an exercise in futility to come up with a different formal grading system based solely on a coin's age. This encourages the concept that older coins should be entitled to more lenient grading simply because they are old.

In almost all cases, professional TPGrading experience is better than for almost all collectors, despite the fact that from time, almost all collectors will strongly disagree with a professional TPG assessment.

For most of us, Photograde TPG OK. Those pictures have a lot to teach an inexperienced collector.
That is despite the fact that I much prefer to grade my own coins, and none of the 4,000 or so coins in my collection are slabbed.

The grading standards should be the same for all series of coins. The TPG's already do tweak the standards on certain dates and series to appease market demand. For example, on the 1921 Peace dollar the strike is overlooked on most grades. On the Classic Head Large Cent the standards change on the XF and below as scratches, pits, cleaning, and damage are more acceptable when compared to other series. The TPG's are more tolerant of problem coins below XF that were minted in the 18th century.

I was not trying to prove the first sentence. I was trying to make a point that the TPG's already change the grading standards for given dates and series.

My concern with the TPG's making decision on when to change the grading standards on a given date or series opens the door wider for TPG'S subjective grading. As a collector I want a consistency on grades from the TPG's. When I look at details grade Classic Head large cent and a details grade Matron Head large cent it should be the same details standard.



You should create a thread with this topic as it deserves a full discussion and not hijack this thread.

@Mister T:

To the best of my knowledge there is no written policy in place that would require PCGS, NGC, or ANACS to grade early coins differently than more modern issues. But grading is subjective, no matter how much TPG's try to make it objective.

Let's say you have two 1809 Large Cents in for grading with a TPG. Both coins have the same level of wear -- let's say mid-VF -- and do not have major defects such as scrapes, gouges, holes, or digs. The first coin is a fully struck example from early dies on a good quality planchet with rich chocolate brown color. The second coin is a late or nearly terminal die state struck with misaligned dies on a poor quality planchet with striations and uneven gray streaks of toning. The coin shows die cracks and chips, and maybe even some minor rust pitting.

TPG grader not experienced in early copper looks at coin A and it goes into a VF35 straight grade holder
TPG grader not experienced in early copper looks at coin B and it goes into a F Details holder

Both coins have the same level of wear (VF30, for the sake of discussion)

Second coin gets resubmitted. Now this time the TPG grader who gets it happens to be very experienced with the issues that affected the production of the Classic Head large cents as well as being familiar with things such as early/late die states and weak strikes. In their opinion, the second coin's issues are all strike or die related, not due to PMD or wear, and they put the same coin in a VF30 holder this time.

Next you send in two Morgan dollars, both with approximately MS63-MS64 sharpness. The first coin is an 1880-S with booming cartwheel luster, a sharp full strike, and some scattered contact marks with a rough cheek. The second Morgan dollar is a 1901-O with dark streaky toning over the luster, flatly struck from worn dies, but with almost no marks in the fields and a clean cheek.

TPG grader puts the 1880-S into an MS65 holder because most of the 1880-S Morgans they see all day long are MS65 or above.
TPG grader puts the 1901-O into an MS62, or even AU55 holder, because they don't see that same booming luster hiding under the toning and they confuse the weakly struck New Orleans coin as being worn or circulated despite the clean fields and cheek.

Coin #2 gets resubmitted and this time a Morgan dollar aficionado gets to grade it at the TPG. Now it comes back in a MS64 holder because the grader knows about toning and the weak strike common on New Orleans Morgan dollars, but also recognizes that the coin's fields and cheek are clean and free of chatter or contact marks, indicating a higher Mint State grade.

Which grader graded the coins "correctly?" I don't think that question can be answered one way or the other. Both graders assigned an honest grade - one based on "what the book/photos say" and the other based on years of experience as a grader.

almost every series have its quarks and challenges in grading and it does come down to inexperience grading certain series. it can take years to understand the nuances with some of the series especially the 18th century and early 19th. its a constant learning process and it never ends regardless of how long you have been doing it so dont beat yourself up. no one person can know everything about every series ever minted.