| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,301 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1040 Posts |
For those who are unaware, the US Sheldon scale of grading is different to the Australian grading system. The use of F, Vf, Ef in the Sheldon scale doesn't equate to the same grades in Australia.
At what grade on the Sheldon scale is a coin truly uncirculated? I was always under the impression it was MS61, however I am now thinking this is more a gEF in the Australian system. That would make MS62 and MS63 as almost uncirculated and MS64 as the first truly uncirculated grade.
Am I off base here?
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16810 Posts |
That sounds about right, from my observations.
There is, from my observation as an outsider, actually a discontinuity in the US grading system that is generally not present in the Australian/British system. A coin graded AU-58 is usually going to look a lot more attractive than a coin in MS-60, whatever the catalogues say about the prices.
MS-60 to MS-63 are "technically uncirculated" but have detracting marks (bag marks, fingerprints, cabinet friction etc). In the British/Australian system, these detracting marks are lumped in with genuine circulation wear in determining the overall grade.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2797 Posts |
I recall a similar dicussion here a year or so ago on "Koala Bears".   |
|
Valued Member
United States
365 Posts |
Well, Koala Bears will definitely scuff up your coins, SeatedNut. They'll take 'em from AU58 straight down to MS60 without flinching. Of course, they'll take their time at it... Seriously though: while I see your point Sap, that low MS coins are in fact graded low in the 60s due to distracting bag marks (don't you love the adjective 'baggy' for a coin?) and so on, I cannot remember seeing an AU-58 fetch higher prices than an MS coin. I'm not saying that that's the way it should be, but in the coin areas I track the MSes always fetch higher than the strong AUs, with the sole exceptions perhaps being cases of exceptionally nicely toned coins. Or does this happen primarily with US coins, on the US market? |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
1040 Posts |
What Sap is saying is that AU58 graded coins seem to look better than low MS coins, yet the prices are higher for MS coins. Looking at a few slabbed coins in the low MS grades, I wouldn't want to spend the money they are asking for, they don't seem to have much eye appeal. I would rather have a nice AU58. Unfortunately (in my opinion only) slabbed coins are starting to infect Australia. I think a lot of people are going to be burned badly because the grading system is different. I have already seen ebay auctions for EF45 coins being sold for Australian EF prices, which is wrong. I know people will throw the old 'buy the coin, not the slab' line at me, but without education on the different grading systems, what are people to think? The top tier grading companies are supposed to be the experts, if an inexperienced collector sees a coin graded VF, EF, AU or MS on the Sheldon scale, he or she is going to make the logical assumption that they equate to Australian grades. Oh, and Seatednut, they aren't bears  I remember that discussion very well. Edited by latman100
08/13/2009 11:35 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
I well know it's to late but I think the entire grading system is nuts. I really don't understand how anyone can say a coin is GOOD or a G-4 when it looks like garbage. I mean well, well worn. That is not GOOD, it's well worn and should be WW-4 for WELL WORN. A coin that is Fine should be FINE, not just a little better than GOOD. So then GOOD is what is really FINE and FINE is almost an Uncirculated coin. Mint State is a joke. IF a coin is MINT STATED it should be very, very Uncirculted, not just close.
Sorry for the ranting but I grew up with only G, F, UNC and Proof. AND I didn't agree back then either.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1040 Posts |
Just carl, I think the whole grading thing stems from hope, not reality. "Hey, if I call it good, maybe people wont notice it isn't!" That sort of thing.
I am much the same with my grading, only I grew up with G, F, Vf, Ef, Unc and proof, no in between aVf, gVf etc. and that is how I still grade my own coins.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
464 Posts |
Maybe "good" means "good enough"... maybe "Good enough to see the date" or "Good enough to tell which type".
|
|
Valued Member
United States
53 Posts |
Ditto justcarl, latman100 and gawdOwns. Maybe we should drop the descriptive words and just use numbers.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Quote:
Ditto justcarl, latman100 and gawdOwns. Maybe we should drop the descriptive words and just use numbers.
I never really thought about that possibility but that sure would make more CENTS than saying GOOD when it is really just barely a coin. Now if it was decided to just go with a numbering system then a 2,3 or 4 would just be a POOR looking coin and no silly GOOD stuff. Not a bad idea at all. Even as old as I am I could be tempted to switch to all numbers. I really hate calling a coin FINE when it is just sort of NICE looking. A 1 to 70 scale or even a 1 to 100 scale with no names would work and be easier for everyone. I remember when Whitman first came out with the Red Book and I saw those descriptions. If I was old enough I would have contacted them back then an suggested something else possibly. Edited by just carl
08/20/2009 10:55 am
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,301 |
|
Posted 08/13/2009 09:16 am
