As I understand it, the MS Graded coins followed by a number is a US Standard.
How do these standards align with Australian Gradings, ie: UNC = What in MS etc.
OK, what would MS 50 and MS 55 rate under Aussie standards please?
MS under the US "Sheldon" system is Mint State.
A coin that scores between 60 - 70 points is awarded the prefix.
A coin that scores between 50 - 59 points is awarded an AU prefix.
A coin awarded between 50 to 55 points could be an Australian EF to gEF
There is No direct absolute Australian Adjectival Grade = Sheldon grade chart.
Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='39763' dateline='1389873868'As I understand it, the MS Graded coins followed by a number is a US Standard.
How do these standards align with Australian Gradings, ie: UNC = What in MS etc.
OK, what would MS 50 and MS 55 rate under Aussie standards please?
The lowest MS is 60 so there is no MS50 or MS55. There is AU 58, 55, 53, 50. Then XF 45 and 40.
Roughly speaking AU 50 is aEF and AU55 is gEF or nAU.
There is no exact translation as nobody know exactly counts as EF or AU with dealers and collectors alike having their own interpretation of grades (like dealers calling 6 pearls VF:dodgy:)
Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='39770' dateline='1389876040'The lowest MS is 60
Hope this helps:
Sheldon Scale for Grading U.S. Coins
Poor-1 or P-1 (Poor) - The type is barely discernable, but little else, due to the coin being badly damaged or worn smooth.
Fair-2 or FR-2 (Fair) - Type and date are barely discernable, but otherwise the coin is damaged or extremely worn.
AG-3 (About Good) - Type and date are discernable, although some spots may be worn out. Some lettering should be apparent, if not necessarily readable.
G-4 (Good) - Major devices and features are evident as outlines. although the coin overall is heavily worn.
G-6 (Good-plus) - Coin has a full rim plus major devices and features are clearly outlined. Heavy wear.
VG-8 (Very Good) - Full rim with clearly discernable devices and features. Most legends are readable clearly, but the whole coin is still significantly worn.
F-12 (Fine) - Distinct rim, all legends readable, clear devices showing some detail, but the whole coin is moderately, but evenly worn.
VF-20 (Very Fine) - Clearly readable but lightly worn legends, devices show good detail, rims are clean, but the whole coin shows moderate wear on the high points and a little wear below.
VF-30 (Good Very Fine) - Legends are clear, devices show all detail with little wear; high points are lightly worn.
EF-40 (Extremely Fine) - Legends are sharp, devices are clear with slight but obvious wear on the high points.
XF-45 (Choice Extremely Fine) - Legends and devices are clear and sharp, with slight wear on the high points, and great eye appeal.
AU-50 (About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a trace of wear on the highest points. There must be some remaining mint luster.
AU-55 (Good About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a hint of wear on the high points. Remaining mint luster must be at least half; great eye appeal.
AU-58 (Choice About Uncirculated) - Virtually uncirculated, except for minor wear marks on high points. Nearly all mint luster must be present, and must have outstanding eye appeal.
MS-60 (Mint State Basal) - Coins in this grade are ugly, dinged-up, bag-marked, ill-toned specimens, but they are in mint condition and free of any wear!
The grades from MS-60 to MS-70, as well as the Proof designations, are all based primarily on eye appeal, quality of luster and/or toning, and the presence or absence of contact marks, hairlines, etc. All coins MS-60 and higher are Mint State coins. It is worth noting that Proof is not a grade, but a type of coin.
This is helpful. Drake Sterling (http://www.drakesterling.com/coins-for-sale/more-information/what-is-pcgs)
But they are 2 completely different ways of grading so there will always be differences.
Then again there are differences in the application of the grading system used. You might want to compare Australian ANDA grading to that of Dealer/Seller X, they may well be different. This may be simply because one has more influence by another system such as how they grade in the UK. Nothing is "wrong" just a different application.
PCGS always applies the Sheldon system to coins the same.
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='39783' dateline='1389905140'Then again there are differences in the application of the grading system used. You might want to compare Australian ANDA grading to that of Dealer/Seller X, they may well be different. This may be simply because one has more influence by another system such as how they grade in the UK. Nothing is "wrong" just a different application.
What she said. At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers, one with inches and one with millimeters. They measure things with a different scale but whether in inches or millimeters the item being the measured is not changed by the tool used to measure it. It is what it is, whether 10cm long or 4 inches long.
Different grading systems are exactly the same but perhaps with a less definite conversion factor. Used correctly different grading systems should accurately describe what you're trying to measure (the grade of a coin). Used poorly (whether intentionally or accidentally) they will give you the wrong result. Any smart collector in Australia would do well to learn both systems and how to apply them well.
Australia uses different standards for different coins, an AU50 sovereign will usually be called EF-gEF in Australia, if it were pre-decimal Australian dealers would only call it gVF-EF and if it were decimal it'd probably only be VF-gVF.
I appreciate all of the responses above.
I shall advise you why I ask the question in the first place a little later on.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers
Two rulers, both of which are busted. Maybe one day in the future someone will come up with a system that isn't broken... say a scale of 1-100 for starters, with no detail at all (like on a blank planchet) at the bottom and an absolutely perfect example at 100, and consistency across the entire scale so that any fool could use it properly.
Yeah, right.... wishful thinking I know.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='39831' dateline='1389945336'Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers
Two rulers, both of which are busted. Maybe one day in the future someone will come up with a system that isn't broken... say a scale of 1-100 for starters, with no detail at all (like on a blank planchet) at the bottom and an absolutely perfect example at 100, and consistency across the entire scale so that any fool could use it properly.
Yeah, right.... wishful thinking I know.
I don't think either the Sheldon scale or the adjectival systems are broken rulers. Used well they both can describe coins reasonable accurately. But no measurement system in the known universe will stand up to people who cannot use it properly or choose to use it improperly to their own advantage.
We are all aware of dealers who have used the adjectival system to their own advantage and there's a "grader" that's been mentioned here many times before who is using the Sheldon scale in a very similar manner.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='39831' dateline='1389945336'Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers
Two rulers, both of which are busted. Maybe one day in the future someone will come up with a system that isn't broken... say a scale of 1-100 for starters, with no detail at all (like on a blank planchet) at the bottom and an absolutely perfect example at 100, and consistency across the entire scale so that any fool could use it properly.
Yeah, right.... wishful thinking I know.
There is no perfect system. Even 1-100 wouldn't do it as if a blank is 0 then how do you grade between choice polished blank (for a proof) and a bent and corroded blank?
My biggest gripe with both systems is that the grading is linear with no allowance for other factors, for example a Gem florin that will grade MS67 but has the tiniest trace of either possible circulation or minor bag marks, so is either rated as MS66 or AU58:dodgy: if the Sheldon system is used; but if the Adjective system is used then many dealers will pass it off to buyers as Gem and hope the dupe doesn't try to slab it
Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='39763' dateline='1389873868'As I understand it, the MS Graded coins followed by a number is a US Standard.
How do these standards align with Australian Gradings, ie: UNC = What in MS etc.
OK, what would MS 50 and MS 55 rate under Aussie standards please?
Here's my latest attempt at formulating a grading conversion chart. There are four scales: the Sheldon scale as used by American TPGs; the Sheldon scale as I have used it personally since 1983; the adjectival scale as used/intended in Australia and the adjectival scale as used/intended in Britain.
[attachment=2655]
Some things should stand out.
First, it should be painfully obvious that to arrive at my personal Sheldon scale, I've simply taken the letter-codes appended to the Sheldon numbers and transposed them directly to the Australian adjectives. Thus, my VF-30 actually means "good VF". Just like it does in America. You'll also notice that I hyphenate my Sheldon grades; sometime in the period between 1983 and 2000, the Americans seemed to have stopped doing this. I don't know why.
Second, you will notice an anomaly at TPG-Sheldon MS60. That's because of a curious concept that has arisen in America in recent decades (it was unknown over there back in the 1980s), the concept of the "Ugly Uncirculated" coin: a coin that was technically uncirculated from a "lack of wear" point of view, but had such ugly nicks, scuffs, toning and other damage that it rated far down the bottom of the MS scale; a coin with only slightly worse damage would be returned in a bodybag. Coins attaining this grade are therefore actually rather rare; looking at the TPG population reports confirms this. I don't think such a concept exists in regular Australian or British grading, and I don't know how British or Australian graders would react on seeing an MS60 coin; I suspect opinions would vary wildly between EF and Unc. I personally classify excessive bagmarks as "wear", and downgrade it accordingly.
Thirdly, you will notice that below TPG-Sheldon MS63, I don't regard coins as actually being "Uncirculated". Maybe it's just poor photography, but I've very rarely seen pictures of slabbed coins graded in the 60-62 range that do not appear to have what I would call "wear" on them.
Thanks Stephen....I have always had trouble understanding the MS system but your conversion chart has made it easier to understand.
Thanks
:yahoo:
Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='39836' dateline='1389947783'Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='39831' dateline='1389945336'Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers
Two rulers, both of which are busted. Maybe one day in the future someone will come up with a system that isn't broken... say a scale of 1-100 for starters, with no detail at all (like on a blank planchet) at the bottom and an absolutely perfect example at 100, and consistency across the entire scale so that any fool could use it properly.
Yeah, right.... wishful thinking I know.
There is no perfect system. Even 1-100 wouldn't do it as if a blank is 0 then how do you grade between choice polished blank (for a proof) and a bent and corroded blank?
My biggest gripe with both systems is that the grading is linear with no allowance for other factors, for example a Gem florin that will grade MS67 but has the tiniest trace of either possible circulation or minor bag marks, so is either rated as MS66 or AU58:dodgy: if the Sheldon system is used; but if the Adjective system is used then many dealers will pass it off to buyers as Gem and hope the dupe doesn't try to slab it
The weighting factors for the overall grade is
40% surface preservation
20% strike
20% lustre
20% eye appeal
Quotefor example a Gem florin that will grade MS67 but has the tiniest trace of either possible circulation or minor bag marks
I'm not quite sure what you mena here - bagmarks are taken into account in the overall grade (surface preservation). If the coin has entered circulation there will be at best myriad minute marks due to impact with other coin counter, keys in pockets etc, at worst surface detail will be missing due to wear.
Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='39763' dateline='1389873868'OK, what would MS 50 and MS 55 rate under Aussie standards please?
Any MS 50 / MS 55's you'll see would be from the first lot of APCGS coins that were graded before they fixed it up.
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='39886' dateline='1390014265'The weighting factors for the overall grade is
40% surface preservation
20% strike
20% lustre
20% eye appeal
Hi emu666,
I've read this from your website, and wyzeguy uses the same. I find it to be quite a good guide that improves as you see more graded coins.
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='39886' dateline='1390014265'The weighting factors for the overall grade is
40% surface preservation
20% strike
20% lustre
20% eye appeal
Correct me if I am wrong but that's how PCGS arrive at their Sheldon grade. NGC (or ANACS) are different?
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='39886' dateline='1390014265'Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='39836' dateline='1389947783'Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='39831' dateline='1389945336'Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'At the end of the day the two systems are the same as two rulers
Two rulers, both of which are busted. Maybe one day in the future someone will come up with a system that isn't broken... say a scale of 1-100 for starters, with no detail at all (like on a blank planchet) at the bottom and an absolutely perfect example at 100, and consistency across the entire scale so that any fool could use it properly.
Yeah, right.... wishful thinking I know.
There is no perfect system. Even 1-100 wouldn't do it as if a blank is 0 then how do you grade between choice polished blank (for a proof) and a bent and corroded blank?
My biggest gripe with both systems is that the grading is linear with no allowance for other factors, for example a Gem florin that will grade MS67 but has the tiniest trace of either possible circulation or minor bag marks, so is either rated as MS66 or AU58:dodgy: if the Sheldon system is used; but if the Adjective system is used then many dealers will pass it off to buyers as Gem and hope the dupe doesn't try to slab it
The weighting factors for the overall grade is
40% surface preservation
20% strike
20% lustre
20% eye appeal
Quotefor example a Gem florin that will grade MS67 but has the tiniest trace of either possible circulation or minor bag marks
I'm not quite sure what you mena here - bagmarks are taken into account in the overall grade (surface preservation). If the coin has entered circulation there will be at best myriad minute marks due to impact with other coin counter, keys in pockets etc, at worst surface detail will be missing due to wear.
The "If" part is the fulcrum. I purchased (cheaply, under $30) an AU58 slabbed parliament florin with probably only the minimum amount of marks necessary to be called AU, I've also paid 10 times more for a MS64 parliament and the eye appeal and lustre is better on the AU58, there is almost no difference in the minute marks so it wouldn't be that hard for the 2 florins to swap holders. As it can be hard to tell the difference between minute marks from newly minted coins in a wallet and minute marks from newly minted coins in a mint bag how can anyone be certain if a coin should grade AU or aGem based on a few minor marks?
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='39886' dateline='1390014265'Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='39836' dateline='1389947783'Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='39831' dateline='1389945336'Quote from: 'markn' pid='39811' dateline='1389928825'The weighting factors for the overall grade is
40% surface preservation
20% strike
20% lustre
20% eye appeal
I could swear it was different from this Surface preservation is much higher judged than 40% I remember watching one of the PCGS grading 101 videos and it had the exact breakdown of it. I'll try find it tomorrow and post the link with it to.
Yep thought so found it published by PCGS on Youtube here is the link for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apn-kYEl-Xw
At 4mins 46secs in it states
For mint state coins the breakdown is
60% surface preservation
15% luster
15% strike
10% eye appeal
I can't find the one showing Circulated coin breakdowns but I think it is
75% surface Preservation
10% eye appeal
15% strike
QuoteThe "If" part is the fulcrum. I purchased (cheaply, under $30) an AU58 slabbed parliament florin with probably only the minimum amount of marks necessary to be called AU, I've also paid 10 times more for a MS64 parliament and the eye appeal and lustre is better on the AU58, there is almost no difference in the minute marks so it wouldn't be that hard for the 2 florins to swap holders. As it can be hard to tell the difference between minute marks from newly minted coins in a wallet and minute marks from newly minted coins in a mint bag how can anyone be certain if a coin should grade AU or aGem based on a few minor marks?
I may be biased but any Canberra florin has "Eye Appeal " to me :)
:laugh2:
I do agree that many of the AU58 Canberra's are far more attractive than the MS61-63 Coins :ok:
It's extremely unusual for an AU58 to have surfaces similar in quality to an MS64. In the rare cases where it does occur, it is indicative of a coin which was worn through non-circulating means (roll friction, cabinet friction, etc) and the coin will still grade MS though at a lower grade level.
In my experience, PCGS only knocks a coin to an AU grading for non-circulating wear if the surface condition is also impaired (e.g. through light cleaning).
Quote from: 'wwwww' pid='40112' dateline='1390209877'It's extremely unusual for an AU58 to have surfaces similar in quality to an MS64. In the rare cases where it does occur, it is indicative of a coin which was worn through non-circulating means (roll friction, cabinet friction, etc) and the coin will still grade MS though at a lower grade level.
In my experience, PCGS only knocks a coin to an AU grading for non-circulating wear if the surface condition is also impaired (e.g. through light cleaning).
I am not saying that a AU58 coin has similar surface conditions to an MS64 coin.
What I am saying tho is many an AU58 coin has superior eye appeal to an MS60-62 coin :)