Sheldon Scale (PCGS & NGC) Vers CGS / Uk Grades

[markflorida 28]

This is a table I use for my customers and myself. It is not 100% perfect between the grades but as good as I can determine. 

(Sheldon Scale is the 70 point grading scale that was created by American Bill Sheldon) and is what is used in the United States and around the world now. 

CGS Numerical Grade	Average Raw UK Grade	Average Standard USA Sheldon
100	FDC	MS70
99	FDC	MS70
98	FDC	MS70
97	FDC	MS70
96	FDC	M69+
95	FDC	MS69
94	AFDC	MS68+
93	AFDC	MS68
92	AFDC	MS67+
91	AFDC	MS67
90	NFDC	MS66
88	BU -NFDC	MS65+
85	Choice UNC - BU	MS65
82	Choice UNC	MS 64+
80	Choice UNC	MS 64
78	UNC	MS 63
75	UNC or near so	MS 62
70	AU	MS62
65	GEF	MS61
60	EF	AU58 - MS60
55	NEF	AU55
50	GVF	AU55
45	GVF	AU 53
40	VF	AU 50
35	NVF	XF 45
30	GF	XF 40
25	GF	XF35
20	F	XF30
15	NF	XF20
10	VG	XF15
8	VG	VG10
5	GOOD	VG8
4	FAIR	G4
3	FAIR	G3
2	FAIR	G2
1	FAIR	G1

 

[Peckris 579]

How can a coin in VF be thought of as AU, by any stretch of the imagination? I mean, it just isn't. Not even close.

[Sword 1,519]

As has been said several times before, that table (produced by London Coins) is considered by many to be biased in favour of the CGS scale. E.g. I don't think CGS 80 is generally choice UNC or is really equivalent to PCGS / NCG MS64.

[ozjohn 683]

Perhaps the UK and Australia should abandon the UNC, EF etc. and it's attendant undefined micro grades abt. near and adopt the Shelden  scale which offers a far more systematic method of grading coins.  0 - 100 scale adopted by CGS offers a similar advantage however given that the Shelden scale has been in place for a long time it should be adopted in favor.

[mrbadexample 1,006]

I don't really get all this, if I'm honest. I can cope with F, VF, EF & UNC. How can something be nFDC, aFDC or one of the 6 different levels of FDC? How can MS70 be CGS 97, or 3 points higher at 100? 

I've given up and adopted Rob's two-point grading system: acceptable or not.

[will1976 235]

53 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

I've given up and adopted Rob's two-point grading system: acceptable or not.

I've come to this view too, if your happy with the look of a coin (or token in my case) and the price is acceptable for me that's the end of the discussion! I'm sure many will disagree though

[IanB 175]

There is no reason for any grading system to be considered better than another, its all down to individual preference. As a beginner grading is difficult to get your head around and having a limited number of options is a benefit. If we only had the Sheldon scale most would just give up and call it a day. If however you are buying and selling for profit then I can see the logic in having a system that allows for a wider spread of grades which give a person more opportunities to differentiate between grades especially at the higher end.

For me its just horses for courses, I am just an average collector and have no interest in buying and selling to make money, so using the standards of F, VF, and EF etc works for me and sticks to the KISS principle that I like to work with. 

If on the other hand you are a more serious collector then maybe the Sheldon scale is for you.

There's room for everyone

[Rob 3,221]

Big Bang has a lot to answer for. I'm absolutely certain that Sheldon had nothing to do with the scale as he certainly wouldn't cope with 11 different categories of a statement of fact, namely, uncirculated. It's one of these sort of/very/extremely unique scenarios.

 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

10 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

I've given up and adopted Rob's two-point grading system: acceptable or not.

I find it a very easy system to work with

[1949threepence 3,368]

16 hours ago, ozjohn said:

Perhaps the UK and Australia should abandon the UNC, EF etc. and it's attendant undefined micro grades abt. near and adopt the Shelden  scale which offers a far more systematic method of grading coins.  0 - 100 scale adopted by CGS offers a similar advantage however given that the Shelden scale has been in place for a long time it should be adopted in favor.

I do like the Sheldon system, but as for abandoning UNC, EF etc in the UK and Australia, that's not going to happen anytime soon.  

[1949threepence 3,368]

16 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

I don't really get all this, if I'm honest. I can cope with F, VF, EF & UNC. How can something be nFDC, aFDC or one of the 6 different levels of FDC? How can MS70 be CGS 97, or 3 points higher at 100? 

I've given up and adopted Rob's two-point grading system: acceptable or not.

I haven't encountered that. Is it possible to take a butchers?

[mrbadexample 1,006]

4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I haven't encountered that. Is it possible to take a butchers?

I first encountered it here (on my birthday, as it happens): 

I guess it looks something like this:

1. Acceptable

2. Not acceptable

Sorry.

[Rob 3,221]

7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I haven't encountered that. Is it possible to take a butchers?

That's what you do. Have a look. Look for as many reasons as possible as to why you wouldn't buy it. Compare it to the other items you have previously researched to ascertain where it stands in the pecking order gradewise. If it is in the top few and aesthetically ok then rule 1 applies unless there is one outstanding example out of a few known and the rest are crap. Hobson's Choice, you apply rule 1. If I haven't researched the available options, then more often than not I will move on, even if it seemed ok. Sometimes you regret not buying at the time, but more often not. If I know there are a few decent examples available then I avoid simply ticking the box as I know I will upgrade later if the right thing comes along. Things that only become available once every generation tend to fall under rule 1, as do coins with an impressive provenance.

[1949threepence 3,368]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

That's what you do. Have a look. Look for as many reasons as possible as to why you wouldn't buy it. Compare it to the other items you have previously researched to ascertain where it stands in the pecking order gradewise. If it is in the top few and aesthetically ok then rule 1 applies unless there is one outstanding example out of a few known and the rest are crap. Hobson's Choice, you apply rule 1. If I haven't researched the available options, then more often than not I will move on, even if it seemed ok. Sometimes you regret not buying at the time, but more often not. If I know there are a few decent examples available then I avoid simply ticking the box as I know I will upgrade later if the right thing comes along. Things that only become available once every generation tend to fall under rule 1, as do coins with an impressive provenance.

Thanks. Sounds a useful way forward. I sort of do that now.