Grading

[TomGoodheart 403]

I didn't want to hijack Declan's thread but was interested in Rob's comments about the grading of his 1684 shilling(?)

Now, we all know that grading has changed over the years. You could call it less strict. We've all seen previously listed coins creep up (but somehow never down (!) the grade scale). Or maybe it's just that more 'sub' grades between Fine, Very Fine and Extremely Fine have opened up?

But I was curious as to .. why?

Is it just a commercial thing? After all, while we don't have things like the American's Red and Grey books that insist the difference between an MS 64 and MS 65 should be $xx, grades do influence price.

The thing about that is that the coins themselves haven't changed, have they? Rob's coin was a nice coin and still is. Other similar graded coins haven't all been melted down making it rarer surely, so it's still on a par with the same coins it would have been compared to back in the 1960s.

Or has it? Has teh interweb brought more coins than could have been known in the 1960s to light and now we have more comparative specimens? Some of which will inevitably be better, ... others worse.

Views? Opinions?

[Peckris 579]

I think the whole philosophy of the grading:price ratio has changed, certainly since the 60s. Back then you had 3 top grades that were closer together :

UNC: a state rather than a condition

EF: today's AUNC, with a price to match,

VF: today's GVF or even NEF and closer to EF in value than now.

Then you had F, trailing a long way behind, the "minimum acceptable condition" for collectors

Now, due to international pressures? collector influence? dealer practice? all these and more?, you have a situation where the 4 top grades are more evenly spaced, and so are the values. Which effectively means that UNC and F should be the same grades as they were (though in some lists F covers a multitude of sins..), but EF has dropped quite a lot, and VF dropped to a lesser extent.

I'm not sure how typical this is, but these are the values (Seaby/Spink) for a 1904 halfcrown in 1966 and 2012 :

F 2:50 VF 5:00 EF 12:00 (no UNC value listed, but one would guess that it would have been probably £15-£18)

F 65:00 VF 300:00 EF 925:00 UNC 2500:00

[Rob 3,152]

Firstly, I agree with the opinions voiced about the 1684 1/- being a typo and would suggest a grade of good VF or nEF was intended. The three coins in the lot sold for £52 to Willis which is a bit low for these pieces at the time in gVF or nEF.

The 1645 Oxford F7 I mentioned previously is a little more indicative though of a general tendency throughout salerooms (and for that matter TPGs etc to this day too) to inadequately catalogue the lots. I don't think it is a question of genuine grade creep, as the same people who catalogue become quite critical when buying and grade very conservatively. It is more a case of cataloguers consciously extracting the most out of a description. Or to put it another way, giving a grade based on the best bit rather than the worst.

I also think the vendor will influence the grade given. My F7 was graded VF in Montagu, mint state in Lockett, but back to VF in Willis. Clearly we can disregard mint state, but there are also grades around EF assigned. All this points to inconsistency rather than grade creep, though given the influence of places like eBay and the explosion in collector numbers, all of whom have gone to the eBay school of numismatics, it is little wonder that you see so many examples of inflated grades. The same goes for the TPGs and their slabs. Whilst there must be commercial pressure to keep the customer happy by giving a decent grade, there is also a fair sprinkling of undergraded items (by both their standards and others') leading to quite choice 'undesirables'

The question of the web is interesting. It has undoubtedly brought more examples of an individual type to the fore, but should not have influenced the grade assigned as the previously high grade examples in collections can still be used for comparison in museums where applicable. What people probably fail to accept is the absolute rarity of choice, high grade pieces. These account for a fraction of a percent of all coins and is why they fetch apparently astronomical prices. The old joke about rare being something that wasn't on eBay this week is only partly tongue in cheek for many, and the quality of fayre offered below that which would pass through a saleroom. We therefore have two parallel sets of collectors, graders and coins with occasional crossover between the two groups.

[Peter 615]

There are many more collectors today chasing fewer coins.

Prior to the decimalisation surge that started in the 60's with key dates it would seem the collecting scene was generally a pastime of

the set with more disposable income.(call it what you like).

Prior to technology of the internet and cheaper illustrated catalogues the collector bought from lists.

I soon recognised the differences between dealers grading.

Today a seller will get away with whatever he can.A buyer likes to hear or be assured of a higher grade so he thinks he has a bargain.

It is a challenge for all of us I'm sure.

[Red Riley 2]

I didn't want to hijack Declan's thread but was interested in Rob's comments about the grading of his 1684 shilling(?)

Now, we all know that grading has changed over the years. You could call it less strict. We've all seen previously listed coins creep up (but somehow never down (!) the grade scale). Or maybe it's just that more 'sub' grades between Fine, Very Fine and Extremely Fine have opened up?

But I was curious as to .. why?

Is it just a commercial thing? After all, while we don't have things like the American's Red and Grey books that insist the difference between an MS 64 and MS 65 should be $xx, grades do influence price.

The thing about that is that the coins themselves haven't changed, have they? Rob's coin was a nice coin and still is. Other similar graded coins haven't all been melted down making it rarer surely, so it's still on a par with the same coins it would have been compared to back in the 1960s.

Or has it? Has teh interweb brought more coins than could have been known in the 1960s to light and now we have more comparative specimens? Some of which will inevitably be better, ... others worse.

Views? Opinions?

I wonder if there isn't perhaps a different aspect to this. We are basing our assessments on the auction houses of maybe 50 years ago, but I wonder if dealers' grades have actually changed that much. It would take a long memory to come up with a categorical answer but my recollections, hazy as they might be would indicate that retail grades aren't a lot different to those prevalent when I started collecting in the late sixties. Of course, few illustrated dealers' lists were produced then, so it is always going to be a matter of conjecture but I just have my suspicions that not a lot has changed.

[Rob 3,152]

I think that the same inconsistencies existed then as now. Some dealers would grade higher than other and others lower. Actually, not a problem for the experienced collector as long as there is consistency, but a nightmare for the novice when they want to sell their overgraded material at a later date.

[pokal02 44]

I tend to agree that EF & VF grades have become considerably debased over the last 20 years. I would think that of the coins I see described as VF, I grade 5% as VF, 20% AVF, 50% NVF and 25% GF (with similar reductions @ EF - some of these I take all the way down to VF) whereas the 'F's I see I grade more like 30% F, 55% AF and 10% NF with only a very few VG/Fair (and the odd one or two even upgraded to GF!) Fair & Poor seem almost synonymous now - many coins described as Poor I would grade as Fair.

I'm assuming from Spinks consistent increasing of their VF & EF catalogue prices that they are (or think they are) grading using the 'old' standards - some clarification on this in the 2014 catalogue would be welcome.

[Paulus 1,975]

I'm assuming from Spinks consistent increasing of their VF & EF catalogue prices that they are (or think they are) grading using the 'old' standards - some clarification on this in the 2014 catalogue would be welcome.

Does anyone know when this is due out?

[Rob 3,152]

It's a difficult one to pin down because the question is asked of an average across all dealers. i.e. are there are more dealers who are generous with their grading? Equally valid is the question 'are there are more dealers full stop?' In an age when everyone can set up shop on the internet, the explosion in people who can and do use this option means there is less practical resistance to becoming a dealer. If it was necessary to travel to the fairs and do the circuit (with large expenditure on fuel and hotels), then there would be far fewer dealers, but the virtually zero cost of being on-line means that goes out of the window.

It would be a fairer question if you took a couple dozen people at random from then and now who only ply their trade as a fully fledged business and attend fairs, issue lists and deal across the board etc as these are likely to be more experienced and you would expect consistent in their grading.

[Peter 615]

I'm assuming from Spinks consistent increasing of their VF & EF catalogue prices that they are (or think they are) grading using the 'old' standards - some clarification on this in the 2014 catalogue would be welcome.

Does anyone know when this is due out?

Probably they have dished out the printing abroad again to insure they miss the Xmas market.

[Nick 329]

I'm assuming from Spinks consistent increasing of their VF & EF catalogue prices that they are (or think they are) grading using the 'old' standards - some clarification on this in the 2014 catalogue would be welcome.

Does anyone know when this is due out?

Probably they have dished out the printing abroad again to insure they miss the Xmas market.

Isn't it this year that the catalogue is going to split into two volumes?

[NRP 38]

It's due out December the 9th but let's just say they will be hard pushed to have it available by then as they have asked for the dealers adverts to be submitted by tomorrow, so the catalogue has not even been put together yet let alone ready for the printers!!

[Paulus 1,975]

It's due out December the 9th but let's just say they will be hard pushed to have it available by then as they have asked for the dealers adverts to be submitted by tomorrow, so the catalogue has not even been put together yet let alone ready for the printers!!

Thanks Neil, is it in 2 volumes this year as rumoured do you know?

[Red Riley 2]

They've only just sent me my advert proof. I know that they had a long term aim to split into two volumes but there has been no indication that this was to take place this year. Certainly I have not been asked in which volume I wanted my advert to go.