Simply put the third party graders appear to have shot themselves in the foot.

When I first read this question I mused about it for a while and then moved on. But I could not get the premise presented by the question out of my mind. Then it hit me, welcome to the world of ancient coin collecting. I have been collecting coins since 1954/5 but in 2009 I made a total change in what I collected. I turned to ancient coin collecting and I totally enjoy it. One of the first things I learned is that when evaluating ancient coins, condition is far more important to me than grade. In fact on 12/30/2013 I wrote a post titled Ancient Coins and Grade Vs. Condition where I explain why for me a coins condition is far more important than its grade. I was surprised to find out that basically this is not just my opinion but evidently the prevailing opinion within the field of ancient numismatics. In this regard the following statement is made in ERIC - The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins:

Unless you have come across a major rarity assume that the worth of your coin will very largely depend on its visual appeal.

This reference also makes the following statement:

*** one typically buys a coin from a well-photographed coin in a glossy color catalog, the internet or on site at a coin show. There is therefore little need for a grade as such since the visual confirmation of what you would be getting is infinitely more useful than the information conveyed by an assigned grade of questionable value.

The ancient coin website titled Forum has a section called Ancient Coin Collecting 101, here it gives the definition of a grade -- Grade describes only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. This definition of a grade is not unique to ancient coins. It is simply the universal definition of GRADE. NGCs ancient department recognized from day one that grade and condition are totally different aspects related to the assessment of a coins preservation. Grade related to the wear or loss of metal from friction loses due to circulating and rub during transport. Condition relates to strike and surface issues. When NGC certifies an ancient coin it provides that coin a grade but it also provides a score from 1 to 5 for the condition of the coins surface and also the quality of its strike. NGC lists 15 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins strike and 27 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins surface. On the label placed in the NGC holder is provided the coins grade as well as its scores for strike and surface. This information is further modified if it is determined that there are some conditions issues which must be addressed separately. Such additional information could explain the reason for a low score while in some cases it could point out beneficial features such as eye appeal or fine style. So what NGC is providing the collector is a complete assessment of the ancient coin, not only of its grade but also all those factors influencing the coins appearance which is extremely important. Since it is condition that influences an ancient coins value more so than grade.

This separation of grade from condition appears to be more theoretical than actual. A preponderance of ancient coin collectors still mix grade and condition and claim that simply saying a VF tells you all you need to know about a 1500 year old coin to understand both its grade and condition. To this point a few weeks ago I read a post on Forum where the statement was made that the coin was graded VF but in my opinion it was Fine to about VF because part of the legend was a little weak. Now let us face it on something as small as a 19mm diameter denarius it is physically impossible through routine circulation to wear away a fraction of the legend without wearing away nearby design elements as well as corresponding features on the reverse. Do I believe that there was weakness and it was limited to a part of the legend? Yes! But it was not due to wear but rather a result of the die or production process. So the grade would be determine by the overall wear on the coins highest design features and not a spot of localized weakness.

This inability to differentiate between between grade and condition has always been a part of this hobby and it is imperative that the third party graders lead this effort to ensure grade and condition are addressed separately when evaluating coins. The question posed by Eagles-R-it clearly demonstrates that all third party graders are still attempting to combine grade and condition into a single designator such as MS-69. Taking the term Grade to describe only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. If something is UNC it shows no evidence of wear. How can an MS 65 have five additional grading steps of no evidence of wear over a coin MS 60 that has no evidence of wear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply the coin has evidence of wear or it does not. Here our third party graders have stepped into the world ancient coin collectors where many (except for NGC Ancients Dept.) try to combine condition and grade into a single grade. There is a simple solution and that is to start over again. All mint state coins would be graded MS-60 the coin would also be given a score of 1 to 10 for Surface and 1 to 10 for Strike. I will leave it up to the grading services to decided what factors would be addressed under surface (obvious ones would be attractive or unattractive toning, spots, bag marks, etc.) and strike at a minimum would address how well the coin is stuck-up, e.g., full-split bands would get a higher score than flat bands. I know this would cause pricing problems, how would you price a MS 60 Surface 8/10, Strike 5/10? The condition census would be a 10 X 10 matrix. But it would address this question because if the coin was originally certified Proof Surface 10/10: Strike 10/10 and if spots developed after certification then it would be obvious the coin no longer has a Surface that is 10/10.

To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.