Grading Freeman vs Gouby

[hazelman]

One of the most contentious issues on any coin forum appears to be grading. 

Could grading methods used by Freeman vs Gouby be one of the issues?

In addition what is the equivalent of the following grading by Gouby for Freeman. 

Gouby Fine

Gouby Very Fine

Gouby Extra Fine

Gouby AUNC

Gouby UNC

Thanks

Fred

[1949threepence]

I'm not sure there's any dispute between Freeman and Gouby when it comes to grading. Freeman doesn't talk much about coin grades. 

There may be some slight disparity when it comes to rarity. 

[Peckris 2]

British coin grades are standard:

UNC and BU

EF

VF

F

Fair or VG

 

What varies is people's interpretations of grades. EF and VF aren’t as strict as they were 30 years ago (except as listed by Spink). F is more consistent though I've seen even reputable dealers use it for coins no better than Fair.

[hazelman]

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

[Peckris 2]

11 minutes ago, hazelman said:

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

No, quite right. VF+ = GVF. Intermediate grades - e.g. from F to VF - would be F / F+ or GF / NVF / AVF / VF. (N = nearly A = about). A wearing die versus a new die might be AEF / GEF.

Where the obverse and reverse are different grades, they're given separately (obverse first) - e.g. VF/EF

[1949threepence]

19 minutes ago, hazelman said:

Gents perhaps I haven't phrased myself correctly .  To be fair i dont have any reference material from Freeman an as such tend to use Gouby. The reasons I came to this conclusion is that I have heard terms that i am not accustomed to which i assumed are terms used by Freeman such as Good Very Fine, which to me would be VF+ is this incorrect?

Gouby does have his own way of grading coins, which doesn't fundamentally alter normal grading principles, but adds to it in terms of splitting grades, especially at the UNC level. 

Fred, do you own a copy of Gouby's book, 'The British Bronze Penny"? He explains the distinctions very well in there, at pages 105 to 107 . 

 

[hazelman]

Yes thanks I do have a copy -that’s what I use to grade my coins - the uncertainty arose out of swing terminology that I was not familiar with which I assumed came from Freeman.

[ozjohn]

Maybe it would be better to adopt a number scale ie  Shelden 0  to  70 or even the GGS 0  to 100 and cut out all the abts. VF+ etc.

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by ozjohn
Typo

[blakeyboy]

I have the grading book by Derek Francis Allen and I like it.

 

[1949threepence]

25 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

I have the grading book by Derek Francis Allen and I like it.

 

Yes, it's a great book.

[blakeyboy]

Curiously, like many tomes that have a hell of a lot of work hidden behind a simple façade, it's actually quite interesting,

when one is curious about 'how things wear out',  often involving denominations that have never appealed....

Strange thing, grading.

"Eye appeal" or "better in the hand" or "toning" etc. etc. could make all this a referenceless minefield,

whereas this books is a good attempt to create a reference frame that's needed.

[ozjohn]

15 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, it's a great book.

Couldn't agree more. I use it all the time. On the Ipad Kindle app you can magnify the image  to get an even better view of the coin .

Edited December 29, 2019 by ozjohn

[Sword]

I have very much enjoyed reading my copy. I doubt there will be a second edition due to the work involved. But if a second edition were to happen, one major improvement is to ensure that each of the coins featured have large size UNC photos of the entire coins. Telling the difference between UNC and GEF is often the hardest. 

[1949threepence]

14 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

Curiously, like many tomes that have a hell of a lot of work hidden behind a simple façade, it's actually quite interesting,

when one is curious about 'how things wear out',  often involving denominations that have never appealed....

Strange thing, grading.

"Eye appeal" or "better in the hand" or "toning" etc. etc. could make all this a referenceless minefield,

whereas this books is a good attempt to create a reference frame that's needed.

Absolutely - it is totally scientific in its approach. It's also great for pennies as it concentrates on them. 

I do agree that sometimes an EF coin with residual lustre, no marks and even toning, can look better than a nominally UNC example with uneven toning and marks. But that is actually separate from degrees of actual wear, which is what grading is all about. 

Derek is a member on here @Red Riley, but hasn't posted for some time.  

[ozjohn]

24 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely - it is totally scientific in its approach. It's also great for pennies as it concentrates on them. 

I do agree that sometimes an EF coin with residual lustre, no marks and even toning, can look better than a nominally UNC example with uneven toning and marks. But that is actually separate from degrees of actual wear, which is what grading is all about. 

Derek is a member on here @Red Riley, but hasn't posted for some time.  

Then there is the issue of strike  v  wear which can be very hard to determine.

[Sword]

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

[1949threepence]

13 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

Then there is the issue of strike  v  wear which can be very hard to determine.

Absolutely. There are some appallingly poor strikes - for example many of the WW1 George V pennies. An UNC example, can still justly be referred to as UNC, or "practically as struck". But in such cases an EF (or even GVF) coin with a good strike (ie complete breast plate and decent hair detail), is going to be far more desirable  than an UNC coin with 100% lustre, but no sign of a breastplate, and a slaphead King (for want of a better expression).    

[1949threepence]

8 minutes ago, Sword said:

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

Such things are wholly subjective, as you say, and would be almost impossible to quantify as opinions vary from person to person. All TPG's can do is grade according to a chart. It's up to individual vendors to point out eye appeal, quality of strike etc. Then for buyers to decide what appeals to them personally.  

[JLS]

1 hour ago, Sword said:

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number. 

  The "prices only depend on grades" adage does roughly approximate the market in post-1950s US coins. Take a common date Memorial cent with a mintage in the 100s of millions. No amount of eye appeal makes a MS66 worth the bonkers money people will pay for a MS69 coin (I think the record is $10k for one in the 1980s ??)

[Sword]

14 hours ago, JLS said:

  The "prices only depend on grades" adage does roughly approximate the market in post-1950s US coins. Take a common date Memorial cent with a mintage in the 100s of millions. No amount of eye appeal makes a MS66 worth the bonkers money people will pay for a MS69 coin (I think the record is $10k for one in the 1980s ??)

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting. 

[JLS]

3 hours ago, Sword said:

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting. 

I think it's more about the way the NGC and PCGS registries give you points based on the quality (read numerical grade) of your coins. 

If you want to have the top-ranked set of a popular series like the Memorial cents, anything given enough registry points is going to be worth money to you. 

Why you would really care about the NGC/PCGS registry points is beyond me.