Since I started collecting coins I always found it easy to find information on grading coins. Early on, different grading systems confused the matter. A lot of literature referred to the Sheldon system. This system is commonly used for grading US coinage. The main professional body in Australia, that is ANDA, subscribe to the Australian grading system. Most Australian literature also refers to the Australian system. To me this means the relevance of the Sheldon system is limited. Although the Sheldon system is used by some Australian coin dealers,  I for one balk at buying Australian coins from them as to me it shows disrespect to the hobby of collecting "Australian Coins."

Now I have had my two cents worth about the irrelevance of the Sheldon system in Australian coin collecting it is time to focus on the Australian system and its' application to decimal coinage. The literature on the Australian system focuses on predecimal coins, in particular the King George V series. This is because the prices of predecimal coins has sky rocketed since the early 1960's and the fact that price is strongly linked to grade makes it very important that a standard system is used. Little work has been done on decimal grading. This is probably a result of a number of reasons including the fact that nearly all Australian decimal coins are readily available in uncirculated condition at very reasonable prices. This means most collectors only bother with uncirculated coins meaning the need for standard gradings on lower grade coins is not as important. As time has progressed and the numismatic community has discovered many varieties that do command premium prices, the need for consistent grading of decimal coinage has become a topic of interest that nobody has really tackled to most peoples satisfaction. In fact, in researching this article I have not found one piece of literature on decimal grading. I hope someone out there proves me wrong!!!

At this point I will say that this article is a suggestion on decimal coin grading. I do not believe this information can be taken as gospel unless it is agreed upon by the wider numismatic community. I just hope that this article will generate discussion and can be used as a basis for agreement. Some people will be disappointed that this article did not include pictures. The reason for this is because the technology I possess does not capture the highlights of the coins I wanted to show. In fact, when showing the scans I took to my wife, she got more confused as contact marks, lustre and toning either did not show or showed up too well. Although I am no mug with a scanner, a digital camera would have been the ideal in this situation!!!.

In writing this I will state one very important fact that all should agree upon. An uncirculated coin is not necessarily graded as uncirculated. A coin that has not hit general circulation is commonly referred to and sold as uncirculated. A good example is $1 mint marked coins released by the mint on a card. However, because these coins are mass produced in the same way as other circulation coins, the coin suffers knocks and may have contact marks or indentations on its' surface. Although sold as uncirculated it may be graded at less than uncirculated. This is not diminishing from the fact it is an uncirculated coin, it just can not be graded as uncirculated.

Now let us get started!!!

FDC: “Fleur De Coin” French: Flower of the Die

A perfect or virtually perfect coin. No contact or other detracting marks are visible with the naked eye, and only minute superficial imperfections, relating to the manufacturing process rather than any other cause, may be visible under magnification. Full lustre or mint bloom is present.  Eye appeal is outstanding. These coins are not proofs, as proof coins are made under a totally different process. They are the pick of the crop of coins. They would be considered extremely rare in common circulation issues. They would be the pick of the crop from sets such as the uncirculated wedding sets.

GEM: GEM Uncirculated

A superior coin with an almost perfect Strike. May show just a few minute contact marks, barley visible to the naked eye. Virtually full lustre or mint bloom is present.  Overall, exceptional eye appeal is present. These coins would be expected to be obtained from uncirculated wedding sets or the very best coins from more recent issue mint sets. Due to toning of early mint sets coins, few early coins will be found in this grade.

CHU: Choice Uncirculated

A fairly good strike, but some weakness in this area is acceptable. If seemingly excessive but common for type, then this may be mentioned separately. Just a few but relatively insignificant contact marks may be present. Virtually full mint bloom or lustre should be apparent. Pleasant eye appeal. I would expect to find most of this type of grade in mint sets although some coins obtained from mint rolls may experience these characteristics.

UNC: Uncirculated- Typical

A few scattered contact marks, but if of a fairly eye catching or serious nature, this should be mentioned separately. Lustre or mint bloom should  be present, but possibly be subdued. Eye appeal still should be good but unattractive toning should be separately mentioned and may place the coin at a lesser grade. This grade will capture a large percentage of coins sold in original packaging by the mint as uncirculated but excessive markings or rim nicks will place the coin in a lesser grade. High quality mint roll coins will be placed in this grade providing next to no machine marks are present. High quality eak strike coins may also fall into this grade

aUNC: almost Uncirculated

Similar in most respects to UNC but with light traces of wear on the highest points of the design or more than a few scattered contacted marks are present.. A fair degree of lustre or mint bloom may still remain but it is expected that toning will be present. This grade will capture a majority of $1 mint marked coins sold in original packaging due to contact marks or toning as a result of unsealed packaging. Coins graded aUNC due to light wear may be visually more attractive than others graded UNC. Reasons for this may be a better strike or more attractive toning. However, light wear results in aUNC grade..

gEF: good Extra Fine

Shows a little more wear (2%-5%) on the high points of the design. Usually features non-serious contact marks, obvious from circulation. Some lustre still possible and probably expected, but more likely found in protected areas. Reasonable eye appeal should still be present.

EF: Extra Five

Light overall wear, (5% to 10%) from the high points of the design. A few more Contact Marks than for gEF, (but still nothing serious) may be apparent. Lustre, particularly on AL/Br and copper coins is starting to suffer. A pleasant but obviously used coin. This would be the lowest grade a serious collector of decimal coins should accept, except for rarer error and "variety" coins.

aEF: almost Extra Fine

Wear is now around 10% to 15%. Lightly scattered contact marks are obvious. Lustre, particularly on AL/Br and copper coins is starting to suffer as a result of toning. Overall, a pleasant but circulated coin.

gVF: good Very Fine

Wear is now around 15% to 20% from the highest points of the design. Contact Marks are obvious but still not serious. Toning is becoming very apparent. The condition of the coin is still acceptable but given the cost of most decimal coinage better coins should be sort after, particularly if it is not a rare variety. Earlier decimal coins may still be found in circulation in this grade with a great deal of searching.

VF: Very Fine

Wear is around 20% to 35% from the highest points of the design.  Contact marks are moderate but no more than for a coin that has seen average circulation. Significant contact marks must still be mentioned separately. In reality collectors of decimal coins will not be interested in too much below this grade unless it is an error coins or very rare variety. This is probably the bottom range of a normal circulation decimal coin.

Fine: Fine

Wear now is around 35% to 50% form the high points of the design. Intricate details are well worn away. Coin may still have a pleasant but well used appearance. Your are starting to get into grades where the coin has seen well beyond normal wear.

VG: Very Good

Wear may be uneven and is 50% to 75% from the high points of the main design. However, all outline of the design are still fairly raised and intact. Coins at this grade are often removed from circulation as they are at the end of there lifespan.

GOOD: Good

Wear is above 75% to 90% form the high points of the design. All Outline of the design is still apparent, though marginally so in some areas. Very few coins of this grade will be found in circulation unless unusual damage has occurred to the coin.

A few further points I need to add to finish this article off. Firstly, Al/Br coins wear more than our other coins because they are made from a softer metal. To add to this, their toning is not attractive and contact marks really stand out. Our Cupro-Nickel coins on the other hand do not tone readily and like our bronze coins are made from a harder material. This means they wear better than their Al/Br counterparts. In practice $1 and $2 coins minted in the 1980's show a lot more wear than bronze and cupro-nickel coins minted in the 1970's.

Secondly and probably my most valid point is that expect a lot from an uncirculated graded coin. I have too often heard about buyers of mint marked $1 coins receive a coin that they believe is not up to scratch. When buying the coin ask the dealer is the coin uncirculated and then secondly ask if it is graded as uncirculated. You might get a strange look but as discussed earlier, this is a valid question. Once a few start asking this very question to dealers, particularly ebay sellers, all collectors may find a improvement in descriptions of coins.

Thirdly, I would like to say grading is not an exact science and there will always be disagreements on a coins grading. At least if we adopt a standard terminology as I have suggested, at least we can be assured we are at least talking about the same thing.

Finally, I am open to criticism or support and I am happy to publish anyone's ideas in future editions of the magazine. I would like to start a regular "letters to the editor" section but given the few emails I receive I have not published a readers letter in a while. If anyone has the inclination and technology, I would be happy to publish pictures of coins in the grades discussed above.

Hind sight is a good thing. Many collectors and dealers have been caught a bit off guard over one coin released last month. The Tasmania bicentennial $5 proof coin was released last month. Feedback from a few dealers suggested that this coin would be a flop outside of Tassie. I know of one or two dealers that did not buy any of these coins. A few collectors by-passed this coin in preference to the 2004 fine silver proof set and the 2004 $1 gold plated roo. My personal view is the coin is well presented in a timber case but I have seen nicer coins. However, with a mintage of only 7500 it was bound to sell reasonably quickly. In fact, it sold so quickly that the RAM sold out in less than a month. I would expect this coin to push the $100 mark in the near future. This is one I think is worth picking up now before market increases.

As mentioned in my last issue, the RAM forum has closed. I have been assured by the marketing manager of the Mint, Tom Firth, that the forum will reopen in the future once a number of issues are sorted out. A new forum has been set up and a link proved in the last issue. The new forum has moved to a new home as a result of restriction on the old free web space. Most of the experienced collectors from the RAM forum now regularly post of the new forum. From what I have seen thus far, the new forum is far better than the RAM forum anyway. The new link is http://www.aussiecoins.net/forum/