Grading of Medals

[Dieter3]

Gents,

Hoping to drum us some more conversation - this forum can get a little slow at times, but recently it has been very fascinating, so in an effort to keep some momentum......yes, I'm sure this belongs in a more generalized section, but I'll keep it here anyway since Japanese items are my main interest, and enough other folks will read this anyway.

I understand that there at least appear to be standards for grading medals, but I personally find them insufficient, or at least what I've discovered thus far. The grading schemes do try to be objective, or at least present certain criteria, but seem to limit themselves to the METAL, and don't address the piece as a whole - I believe every component must be considered - the medal AND it's ribbon, and any pieces that should be attached to it, in addition to the rosettes and cases when they are present. Most schemes also seem to regurgitate the term "FINE" with other descriptive words tossed in like Good, Very, Nearly, so on and so forth. Sure, they mostly include "Mint" as well. Peachy.

Is there an internationally recognized numismatic organization that is the be all, tell all of grading these pieces???

What I'm wondering is what other folks here use as their descriptors and criteria when they are judging a piece, how do you objectify it? No doubt, there is always a subjective factor inserted into this. I tend to be very hard and critical of things, I definitely don't use these other more generalized standards, save for the term "Mint". What do YOU find acceptable to meet a certain grade?

[Tim B]

Hi Dieter,

I think grading can be very subjective depending on who is doing the actual evaluation. Like you stated, there are set grading systems like that in the coin world, but here I don't see any real standard and one world-wide accepted standard is what would be needed if a system was put into place.

Even in coin collecting, there seems to be some differences of opinions when it comes to professionally graded coins (slabbed) from the different grading companies of NGC, PCGC, ICG, ANACS, etc., and over the years even the grading within those companies have changed somewhat by becoming less stringent. That's why some have taken their old graded coins out of the slabs and resubmitted them in hopes of getting higher grades today. Many are successful, some are not and some even get a lower grade!

I think good, clear PIC's, along with a written description is still the best IMO, as its the buyer that has to make the final determination on what he/she thinks the item is worth and if they want to pay the asking price. For sure, the term "mint" seems to take on different meanings to many sellers these days.

I'm not sure an actual grading system would work really as you would need to establish a certain set of traits for each country, medal type and era.

What does the OMSA do?

Tim

[army historian]

Dieter3, numismatic grading is what is used. It would be best to grade the (Medal/Order) condition and add grade for ribbon, also what is included or not included. This should be a start. It appears most of us really under estimate the condition of medals. Cheers Captain Albert

European grading system

European countries use various different, roughly equivalent, grading systems. The main features of their systems are presented in the following table:^[4]

European Grading System

Adjective Design remaining UnitedKingdom France Spain Italy Germany Scandinavia Netherlands Portugal

Good 10% G AB (Assez Beau) RC M GE (Gut erhalten) 2 G (Goed) REG

Very Good 25% VG B (Beau) BC B (Bello) SGE (Sehr gut erhalten) 1- ZG (Zeer Goed) MREG

Fine 50% F TB (Très Beau) BC+ MB(Molto Bello) S (Schön) 1 Fr (Fraai) BC

Very Fine 75% VF TTB (Très Très Beau) MBC BB (Bellissimo) SS (Sehr schön) 1+ ZF (Zeer Fraai) MBC

Extra Fine 90% XF SUP (Superbe) EBC SPL (Splendido) VZ (Vorzüglich) 01 Pr. (Prachtig) Bela

About Uncirculated 95% + XF/UNC No use No use No use UNZ- (Fast unzirkuliert) 01/0 No use No use Uncirculated 100% + luster UNC SPL (Splendide) EC SPL/FDC UNZ (Unzirkuliert) 0 FDC (Fleur de Coin) Soberba

Brilliant Uncirculated 100% + full luster UNC FDC, (Fleur de Coin) FDC FDC STGL (Stempelglanz) 0 FDC No use

Edited April 17, 2011 by army historian

[drclaw]

It's an interesting topic and certainly one open to subjective interpretations.

For me, numismatic grading terms like 'fine', 'extra fine', 'extremely fine', etc, are more applicable to coins where the main detail is the relief / visibility of the design.

It's less useful for ODM which have enameling and multiple constituent parts (and cases when it comes to Japanese orders). For example, a Rising Sun breast star with one of the points on the rays snapped off might still be 95% complete, but I certainly wouldn't consider it 'extremely fine'.

I've seen orders described as 'extremely fine', 'excellent' or 'original' only to have enamel damage, key elements missing (e.g. an Egyptian Order of the Nile breast star with the crown missing!) or points broken or bent. Regardless whether it's intentional or just laziness on the part of a seller, it makes me think twice about buying anything from them. You just don't know what other 'surprises' you might discover when an item finally arrives.

Conversely, I've purchased items described as 'good' or 'very good' when all it needed was a bit of soap and a toothbrush, and buffing up with a silver polishing cloth to make it 'near mint'.

The dealers and sellers whom I support are those who provide full disclosure of any features that otherwise detract from an item being 100%, e.g. 'enamel damage at 5 o'clock of the medalion', 'old enamel repair', 'one arm slightly bent', etc. Potential buyers can then make their own mind.

This is much more helpful to a customer than generic terms like 'excellent' or, the classic 'very good condition for its age'!

[Dieter3]

Dieter3, numismatic grading is what is used. It would be best to grade the (Medal/Order) condition and add grade for ribbon, also what is included or not included. This should be a start. It appears most of us really under estimate the condition of medals. Cheers Captain Albert

European grading system

European countries use various different, roughly equivalent, grading systems. The main features of their systems are presented in the following table:^[4]

European Grading System

Adjective Design remaining UnitedKingdom France Spain Italy Germany Scandinavia Netherlands Portugal

Good 10% G AB (Assez Beau) RC M GE (Gut erhalten) 2 G (Goed) REG

Very Good 25% VG B (Beau) BC B (Bello) SGE (Sehr gut erhalten) 1- ZG (Zeer Goed) MREG

Fine 50% F TB (Très Beau) BC+ MB(Molto Bello) S (Schön) 1 Fr (Fraai) BC

Very Fine 75% VF TTB (Très Très Beau) MBC BB (Bellissimo) SS (Sehr schön) 1+ ZF (Zeer Fraai) MBC

Extra Fine 90% XF SUP (Superbe) EBC SPL (Splendido) VZ (Vorzüglich) 01 Pr. (Prachtig) Bela

About Uncirculated 95% + XF/UNC No use No use No use UNZ- (Fast unzirkuliert) 01/0 No use No use Uncirculated 100% + luster UNC SPL (Splendide) EC SPL/FDC UNZ (Unzirkuliert) 0 FDC (Fleur de Coin) Soberba

Brilliant Uncirculated 100% + full luster UNC FDC, (Fleur de Coin) FDC FDC STGL (Stempelglanz) 0 FDC No use

See, I find this system interesting - where Good is the lowest grade on the scale, but it does have a rating assigned to it, 10%. (And I know these are defined by certain features and condtions, so there is at least a basis). But it seems nonsensical to me. The levels of "fine" are ridiculous. Yes, I understand that there is some meaning applied to these levels, but I think I prefer something more to the exact point - POOR, FAIR, GOOD, VERY GOOD, EXCELLENT, NEAR MINT, MINT - then throw in a +/- system based on certain other criteria. I mean, to me - a piece at 10% is poor - why call it good?

It's an interesting topic and certainly one open to subjective interpretations.

For me, numismatic grading terms like 'fine', 'extra fine', 'extremely fine', etc, are more applicable to coins where the main detail is the relief / visibility of the design.

It's less useful for ODM which have enameling and multiple constituent parts (and cases when it comes to Japanese orders). For example, a Rising Sun breast star with one of the points on the rays snapped off might still be 95% complete, but I certainly wouldn't consider it 'extremely fine'.

I've seen orders described as 'extremely fine', 'excellent' or 'original' only to have enamel damage, key elements missing (e.g. an Egyptian Order of the Nile breast star with the crown missing!) or points broken or bent. Regardless whether it's intentional or just laziness on the part of a seller, it makes me think twice about buying anything from them. You just don't know what other 'surprises' you might discover when an item finally arrives.

Conversely, I've purchased items described as 'good' or 'very good' when all it needed was a bit of soap and a toothbrush, and buffing up with a silver polishing cloth to make it 'near mint'.

The dealers and sellers whom I support are those who provide full disclosure of any features that otherwise detract from an item being 100%, e.g. 'enamel damage at 5 o'clock of the medalion', 'old enamel repair', 'one arm slightly bent', etc. Potential buyers can then make their own mind.

This is much more helpful to a customer than generic terms like 'excellent' or, the classic 'very good condition for its age'!

Like I mentioned before - I'm pretty tough on things - one could have what is otherwise a perfect piece, but if there an abrasion on the ribbon, I will automatically disqualify it from being anything better than a Good(-) - and that only if everything else is REALLY, REALLY awesome. I don't know, I see damage as damage. You can't call something near-mint if it has a crack in the enamel or a tiny stain on the ribbon - it simply isn't in my mind. I never consider age either in an unbiased, objective system. I'm guessing numismatics do not either, but a lot of sellers sure do - Yeah, something could be "excellent for the age" - compared to the average specimen of whatever we are talking about. But it's not EXCELLENT in the grand scheme of things. Am I just toooo picky??? Somebody set me straight....

Totally agree on supporting sellers that are into full disclosure - I recently got a piece that really looked nice in pics., and I asked the seller - is there ANY soiling or staining to the ribbon? The answer was NO - and indeed - very clean, nothing visible - BUT the rosette was a different story - and the auction picture conveniently included the better side - and the seller didn't mention this in the auction or to me when I asked - sure I didn't ask specifically about the rosette, but come on??? REALLY??? Dude, gimme a break - needless to say, I will no longer buy from that seller. Yeah, we've gotta go with due diligence, but some sellers are either just plain lazy or conveniently ignore those certain flaws - and unfortunately, too many buyers (I feel) do not give neutral or negative feedback simply because they want that positive feedback themselves. Not helpful in assisting future buyers, nor is it helpful in developing sellers to keep them honest and hold them to a higher standard.

Of the few items I've sold on eBay, I highlight flaws along with good points. Why surprise or disappoint somebody? Yeah, you'll maybe make a few less ducats on the sale, but you'll still get LEGITIMATE good feedback if the buyer really knows what to expect! Anyway, going off track here.....

[army historian]

Yes Dieter3, I agree with you the coin rating does not work well with medals/Orders. I prefer: RELIC (identifiable, dug, trashed, etc); POOR (lowest heavily worn, damaged etc.); FAIR (heavy wear,no exceptional damage; GOOD (moderately heavy wear but presentable); VERY GOOD (a good solid example moderate wear); FINE (a good solid example light wear to details); EXCELLENT (All detail present very slight wear); NEAR MINT (all details bold no real wear); MINT (never used or in unissued condition) - then throw in a +/- system based on certain other criteria and add for associated parts present (cases, etc). Then there are the additions - Documents, Photo of receipts, etc. Then there are also certain types of wear and enamel damage common to or associate with certain types awards and orders that must be considered. Not really a simple system. Cheers Captain Albert :cheers: