Grading of Orders & Medals

[Eugene]

Munroe,
Why? Read above. Example. This Patriotic War type 1.
Let’s use this system:
-------------------------------
Unc - Unissued without imperfections.
Au (Almost Unc) - Unissued or issued, one or two small imperfections. Have seen little use.
XF - Nice, have seen use, not many imperfections.
VF - Very fine medal or order, have seen use, some imperfections due to contact with other medals.
F - Fine. Used medal. Several imperfections and/or traces of polishing.
VG - Very good used medal or order. Many imperfections and/or probably repaired enamel on orders and/or heavy polishing.
G - Good used medal or order. Seen heavy use. Damages or repairs.
AG - About good. Collect only if the medal have been in action at the Reichstag!

This order will be graded G. Which means quite poor condition if you are collector. The enamel heavy damaged.
I would agree if it was OPW type 2. But this is Type 1 variation 1. It ‘s considered to be excellent condition for this variation and extremely desirable. Paul graded this piece 8 out of 10. If it had been type 2, grade would have been 3 out of 10.
You cannot apply the same grades for all awards!

Again, it's just my private opinion. Constanly communicating with other collector, I belive many of them using Paul's system.

[mcwirsk]

Dear Eugene

(Alexei correct me if I am wrong) I thought this medal would have been graded VG or VF and the enamel damaged recorded. eg medal is in VF condition other than bad enamel damage on top of star.

The fact that the medal is scare is a different issue totally. There are many medals like the early Waterloo medals which are almost always found in a F or VG condition but are still rare medals. There is another one the Egypt 1882 which always has severe ( and I means severe) damage from the Khedives star that always comes with the medal.

We all know that these early PW's are normally in bad condition.

The good thing about using the Kruase system is that I don't need to see the item to know its condition.

My last point is that with medals, which are meant to be worn these items are normaly in a used condition. And with Soviet medals, especailly the screwbacks many have been played around with. I don't really mind condition unless we get down to the F level becuase I like to collect the story beind the medal/order. So to me a damaged group with great citations will be better than a mint condition rare item without any story or with a long service citation. (eg Lenins).

lastly I don't disagree with your comments and they are 100% valid, all I am saying is that there is an international system in place and all we need to do is add a little to the description to cover our field.

kind regards from a really hot day (37 degrees)

Munroe

[Kjetil Kvist]

...just sometimes the Krause standards is not enough to describe a coins quality. The normal way to add to the standards "good" or "near", or even split the grades (i.e. vf/f). The most elaborated grading you will find on the last page of Krause Press' World Coin News. I remember a nice coin described Superb Choice Prooflike Brilliant Unc (or SCPBUNC for short). I'm not sure if the coin was really that good, but the price tag was five digits.

[Nota Bene]

Gentlemen,

I think you are confusing two different issues - condition and rarity. Rarity is determined by many factors, and one of them is the condition. I am not saying that a very worn and damaged medal is worthless, on the contrary, to me it is much more interesting, but it's a matter of personal preference.

Grading is used to describe condition only. Age, rarity, variation are totally unimportant for the purpose of grading. Krause system is far from perfect, but it has an advantage of being recognizable. When I describe a medal as XF, a customer would know that we are talking about minor wear. In more complicated cases I would certainly offer more information, like "old traces of polishing", "5% enamel damage", "major scratch at 12 o'clock position", etc. I also use "+"s and "-"s to indicate slightly better or worth condition. I believe this offers much more information then just "5 on a scale of 1 to 10", which BTW nobody uses except for Paul.

If I were to grade Eugene's medal, I guess I would describe it as "missing enamel at the top hand, otherwise XF". I agree it's not exactly a short description, but a piece of this magnitude deserves a very detailed description.

Dietrich, I understand what you are saying and very much respect your position, but in this case we are just talking about a system of convenience.

Alexei

[d-riemer]

Alexei,
I understand the need for a language describing the condition of an order or medal. The description you use in your examples combined with a picture would work very well. When the language and methods of coin collectors infiltrate the field of medal collecting, I would want to bail out.

I remember the idea of "slabbing" that was introduced by coin collectors over 10 years ago. The grade of a coin would be certified and the coins would be sealed in a plastic box labeled with the grade. Instead of collecting coins, one would collect plastic boxes with coins in them. I have not been close to coin collectors in a long time and don't know whether this approach survived. I thought it was a terrible idea, all related to the extreme emphasis on grading.

With stamps, it is the term "mint never hinged" that gives the backside of a stamp more importance than the front. Another grading issue.

I collect medals because I like the "content", the historic meaning, the significance of a medal. Leave it to the coin collectors to count scratches and emphasize their importance.

[AlexF.]

That is absolutely true, d-riemer! Grading is extremely subjective matter, regardless of your background (ancient coins, stamps, US coins, etc.) Krause and other methods would not completely satisfy all of your inquiries about an Order, if you haven't seen it.
Paul (in his current grading version), by my view is the closest to achieve a goal of all collectors - where you can read the description, and know 100% all you need to know for making a buying decision. However, not only he is very meticulous in describing every little thing, worth attention (or even not really worth one), but also, disclaims his opinion in the footer of his COA's, AND puts a high quality images of obv/rev. right on top of them. The statement about "... The order rates [1-10] for condition." goes always at the very end, as to point out that it's not really essential, but basically puts a dot above i.
However, even this approach has it's flaws. Here is one example:
Just a couple of weeks ago I sent Paul one of my Kutuzovs IIIcl, I had for several years. It was in such good condition, that I actually suspected it (even though weight, size, all little details, that would give away fake from original, didn't ring any bells).
Anyhow, here is a quote from Pauls email to me, when he received the Order:
"I received the KUT 3rd and it is not only original, but will rate a 9
out of a possible 10. It's one of the nicest I have recorded. I will
mail it back before I go to the MAX."
In a next few days I get my Order back with COA, and it says "rates 8 out of 10 for condition." (!) Well, start reading description, and it states there that it has scratches from screwback plate on reverse, otherwise, perfect. Hmmm, interesting, because I researched this Order before sending it to Paul, and it belonged to an Airborne Regiment (!), which means that nobody was actually wearing it, and judging by it's condition, it was probably not even on a Regimental Banner, but rather in
Division's museum, or something. There aren't a single slightest
mark on reverse, that would indicate the plate, patina is practically uniform...
So now, I would have to assume, we're dealing with subjective opinion plus something else (mood swings? I emailed Paul and asked about this, so far he did not reply).
If he wouldn't have put the condition rating statement at the end of description, it would be all there, extremely descriptive... perfect!
Of course, this is not about Paul, everyone knows that the whole collectors community is in debt to him for stopping most of the fakes entering the market, for his "bible-like" book on Orders, and his authentication services. On the contrary, I think, we might capitalize on his idea, and perfect it.
Bottom line, if we would have a minimum standard for images (size and quality), and certain standards on description, we don't need to state "VF", "XF+", "8 out of 10", etc. - it would make as much sense as setting types and variation for fakes of Order of Victory:-)

Just my quarter...
Alex.

[Nota Bene]

Gentlemen,

I would never go to such extremes as to introduce some perverted methods of coin collecting into this area, but I still believe that grading is a necessary evil. Pictures are are always the best solution, but I simply can't afford to keep on my website scans of every item I have in stock. I will always scan a more expensive order, but as for a jubilee medal, I will just say that it is AU. Given the choice between AU and "rates a 9, out of a possible 10, for condition", I think AU would be my preference.

Grading certainly is subjective, and in my book overgrading is a valid cause for returns. To avoid them I just downgrade my medals half step when I am in doubt.

Alexei

[HuliganRS]

Gentelmen,

Can someone explain how Paul McDaniel's scale works?

I know it's based on a 10-Point scale.

I know he deducts one point if your order has the circular mark left by the screwplate.

What are other deciding factors that you know?

I would give it 4 out of ten.
Mainly because of eye appeal.

Can you explain why this one received 6?

Thanks,

Rusty.

.

[olezha11]

Rusty,
What's your criteria for 4 out 10 for this order?
Oleg

[HuliganRS]

Oleg,

I would venture a guess and say it's missing 60% of original enamel. To me it's mostly the eye appeal! and this piece has very little...

What would you rate it?
What about my original question?

Thanks,

Rusty.