Most knowledgeable collectors and experts in the coin and token field agree that the grade of a coin or token is a comparison of the quality/extent of wear experienced by the coin or token when compared to its newly minted state.  Restating this from a different viewpoint; cosmetic effects on the coin or token (i.e. dirt, die irregularities, discoloration, damage, etc.) are NOT a factor in the grading of the coin or token.  (When you're talking price of the coin or token, that's another story!)  A notable exception to this statement is the Sheldon System which designates grade by mint state (MS) number, wherein a perfect coin is designated as mint state 70 (MS-70).  Within this system, mint states up to and including MS-60 (uncirculated) address coin wear only, while MS-61 through MS-70 address cosmetic factors (i.e. bag marks, blemishes, etc.) on the uncirculated coin.  The American Numismatic Association "Official Grading Standard for U.S. Coins" is patterned after the Sheldon System.

    How can this system, or any other system, help the collector of civil war tokens who has literally thousands of different dies to evaluate?  The ANA grading system is a composite of the older letter grade system and the newer numerical (Sheldon) scale (i.e. VF-20, XF-45, AU-55, etc.)  Using the illustrations in the ANA grading standard, Brown and Dunn's grading guide, Bowers and Ruddy's Photograde, or similar sources for the Indian Head cent of the Civil War years, a reasonable correlation can be made of letter grades Vs amount and location of token wear.  In establishing this correlation, it is extremely important to be able to look beyond the token cosmetics and to evaluate the token wear only.

    After you have a firm grasp on the Indian Head cent image in its various states (degrees of wear), the analogy process may be used to identify these images to non-Indian Head tokens and make comparisons.  I would suggest starting with the Indian Head CWT dies first, since they will afford the best match to the Indian Head cent standards you have obtained.  Look for the wear on the high spots of the design.  Is it reasonably evenly distributed?  Can any of the "wear" be attributed to the manufacturing process (i.e. worn die, filling die, foreign object on the die, excessive grease on the die, uneven strike, etc.)?  When you are satisfied that you have as much information as the token can impart, make your grading decision.  Compare your decision to your standards source, and either accept your decision or revise it.  With practice, most of the evaluation and decision process will become automatic.

    A word of caution.  Come CWT manufacturing practices resulted in conditions easily mistaken for wear.  Some examples of these practices and their results are:
 

• A worn die produces shallower features of the main device, lettering, etc., but retains edge sharpness
• A filling die produces locally shallow features with rounded or blunted edges in the shallower height areas
• A foreign object on the die produces a "strike through", and this effect can range from a sharply defined "gouge" or "scratch" due to a piece of wire on the die, to a sizable area devoid of features due to a fragment of wiping rag or metal on the die
• Excessive grease on the die will accumulate in the recessed portion of the die, and will produce results similar to striking through a rag or metal fragment
• An uneven strike is produced when the upper and lower die faces are not parallel, and there appears to be a uniform changing of strike quality from very sharp on one side to something less on the diametrically opposite side and this pattern is apparent on both sides of the token at the same relative locations obverse to reverse.

    Grading really isn't a monster, but is a communications tool between collectors.  To be effective, it must be fairly restrictive in interpretation; but most importantly, it must be understood by the people using it, otherwise communication is lost.  In grading, there is no substitute for experience.  When you find that one of your grading decisions appears to be wrong, chalk it up to the learning experience and move on.  Don't become hostile toward someone who arrives at a different grade for a given piece that you did.  Try to understand his/her reasoning, and he/she yours, and arrive at a mutually acceptable grading.  When this occurs, you are really communicating, which is why you wanted to be knowledgeable in grading in the first place.