Technical v. Market Grading

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Kirkuleez, May 15, 2012.

  1. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    Yes sir I read it, but then even regarding roll friction you state that at times it becomes unprovable if its roll friction or wear. I say be truthful, its its provable damage from storage and not wear, its fine to treat it like dings and be BU. It its unsure, unprovable, etc, then they cannot lie and label it BU since its unprovable that its a BU coin.

    They should simply be honest, is what I am asking. I know, I am a dreamer.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    What is the difference between how the TPG's handle the "roll friction" problem and the "artificial toning" problem? Both are handled with the concept of market acceptability.
     
  4. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    Roll friction can be proven. There are times it may be suspected but if its not provable then I believe it should be treated as wear.

    Toning, yeah we don't wish to go there sir. We don't play well together when discussing toning. :) Out of respect for you and a few others, I generally avoid that issue on this board nowadays.
     
  5. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    It seems that our positions on both subjects are diametrically opposed.

    BTW, I fixed it for ya (in red). I believe that is what you meant to say.
     
  6. areich

    areich America*s Darling

    Hello

    What is roll friction?

    Mandy
     
  7. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    There are two different definitions for Roll Friction and they are as follows:

    The Purists Definition: An excuse to label a coin with wear as uncirculated

    The General Definition: Minor displacement of metal, mostly on the high points, seen on coins stored in rolls.
     
  8. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    The problem with those two definitions and roll friction in general is they're now slabbing album friction , andbank counting friction as all acceptable . Now who's to say when those types of friction constitutes wear , granted a little bit of metal displacement with clean fields is fine by me for Unc. but some of the coins seems to show definite wear . By calling any friction roll friction the tpgs have an opening to lable coins Unc. and with market grading they sometimes go too far .
     
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    The reason that the ANA has always found cabinet friction to be separate and acceptable on an MS graded coin is quite simple. It's because there was a time when with certain coins it was provable that a coin had never been in circulation. Sometimes it was because the coin was never issued into circulation, they were bought directly from the mint by collectors. The taken home and put in a coin cabinet. And there they stayed until sold or passed on to the next collector.

    In modern times that reasoning has been taken completely out of context and extended to anything that might have caused light wear on the high points, and on any coin, including light wear from actual circulation.

    If you ask me, the PCGS explanation that a coin can have that light wear and still be called MS because the coin was never in actual circulation is a bunch of hooey ! Why ? Because everybody here knows dang well that you can go out a get (some) coins directly out of the cash register at a grocery store, coins that were absolutely in actual circulation, and there will be no wear or breaks in the luster on that coin. Then you can take that coin, submit it to a TPG and the coin will be graded MS.

    But yet it was a coin that was in actual circulation.

    Roll friction, album friction, or any other term they care to use, is nothing but an excuse to grade AU coins as MS. And the PCGS comments that ALL Saints have light wear and luster breaks is a bunch of nonsense. There are plenty of Saints out there that have no light wear or luster breaks. And they are correctly graded as MS. And yes, there are quite a few of them in PCGS slabs. So they disprove their own comments to the contrary.
     
  10. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    The "roll friction" I would accept, (and I know you consider me a purist), is when metal is displaced but there is evidence it was done by a metallic object versus wear. This 'evidence" would include scrape marks in the displacement zone.

    That is high point displacement I would accept as still being a provable BU coin. Any other wear that appears rounded and has luster breaks, since then its not provable as anything other than wear, I simply should say is wear.

    I still don't know why people simply hate owning a AU coin. There is not a thing wrong with a nice AU coin.
     
  11. Owle

    Owle Junior Member

    Here is a Bust coin I bought as an MS60: http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/51409/1831-Capped-Bust-Dime-PCGS-AU-55

    Where is the wear? I don't see any. It looks like PCGS saw lack of some luster in the fields as evidence of wear...

    Maybe NGC would like it as an MS60?

    "MR: What are the toughest coins or series to grade? And what are the easiest?
    MS: For me, Bust coins are very difficult to grade due to strike factors and the perception that cabinet friction may or not be actual rub. These coins were typically struck poorly, luster is often subdued."
    http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=2259
     
  12. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    Seriously? Look at her curls. These can be tricky, and of course I would wish to see it in hand, but these are almost always well struck, (tiny coin), and I see wear on the obverse.

    I like the coin, have quite a few of them actually. For some reason capped bust half dimes were always around dated 1829-1835 in nice AU condition, so I bought a few. Nice coin, but demonstrably AU to me anyway sir.
     
  13. Owle

    Owle Junior Member

    Probably I relied on the coin dealer (Rahway Coin) and his buddy too much for their judgment on its grade. Tough to find AU/BU Bust dimes and quarters...
     
  14. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    Its a nice original coin. Sorry if I sounded harsh, I just have bought a few (5-6), and handled many more. I know the issue pretty well. I would use it as a learning exercise. I am willing to bet you a cheeseburger that if you had the coin in hand, turned at an angle in the light, you could see the luster breaks on her curls. I cannot tell you how many exact half dimes I have seen like that.

    Maybe he sold it to you as MS60 since they expected the TPG to grade it as BU? I am not being flippant, simply commenting on how a TPG commented in NN that nice AU's are now commonly graded 61-63. The dealer himself may have been "market grading" it.
     
  15. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

  16. medoraman

    medoraman Well-Known Member

    Interesting. I see harsh cleaning, but not sure about wear. I think the coin has been "messed with", hence a 60 versus a 63 grade. Just my opinion, and its hard to be sure from just a photo.
     
  17. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    I figured it was dipped , it still has cartwheel on the obverse . What makes you say harsh cleaning ?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page