Brilliant Uncirculated

B.U is a easy term to describe, Simply this coin didnt make the grade and i want to get rid
Of it!!...LOL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can't tell much at all from those pics Lowfly. You need to make them a little larger....

 

its hard to get good pics in that case for some odd reason....but i will try.

 

So which old timer is right. Given the fact that most older collectors complain incessantly about coins that used to be graded AU and now reside in MS holders, I would say that Conder is right. So what do you say Doug, and remember, this time you are telling someone who has just as much experience as you that they are wrong.

 

That is not an exaggeration, it is a bold faced lie. If you were right there would not be any AU58 coins in existence, or at least any graded since 2007. And where you refuse to post examples, I will gladly prove you wrong.



This is an AU58 SLQ that has been graded within the last few years evidenced by the prongs and certification number. The only friction on this coin is isolated to liberty's right leg which is prone to roll friction as it is the high point of the design. SLQ's are one of the most market graded series in the 20th century yet this coin was graded AU58. It would have been very easy for NGC to market grade this coin to an MS63/64 holder. I guess you will respond by saying they let one slip by without market grading it!

You act as though the TPG's look at every AU coin from ever series and deem the wear roll/cabinet friction and market grade the coin to an MS grade. The simple fact is that an overwhelming majority of coins with wear are given mint state grades come from a few specific series of coins. I don't collect most of these series and neither do most of the average collectors in the world. Therefore, considering the TPG practice of market grading coins with friction a mortal sin seems rather a moot point for most collectors.

And since I don't have 50 years of experience in the coin game, I guess it is incumbent upon me to prove that I know which series are the most commonly market graded with regards to friction. In my experience, the top three series are Saint Gaudens Double Eagles, Capped Bust Half Dollars, and Standing Liberty Quarters.

Now how many Saint collectors do we have here on Cointalk? I would be impressed in we had any. I own only one Saint in my collection and yes it shows evidence of wear and resides in an MS63 holder.



The wear is restricted to the high points of the coin (breast & leg) and the luster in the fields is undisturbed. It is your opinion that this coin belongs in an AU holder. What is wrong with that? I don't need to tell you, I will let PCGS tell you. Here is a quote from page 16 of the PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION under the heading TECHNICAL VERSUS MARKET GRADING.

"Most MS65 Saints have "roll" or "friction" on the breast and leg of Miss Liberty. In truth, the only Saints that do not have broken luster on their high points are the counterfeits! Luster breaks, cabinet friction, album slide marks, and other slight friction affect nearly all coins."

In your world Doug, every Saint would bear the same grade: AU58. How do you propose to separate the obviously superior MS65 coin with an AU58 grade from the coin that actually has been lightly circulated and deserved the AU58 grade? Luckily, it is not up to you and the TPG's have made the prudent decision to employ a system of market grading that has solved the problem.

Furthermore, your opinion on this subject can be summarized by a statement you made a few months ago.

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/showthread.php?t=130595&page=2#ixzz1APV0tSpJ

Wear is wear regardless of how it occurred and the numismatic community has never agree with you. It sounds very similar to my opinion that strike should not be market graded across different date/mm in a given series. And as you so astutely pointed out, the numismatic community does not agree with me either. I also find it ironic that PCGS address both the cabinet friction and strike market grading in the same section of their book.

If you take a minute an stop trying to prove me wrong, you might actually realize that the practice of market grading that you abhor by the TPG's actually serves a vital role in the market place. Now if you are upset because you think they are abusing the use of market grading coins with friction, I can't help you, because I honestly don't see the abuse. Since you used to collect CBH's, I am sure you have more experience in that area.

 

I don't own grading books that are that old!

 

Uh, oh.....perilously close to starting with the "old" jokes again.

 

as a new collector, when ever I see "BU" I think Raw... I expect "MS" coins to be in holders. I only shop wheaties..

 

How about responding to the article you insisted I post, effectively calling me a liar until I posted it. In that article it clearly states TPGers have changed standards, and to what extent. You say they haven't changed and circulated coins are not being slabbed as MS Paul, but the article linked earlier clearly states that.

Chris

 

How about showing me an example of a coin that bears a mint state grade but has obvious wear from circulation. Are you claiming to not have access to Heritage archives?

I read the article and it seems that Farazzi is a proponent of Doug's grading method in which wear is wear and any coin with wear should not be graded as an uncirculated coin. His examples are gold coins which are commonly found with roll friction. And with the exception of one word in the entire article, he seems to be talking about market grading coins with roll friction as uncirculated. Let's look at a few passages shall we.

In this passage, he is obviously talking about roll friction. The TPG's also state that age, design, and alloy are key factors regarding how likely they are to market grade coins with roll/cabinet friction. But later in the article, he writes:

This is the only passage in the whole article that leads me to believe that he is saying it is acceptable to grade circulated coins as mint state. If you change the word "circulation" to "friction" however, it reads like he is talking about roll friction. Notice that he states you can ignore loss of detail on the high points which is where roll friction occurs. Nowhere in this article does he say that friction and the associated loss of luster in the fields is acceptable.

Now I renew my request. If so many circulated coins have been graded as mint state coins by the TPG's, then it should be easy for you to show us an example of one from the Heritage archives. I have posted an example of an AU coin graded within the last few years that dispels the myth that you and Doug are propagating. I have also posted an example of a coin that has wear (roll friction) and resides in a mint state holder. I have also explained the reason why it is necessary to grade coins with "roll" friction as mint state coins. However, I have not seen one example a grading injustice posted by anyone in this thread. And after you find one, perhaps you can tell us how long it took you to search the Heritage archives to find it.

 

I think i've started an epic argument. lol

 

Nah, don't think of it that way. Think of it as a debate between some very knowledgable people...

 

I can do that. haha I wish i could get better pics of that 1882 morgan i have...i'd love some opnions. I've been real tempted to Un-slab it, but the value would drop right?

 

Wow, your arrogance knows no boundaries does it? You still after all this time present your opinion as an incontrovertible fact. You have not even come close to proving that the TPG's have changed their standards. And now your qualifications to recognize a change in standards is to be as old as dirt like you. Please name any other hobby, activity, sport, or profession where a decade of experience does not remove the newbie tag. That might be the most ridiculous post you have made yet.

When you are willing to start posting examples that show how the TPG's have changed their standards, let me know! Otherwise I really don't care to listen to anymore of your lunacy. BTW, in your numismatic conspiracy theory, how do the TPG's handle their grade guaranty after they make all the MS65's into MS63's overnight?

 

A few years ago, I bought a group of XF-AU Liberty 10's from one of the CW advertisers, and a couple of weeks later bought a group of "Select BU" Liberty 10's from the same dealer. But for the most part, I couldn't tell the difference between the two groups.

 

F. Michael “Skip” Fazzari, former chief authenticator for ANACS, expert numismatist for Independent Coin Grading (ICG) is an instructor at the ANA Summer Seminar.



Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/showthread.php?t=130595&page=3#ixzz1Adv1FKsI

He is the auther of the article. He was also a grader at ANACS before that. Yes, I know he only said "circulation" wear once in the article, and it would be nice for you to assume he didn't mean it. He is, as most would acknowledge though, a certified expert in this field, and I for one do not wish to change wording that he and his editor probably have already discussed. Until he ever published a changed article, (and I haven't seen it in NN), I will believe him and let his words stand.

You must have better eyes than me Lehigh to be able to spot breaks in luster from front on photos of coins. I need to see a coin and turn it at an angle to the light to verify there is no break in luster, so I will not be doing as you ask and trying to search HA archives. For me at least, this would be a waste of time because just because I cannot see it from a photo I cannot verify there is not wear on a coin usually.

Chris

 

That's funny, Doug can always spot luster breaks from photos. Maybe you could employ him to fufill my very simple request.