totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

No -that is a weak strike.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These comments help define the controversy. Both of you admit that if the abrasion on the knee was caused by contact from another coin that the coin should still be graded as a mint state coin. Unfortunately, storing coins on top of each other causes friction which results in wear that is indiscernable from circulation wear. That is the main reason why people like Doug want to condemn all the coins, even those that show wear as a result of roll friction. My point is simply that the numismatic community does not take such a hard lined stance on the subject. For certain series of coins with known high points, roll friction is commonly overlooked during the grading process.

The chances that the wear on the Saint in this thread was caused by circulation is extremely low. PCGS recognized this and appropriately graded the coin in the mint state range. I will divulge the grade of the coin after Doug provides his opinion of the coin.

 

I didn't say that it should still MS. I assume it may be between AU55 to 58. That's based on picture showed.

 

Your grade is based upon the wear being the result of circulation which it is not. The wear you see is the result of two coins coming in contact with each other. See your previous quote below.

The bolded section indicates that you would agree with the MS grade as long as the wear was caused by contact with another coin.

 

Paul I didn't admit to anything regarding your coin.

My statement, which you qouted, was a general statement to the OP to clarify that if the marks they are seeing are bag marks, or contact marks from other coins, those usually don't hold the coin back from an MS grade, but circulation wear does. It wasn't regarding anything I saw on your coin.

I will admit, that I did not bother looking at your coin for two reasons really, 1.) I don't look at gold coinage regularly as I do not intend on collecting gold coinage, and 2.) I do not have knowledge for grading gold coins as I do not plan to collect it.

 

What coin?

 

My bad, thought you posted the gold coin.

Post was edited.

 

i STILL THINK IT IS A WEAK STRIKE AND THE PROOF IS THE BAD MARKS OVER THE LEG.

 

Do you know what? I am glad that I learned grading systems without biased or politics behind it. I agree with Doug that you took my words out of context.

Based on contact or bag marks from ANA grading system meant light scratch or light hit from another coins that can still be graded as MS, but the picture you showed are real wear mark on high points that in my opinion can't be MS.

 

Any coin that ugly should be graded SM - 6

 

What I see in that comment is that contact and bag marks won't make it less than MS but wear, which it has, does. Contact marks and bag marks are not wear, friction is wear. And wear is wear, and a coin with wear, from any source, is not MS.

 

Because, as PCGS points out in their book, all Saints have that exact same high point wear. Are you really going to claim that every Saint Gaudens in existence circulated?

If this coin is AU



then what is this coin?

It is not ridiculous to point out the blatant hypocrisy by those who think that coin to coin contact in the form of marks should not affect the mint state status of the coin but coin to coin contact in the form of friction causing an abrasion should affect the mint state status of the coin.

 

So you are saying that the determining factor in whether a coin remains mint state is the angle in which one coin contacts another. If the coin hits the other coin and leaves a mark, that is okay and the coin is mint state. But if two coins rub together causing an abrasion that appears to look like wear, then the coin is no longer mint state and the coin should be considered AU despite the fact that the coin never circulated?

 

Says who? Not me, and certainly not the TPG's.

 

I don't know gold but I don't see wear. I see a bunch of bag marks over the legs. The real question isn't if the coin is AU or MS, it is whether it is damaged or not. There is a chunk of metal gourged from the left leg.

 

Says the ANA Grading Standards Paul.

For a coin to meet the standards for a MS60, which I'm sure you would agree is the low end of the MS range, it must have no traces of wear.

An AU50 has evidence of friction on high points of design, but at least half of the original mint luster.

Just because the TPGs choose to ignore this, and seem to think they and ONLY they can distinguish between circulation wear and friction wear(your words) and slide a coin which should be an AU up to MS, doesn't make it carved in stone. and in fact it contradicts the ANA standards.

 

If it's such hypocrisy, as you call it, then the 64 Jefferson listed in your eBay store, which has very noticeable contact marks on both sides, should not be a MS67, but an AU grade, right?

FYI, the ANA standards allow for contact marks in the MS range of the grading scale, including GU, and what you call premium gem.

 

My experience in this matter is irrelevant in this case. PCGS has seen far more Saints than you and they are far more qualified than you. Additionally, they are the most respected grading source in the numismatic community today. You are just some guy blowing smoke on a coin forum, despite all your supposed experience. And your track record of being wrong on this forum supports my point. Shovel scoops, counting wheel marks on Danish Gold, and market graded AU Jefferson Nickels to MS65: those are just the topics that I can recall off the top of my head.

Well if you would even bother to read my posts you would have known that it was a direct quote from the book. I will repeat the quote here:

Unlike you, I actually provide proof when I reference another source. You claim that PCGS won't grade a coin with high point wear MS68 or MS69. Why don't you show us where that is written by PCGS?

PCGS gets paid whether they grade the coins AU or MS. They grade the coins MS because they recognize that there is a fundamental problem with calling almost every single Saint an AU coin. They don't do it because they are trying to pull the wool over they eyes of the collecting public and that assertion is utterly ridiculous.

Yet you still did not address my most important question from my previous post. If this coin is AU:




then what is this coin?