totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

I am sticking to ANA Grading Standards and odd enough as I have first print of Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection written by PCGS. For AU58, it did stated, "Slight friction is seen on the breasts and left knee." For AU50, it did stated, "The breasts, knee and other parts of the body slightly flat. The field has friction, except in protected areas." Let me check on MS60. Here's what it stated, "Heavy and numerous marks appear over the surface."

The second coin picture you posted can be qualify MS60 because there's no wear on high point, but I don't know about reverse. I did remember one thread in this forum did discuss on AU58 and MS60. AU58 typical to look beautiful and luster than MS60, but have wear on high point. Some collection will pay premium on AU58 than MS60. I think we should stick with black and white instead of "gray area" in coin grading system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If that is what the ANA standards say, then show it to me. How do the ANA standards address roll friction?

The TPG's don't ignore anything, they simply use a different standard. The failure to recognize and address roll friction is a flaw within the ANA standards and the TPG's know this and didn't make the same mistake.

 

Nice try! My point is simple. If the abrasions on the coin are caused by coin to coin contact then the coin should still be considered MS no matter how the abrasion manifests itself. Two coins rubbing together in a roll will yield an abrasion that looks like wear but that doesn't mean the coin should be AU.

 

But you can also get that same friction from several coins being in your pocket. If the friction, regardless of the source, causes wear; it does, and should hold the coin back from an MS grade.

NFN Paul, but wear is cause by friction, whether it's from coin - coin contact, or from being handled through circulation, and even carried in your pocket.

If the coin makes contact with the lining of your pocket it's subjected to friction when you're moving around, from walking, standing and sitting, and that friction causes wear on the coin.

According to PCGS's site, these are from the ANA Grading Standards: http://www.pcgs.com/News/How-United-States-Coins-Are-Graded#uncirculated

 

I am not disputing that wear can result from circulation. I am not even disputing that it is almost impossible to discern circulation wear from roll friction wear. What I am saying is that when you see a series where almost every coin shows high point wear and many of the coins are known to be uncirculated, you can't relegate them all to AU status. Roll friction is real and must be addressed. If you guys want to take the position that wear is wear and all coins with high point wear should be AU, that is your prerogative. However, I am willing to accept a few AU coins in MS holders in order to ensure that the appropriate separation exists in grade for all the legitimately uncirculated coins that show roll friction. And I am not alone in that regard, many other collectors agree with my opinion on the matter as do the TPG's.

BTW, you know that the link to the article on the PCGS website is from 1995 don't you?

 

However, the point I'm trying to make with you is it can't be one standard for one series and everything else follows another standard. As I've stated on this forum numerous times, the TPGs have to accept a universal set of grading standards and apply those standards regardless of who, or how large of a submission is made. Wear is wear, regardless of the source, and should be judged accordingly.

Yes I do know that was from 1995, June 12th to be exact. I also know that the Official ANA Grading Standards for U.S. Coins was published in 1978, but those standards have been around longer than that, and certainly longer than the TPGs.

You state, that roll friction is real and must be addressed. I'll go you one better. I'll say it should be seriously addressed when the TPGs can, with 100% accuracy and degree of certainty, determine a coins high point wear is that of roll friction, as opposed to contact friction from the coin being in one's pocket.

Until they can do that, it will never be addressed.

I also remind you of my admission that I do not look at gold coinage regularly, in fact not at all, and therefore am not knowledgeable about the series. But even gold coins should be judged according to the same standards as silver, or clads.

 

IMO, that is very short sighted. Applying one standard simply doesn't work. I don't want to see every Saint graded AU, it isn't right.

What is your point? My point is that PCGS references the ANA standards in that article in 1995 because they didn't publish their standards in THE PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION until 1997. My copy of that book is a first edition.

They will never be able to be 100% accurate when deeming high point wear roll friction as opposed to circulation wear and you know it. This is where we really disagree. Because they can't be 100% sure, you are uncomfortable with them calling the coin MS. I on the other hand am willing to accept the fact that some circulated coins will end up in MS holders in order to ensure that there are degrees of separation for the actual MS coins that do indeed exhibit roll friction. Having said that, the TPG graders can't be 100% sure that toning is NT or AT, yet we still trust them to make such a determination. The result is that some AT coins end up in holders, some NT coins get bagged, and the majority of coins get graded correctly using the concept of market acceptability. If we applied your hard lined method, any coin with toning would need to be deemed AT to ensure that an AT coin never ended up in a problem free holder.

What you and Doug need to realize is that this is not an issue of right or wrong. Grading is subjective. Not allowing for subjectivity and creating strict rules will only lead to the necessary creation of exceptions to those rules.

Unlike Doug, I am not about to bash you for inexperience with the series. This is a philosophical discussion about an aspect of coin grading that doesn't require expertise in the series. We don't need to be Saint Gaudens experts to understand that almost all of them show luster breaks on the knee and breast, including the uncirculated examples.

I don't agree with your last sentence. How can you apply the same standards to coinage of different alloys. Gold is markedly softer than silver and can't be graded using the same standard, IMO.

 

I have plenty of knowledge and experience which is why I repeatedly make you look foolish. This thread is no exception.

That is not written of page 47 of my copy. What Chapter and topic is that quote from?

While were are on this subject. Here is a quote from Chapter 4: PCGS Grading Standards

In case you don't understand, that means an MS68 can have slight friction.

No Doug, they do it because you can't call an entire series of coins AU when there are obvious differences in level of quality with the series. You don't make the rules about coin grading. If you are claiming that wear is wear and that is an ANA rule, then please quote that section of the ANA grading standards.

Why won't you answer my question? Afraid of appearing foolish perhaps? For the third time now!

If this coin is AU:




then what is this coin?

 

But if every Saint has signs of wear, even on the high points, regardless of how that wear was caused, is it right for the TPGs to give an MS grade? Doesn't that detract from their goal of wanting the collecting community to accept their service as reputable? How many coins have you seen in slabs, whether you own them or not, that have signs of wear but they were slide into the MS range anyway?

My point is the ANA standards are older than the TPGs and they were considered the authority of coin grading, and by many still are.

Ever think why PCGS published their own grading standards? Because they want to create the market for certified coins. You can't possibly tell me that 64 Jefferson I mentioned before would actually sell for the $600 price tag you have on it but for the fact it's in an TPG slab with a 67 on the label. How do you think you could sell that coin for raw? Think you could get $600 for it?

Touche! You know it as well. So let's agree that until they can be, regardless of what type of friction caused the wear, it's still wear, and should be deemed as circulated.

It's not that I'm uncomfortable with this coin being in an MS holder, it's that the TPG ignored the fact that it's still wear, and it shouldn't be in an MS holder.

As far as AT and NT coins go, I am quite certain, and will give you this one, that there are AT coins with grades in TPG holders and NT coins that were bagged. Again this goes to the degree of certainty, and the ability of the graders to be able to distinguish the difference. Since they can't on AT and NT, how can anyone expect them to do the same with roll friction and pocket friction?

I agree, grading is subjective, even before the TPGs it was subjective, and long after we're gone, it will still be subjective. An opinion that will vary from one person to the next.

Doug has never, nor would he bash me for my lack of knowledge and experience with this, or any series.

Don't go getting all Dr. Phil on me, this is a debate, and good for change between us, about the grading standards used.

Even though I am not knowledgeable about the gold coinage, but correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't, and didn't the Mint add alloys to the gold to give it the strength it needs to withstand the pressures of being struck?

 

I did, but anyway, I have a question. Suppose I buy Saint-Gaudens coin at AU grade from a dealer who follow ANA Grading Standards, but based on your perspective, can I sell it to you based on MS grade level? Will you buy from me at MS grade level? I think it's all moot as it's based on preserve the value of coin instead of true grade.

 

Why not? Just because every coin in a series has wear doesn't mean we can select the best of these worn coins and declare them to be "Mint State". If every coin has wear then every coin has wear and none of them are MS.

What you want doesn't matter, if every Saint has wear then every Saint is no better than AU. "Right" has nothing to do with it.

As for your continuing question if this is AU, what is this? If the first is relatively mark free but with light wear it is AU, if the second has lots of bagmarks but no wear it is MS. The AU coin may be nicer and may even be worth more, but a bagmarked coin with no wear is still MS and a mark free coins with slight wear is still AU. (I will not actually commit myself to a grade on the two coins because I will not grade anything higher than AU from pictures. Especially computer monitor pictures.)

I don't have a problem with that. Of course white coins could be dipped so we better keep the white coins out of the slabs too.

 

I'll wager MS66 and MS62 on the Saints. I always thought that when the fields show rub the coin is considered au, but minor high point only rub is TPG graded MS.

 

Really? You are a moderator, why don't you go snooping through my PM's to see how many members of this forum have expressed exactly that sentiment.

I ask you a very simple question, but yet again you refuse to answer it. I have the first edition of the book and what you are seeing on page 47 is not on page 47 in my book. What Chapter and section is this from so I can see the entire section?

I am sure that if we searched long enough, we could find examples of some Saints that do not show any wear. And while you think that is the point, it isn't. The point is that an overwhelming number of MS Saints do show high point wear.

Again, my experience with this series is not relevant. But your credibility is relevant. You haven't owned a coin in the last 5+ years but you profess to know everything about every numismatic topic that exists. In all my time on this forum you have never claimed to have collected Saints. IIRC you used to collect gold Ducats. Yet now you claim that while attending these coin shows and going to dealer shops that you spent your time looking at tens of thousands of Saints and have personally seen many Saints without high point wear. Yet the most respected grading service in Numismatics has actually published a book that states otherwise. What Godly reason do any of us have to believe you over PCGS. Your reason why the members of this forum should believe you rather than me is because you are more experienced. Applying that same principle to you and PCGS, we should believe PCGS since they have far more experience in every aspect of numismatics than you do.

So what! You just spent all that time proving something that PCGS and I readily admit: you can't definitively determine the source of the wear. Here is a quote of what I said in post #67 in this thread.

All we can do when grading these coins is make our best guess as to the origination of the wear. Your attitude is that wear is wear and every coin should be deemed AU. My response to that throughout this thread has always been the same. Yet you absolutely refuse to respond to it. Why? What do you have to hide? One more chance:

If this coin is AU:




then what is this coin?

Well you are right about that, I am also a just a guy on a coin forum. But I am not the one who claims to know everything about every numismatic topic. You are a legend in your own mind and you think that no matter what your opinion is that any deviation from that opinion is wrong. And it makes no difference who disagrees with you. It could be David Hall, Laura Sperber, John Albanese, or any other respected member of the numismatic community, you would still maintain that you are right and they are wrong even though their experience far outweighs yours. Yet you indict me for my level of experience despite the fact that my opinion is often be the same as those numismatists who are far more experienced than you.

I have been collecting coins since I was a kid and have been seriously collecting coins since the late 90's including but no limited to Mercury Dimes, Roosevelt Dimes, Franklin Half Dollars, Barber Quarters, Standing Liberty Quarters, Rainbow Toned Morgan Dollars, Peace Dollars, and of course Jefferson Nickels. I have seen thousands of coins in hand and photographed and studied many of those coins for hours. But you would have us believe that flipping through coins at a show or dealer case and viewing it for a few seconds is a much more valuable experience. I will readily admit that you have seen more coins than me but based on the ridiculous things that you post on this forum, it seems that you have learned very little from your experience over the years.

So to answer your question, YOU ARE THE ONE BLOWING SMOKE!

 

Every single TPG-graded MS St. Gaudens I've ever seen has some high point wear. Every single one. Will someone suggest I've not seen thousands of them in-hand?

Geting past that, it is not fair to compare the ANA and PCGS standards. They are vastly different in theory (technical versus market grading) and specifically with respect to AU and MS coins. The only way I can describe the distinction that PCGS uses is NOT high point wear, but rather field luster wear, as the distinguishing feature between AU and MS coins. PCGS is not consistent with respect to their written descriptions, and I know some point to that as a shortcoming of their standards, but that doesn't mean they aren't consistent in practice, which, frankly, is far more important.

Lastly, I will leave you all with this question: If the ANA standards are so much better, why does practically nobody use them any more?

Respectfully...Mike

p.s. Paul & G, Please stop with the personal attacks and remain on topic. This is an important topic that would be that much better if you all would put your personal differences aside. You are both very knowledgeable numismatists who happen to disagree -- can't you disagree without the personal attacks? Thanks for your consideration.

p.s.s. The first coin Paul posted above appears to be a 65 or 66, the second coin looks like a 63 or 58 to my eye.

 

I guess what you are asking is there any other series besides Saints where the TPG's use roll friction as a reason to grade a coin with wear MS. The answer is yes, and I would say that I have seen it most with Walking Liberty Halves, but there are other series as well, especially early US coinage.

Can't blame a guy for trying to cash in on registry fever. FWIW, it wouldn't reside in an MS67 holder if it were graded by PCGS.

Can't do it, I don't subscribe to the wear is wear philosophy.

We can't expect them to have certainty, but we can expect them to use market acceptability just like they do with toned coins.

Try disagreeing with him!

Agreed!

Well yeah, but they added copper to both gold and silver coins right?

 

Really hard to answer that question under that scenario because it requires the coin to be raw and I buy almost all of my coins already slabbed. In theory, you are correct, I would buy a Saint with high point wear that was graded MS rather than AU.

 

I agree that it is an important topic and I will try to remain cordial. At least for a day or two:devil:

ps, your guesses are pretty close.