totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

While they can't be 100% certain in regards to discerning roll friction from circulation wear, it is not a complete guess. Here is a quote from PCGS on the subject of roll friction on Saints:

You find it contradictory because you disagree with it. I find it completely acceptable for specific series of coins which are prone to roll friction and don't think it hurts their credibility at all. Regarding the chart, I already told you that you need to read the entire book and not simply look at the chart. If you read the book from cover to cover, you would understand clearly that there are reasons why they grade coins with high point friction as uncirculated. It is repeated several times throughout the book despite it's absence from the chart. Personally, I have never even used the general chart. When seeking grading advice from that book, I consult the verbiage for each specific series. I know that you would like to apply the same grading standard across every series of coins including every alloy but that is completely opposite of the market grading philosophy employed by PCGS.

I don't believe they used the ANA standards until 1997. If that were true, you would not be able to find MS Saints in old PCGS holders and I know that I have seen them in auction listings. Just because they didn't publish their standards until 1997 doesn't mean by default that they used the ANA standards.

I think I have addressed this point several times during the course of this thread. If they have reason to believe that the wear is caused by roll friction and they grade the coin MS, I am okay with a few coins with circulation wear ending up in MS holders during the process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You can get that same effect from coins rubbing against one another in your pocket, just so you know. I agree it's not a complete guess, in fact, it's not a guess at all. It's an assumption the friction is from coins being in a roll as opposed to one's pocket, either way, can produce the same results and appearance.

I disagree with it because PCGS wants to change the definition of wear and have exclusions for certain types of wear.

I posted a link to an article, from their website, dated June 12, 1995, which you pointed out to me was from 1995. That article clearly states the standards that followed are the ANA standards, which I believe PCGS, as well as the other top TPGs followed. PCGS went their own way in 97 when they came out with their own grading standards.

So you're saying they had no standards prior to 97? I agree!

 

I will agree that it is possible to obtain trace high point wear from coins rubbing together in a pocket if you admit that it is impossible that almost every Saint spent time in someones pocket before being plucked from circulation an preserved for 80-100 years before grading.

The exclusions are absolutely necessary. If you collected Saints, you would probably agree. I have a feeling that you don't collect any of the series that are affected by the roll friction issue?

PCGS still includes that same chart in their current book of standards. And it is applicable and accurate for most series. However, they also explain very clearly in their book that roll friction is an exception to those rules. I have no idea why you keep claiming that PCGS used the ANA's grading standards prior to 1997. PCGS had used their own grading standard since their inception in 1986. Some of their standards are based upon the foundation provided by the existing ANA standards. However, there are some very key differences between the market grading standards employed by the PCGS & NGC and the ANA standards, forgiving roll friction wear among them. The only significance of 1997 is that is when they published their standards. NGC has never published their standards. Are you going to claim that NGC uses the ANA's grading standards as well?

 

I don't need you to agree to it as that is not what my statement was, a question. I'm stating that as a fact, because it happens, whether anyone agrees it does or not.

Since no one can determine the difference between roll friction wear, and other kinds of friction wear, I wouldn't know if I do or not.

 

And I am stating as a fact that not every Saint with high point wear was in someone's pocket.

What if you could discern between roll friction wear and other wear? Hypothetically, how would you grade a Saint that showed high point wear but you knew the coin had never circulated?

 

So you've been in everyone's pocket for each year of issue of a Saint to know not every one was in someone's pocket? Paul that's an assumption, that every Saint wasn't in someone's pocket. You can't state that as a fact unless you were in everyone's pocket when those were made.

Hypothetically, if it could be discerned, I would judge it much the same way as I judge high point wear on Morgans, Franklins, Washingtons, etc., etc.

The term you're using "high point wear" happens on all coins. Typically, the high points of the design, show the first signs of wear because they are raised higher than the fields, and recesses of the design.

Take the Morgan for example. The high points of the design are Liberty's hair, cotton boles, ear, the eagles breast, legs just to name a few. When determining any amount of wear, from any frictional source, those are considered to be the key focal areas, and the first place to look for signs of wear.

Much like the Breast and knee on the Saints are the high points of the design.

As far as knowing a coin has not been circulated, really there is only one true way to know that for certain and that's to receive the coin directly from Mint, or even stand next to the catch bin on the other side of the press, and grab several as they drop out from the dies.

Depending on how much wear, AU at best.

 

It isn't an assumption, it is a fact that not every Saint has been in someone's pocket.

I am using the term "high point wear" to mean that the source of the wear could be from roll friction rather than circulation wear. Morgans, Franklins, and Washingtons don't suffer from roll friction. Morgans suffer from incomplete strike on the high points which is a related subject that would best be left for another time. BTW, where do the majority of uncirculated Morgan Dollars come from?

So you are saying that if you knew a coin was uncirculated and received it directly from the US mint and it had high point wear, you would still grade it AU?

 

That is 100% correct! ..................."When the light is off, it is not on".

Chris

 

Speaking of higher grade Roosies, I wanted to get some opinions of some of the shinier Roosies in this scan. I found them roll searching. I kept the best coins for this book.

 

Part II

 

@BUncirculated

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

 

About?

 

Post #107. We were having a discussion and I asked you some questions but you did not respond. That is not like you, hence, cat got your tongue?

 

Got our second wind have we? Okay mate.

Bank bags from storage in Mint vaults, and vaults at the Fed.

I believe I did answer this one once, but just for you ole chum, yes.

 

Do you consider coins that come out of sealed bank bags uncirculated?

Does that conform with the ANA standards?

 

I have seen thousands of Saints, but I have never seen one without some sort of friction (aside from proofs). Many were uncirculated, in the technical sense that none ever made it through the channels of commerce, but it is hard to call them mint state due to the fact that they are not in the same state that they left the mint. These coins should be considered uncirculated in my opinion, but many would disagree with this.

 

There is a difference between bag marks, which are allowed to a certain extent, in the uncirculated grades, and wear, regardless of the source of that wear.

PCGS's standards also mention marks, hairline marks, and not being in key focal areas of the coin.

IMO, it does as the ANA standards do not try to separate, or categorize, the types of frictional wear on a coin in order to slide a coin with wear into an uncirculated grade.

Wear is wear regardless of what caused it.

 

Just curious, does this argument carry over to Morgans also. it is VERY difficult to find a Morgan that has 0 bag marks, yet not a single one was struck with bag marks. These coins easily find their way into Mint State holders, even though none are truly Mint State.
no one seems to complain. Is there anyone who thinks these Morgans should all grade AU 58. Boy we would be flooded with AU 58 Morgans and the TPG grade would be worthless, since That grade would now cover everything that's currently AU 58 - MS 67.

Mike

Just a thought

 

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. Do you consider coins that come out of sealed bank bags uncirculated?

According to Doug, that is not true about the ANA standards:

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t111316-3/#ixzz289gHjRfz

If this post by Doug from 2 years ago is true, it means that the ANA changed their standards and adopted a market grading system that allowed for high point wear on MS examples. It certainly dispels the validity of the "wear is wear" philosophy. Doug's post does not adequately address when the ANA deems it applicable to employ this aspect of market grading, but it seems logical that the ANA would grade a coin that came directly from a sealed bag with high point wear as an MS coin. Wouldn't you agree?

And even more curious is the date in which the ANA published their new market grading standards which coincided with the inception of the TPG's. I wonder if the new grading standards were a collaborative effort between the ANA and PCGS?