I tried looking this up and while it's probably so simple it doesn't need a thread, curiosity is killing the cat. What is the difference between quality and eye appeal? Is quality like 0-70, one coin is better than another? Eye appeal I get, no carbon spots or distracting marks. Just looking for definitions/difference of the two. Thanks
This is just my opinion, but I've always related quality to condition and strike. However, strike could be a crossover to eye appeal along with toning or lack, thereof. The same could be said for luster. It could cross the boundaries from quality to eye appeal just as easily. What it all boils down to is that if you like the coin, then it (apparently) must meet your criteria, not that of another person, and that's all that matters. Chris
You have two coins with identical strike, same bag marks, but one is dull and unattractive, while the other is more lustrous maybe has some nice toning. That's how I see it.
I agree with this. Quality is the coin's technical merits, strike, marks, etc. Eye appeal is how the person "sees" the coin and whether it stands out to them. Also, take the toned example too. Two coins could be struck the same and identical from a strike/mark standpoint. But, one has really nice toning on it (to those who like toning), and I would consider the toned one having more eye appeal. Someone who doesn't like toned coins would think the "white" coin has more eye appeal.
Eye appeal is quite simple, it is one of the primary grading criteria. And it is the combination of all of the coins attributes, or lack thereof. Quality is something else. A coin can have quality, yet have little to no eye appeal. And conversely a coin can have eye appeal but little to no quality. For example, a coin can be uncirculated, relatively mark free, have no hairlines, be well struck, well centered and on a virtually flawless planchet, and grade MS65 or 66 and thus have quality. But it can also have the most butt ugly toning you ever saw and thus no eye appeal. Or, a coin can grade VF, be common as dirt, have the commensurate contact marks and everything else that goes with it and thus no quality to speak of, but yet have great eye appeal. There are of course other examples and combinations but you should get the idea.
My opinion is that quality is something that leaves no room for debate as it is based on measurable facts. An adjective to describe the merit of construction. Eye appeal is subjective and therefore immeasurable leaving room for personal preferences.
Perfect! So it's what I thought. Quality is more a definable grade where as appeal is ugliness and such.
Quality is like the book and eye appeal is like the cover. And you don't judge quality on eye appeal any more than you judge a book on its cover.
