Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

I misread what you were saying, but it seems to me that something produced intentionally by the mint is an official mint product. At that point, though we may not like it aesthetically, it cannot be considered a flaw in terms of grading.

The die is by definition flawed, however, a coin produced from that die is not. You get a perfect coin, faithfully representing the flawed die used to strike it. It doesn't look the same as a coin struck from a flawless die, nor should you expect it to.

The foundation of your argument was that die cracks on coins are flaws, and that a coin with such a flaw cannot be graded equally to one without such a flaw. I do not believe you have proved your point.

I have provided specific examples in this thread that clearly demonstrate high mint state coins can be produced from irregular dies and graded equally to ones without irregularities, and that this is considered market acceptable. Clearly the TPGs do not agree with your assumption that the cracks constitute flaws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Those are the key words: "market acceptable".

While I have nothing against die cracks, I still believe that with all things being equal, the coin from an EDS with no die cracks should grade higher than one with die cracks.

Bottom line, I have ZERO influence on this at the TPG level, so I'll just keep adding coins to my collection that appeal to my eye. I use the TPG grades as a guide, a starting place if you will. Then I judge the coin for myself. Of course, that too offers no guarantees...lol.

Nice discussion. Thanks.

 

But they didn't INTENTIONALLY create the crack, it was an accident. Like striking the coins under-pressure because of a mechanical problem.

But unless it has off-setting attributes that another highly-graded MS coin does NOT have, I don't see how they would rate the same....UNLESS....the TPGs engaged in market grading and decided enough people "liked" the crack (i.e., uniqueness or maybe indicative of not being a counterfeit) and it had additional demand beyond the normal demand for a coin in that grade.

Are you saying that 2 coins...identical EXCEPT for the die crack....could have the same grade, maybe the die-crack coin even a bit higher ?

Strictly going by ANA standards, I don't see how that is possible. But this could be a classic case of market grading.

I agree with your assertion here. Not sure I would pay up for it, but clearly, some do.

 

Granted, but they intentionally employ the cracked dies and release the resulting coins into circulation. If something happens by accident and you choose to go with it, does that not then convey intent?

Your assumption is that the coin without the die cracks is superior. The features of two examples of the same coin don't have to look identical to be equal. Look at the numerous varieties of Morgans and bust halves for example. There are varieties that always have particular die cracks or irregularities, even ones where the die cracks are diagnostically relevant. This makes them neutral features on the coin, as matter of fact as an alternate star position, style of dentils, or number of berries.

Die cracks neither enhance nor detract; they are neutral features irrelevant to the overall grade. They are, however, frequently relevant as a diagnostic tool, and may impact the value of a coin positively or negatively, depending on the rarity of the die state, it's collectability, and the preferences of the buyer.

 

One more question that came to mind. Can a coin with die cracks be given a MS-70 grade? If so, then what are the requirements for making an MS-70 coin? If you are using the ability to recreate the original design as a report card, how could said coin with a die crack be considered perfect? If a coin with a die crack cannot be an MS-70 coin, then regardless of using ANA or market grading standards, a die crack should in fact be a deduction when factoring grade.

 

Die cracks do not necessarily preclude a grade of MS-70 provided that the coin is otherwise fully struck.

A coin is MS70 if it bears no contact marks, shows no signs of wear or handling, the planchet is unblemished, and the coin is fully struck. As such, you can have a perfect late die state specimen just as you can have a perfect early die state specimen. The condition of the dies is only relevant when the irregularities present prevent a full strike.

 

So it would also be your contention that a cud, die lines, or pitting would also be neutral in grading?

 

Yes, that is my contention. The coin is as struck, though a cud would obviously preclude an MS70 as it would not be fully struck.

 

An interesting discussion with merit on both sides. IMO, Jaelus has presented the more compelling and logical argument. For those who believe that die cracks should affect the grade of a coin, how do you feel about other flaws that were inherent in the minting process and not imparted post mint? For example, roller marks?



@Jaelus, severe die breaks are known to create localized areas of strike weakness. Do you include this striking weakness as the intended minting, or would the strike weakness detrimentally affect the grade of the coin?

 

Roller marks weren't produced until after the strike and had nothing to do with the die or planchet so I'd say damage .

 

Roller marks are imparted on the planchet strips during the process of refining the planchet strips to the desired thickness. I think you are confusing counting machine damage with roller marks. Usually, the striking pressure is enough to eliminate the roller marks, but on some coins they are common. The 1902-S Morgan Dollar is a common example. Another example would be $4 Gold Stellas.

 

You're right Paul , my bad . Well now this has me questioning my belief in die cracks shouldn't matter . Good point . I better read my copy of From Mine to Mint .

 

All I know is if I chose to let my quality control slide for financial reasons, my customers certainly wouldn't accept the argument that an aesthetically different product is just as good as the one they were expecting.

 

Interesting question. I've always considered that if the absence of detail is due to missing or worn sections of the die, then that should not affect grade. In other words, a scenario where the coin is as fully struck as possible into the parts of the dies that are there. Of course a large enough absent section of die can still cause actual weakness in strike from the opposing die unless another factor balances it out. For example, when coining the Bashlow restrike I posted earlier, the thickness of the planchet was increased to guarantee both sides were fully struck despite the die irregularities. If the absence of detail is due to a lack of metal flowing fully into a section of die that is present, then it's actual weakness and it can affect the grade.

 

Whether we like it or not, (and no doubt someone has already said this) roller marks, planchet flaws etc. may have an impact on the "eye appeal" factor and lead to a lower grade than would otherwise have been achieved. I don't think this is unreasonable in the case of Morgan dollars since so many were struck without the marks on them. That is, the marks represent a problem or mistake in the manufacturing process. Personally I don't think die cracks should influence the grade since they are part of the natural progression of die life.

 

I've seen many a 66 grade with those same roller marks.

 

What do you think it would have graded without them ?

 

The TPGs treat roller marks the same way they treat die cracks, and the same way that Jaelus has described in this thread. Personally, I agree with Jaelus that die cracks and roller marks are part of the minting process and should be treated neutrally with respect to grading.

I think it is important to note that it is relatively easy to identify both die cracks and roller marks. IMO, the way the TPGs treat remnant planchet roughness which can easily be confused with typical surface marks is much more dangerous. For example, which of the imperfections on this Jefferson are surface marks and which are the result of remnant planchet roughness?

 

Good question. They were already in a 66 holder. I would say 1 point higher in many of the cases. Some are more distracting than others. I usually stay away from Morgans that exhibit roller marks, but I do have a couple with them.

I do understand the position of ignoring die cracks, planchet flaws, etc... As I posted earlier, I think die cracks can be interesting and to add, can add to the eye appeal of the coin; however, I also look to add coins that were fully struck, free of planchet problems, etc... It's a general rule of thumb when looking at the coins, but there certainly are exceptions.