Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

I don't know this series well, so it's hard for me to say. It looks like there is planchet roughness on Jeff's ahead along with some contact marks.

I'm interested to read your post that points out these areas because I know you have a lot of experience with this series.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's a shame that Rick Snow's thread was taken down on CU.
He did a great job of putting it together. I hope some got to read it.
It's in print in the Longacre's Ledger but I can't post it here.
It's also on the fly-inclub.org site but you have to be a member to view it.

 

Except when need to because of the difficulty of making the dies (early years of the mint) or not being able to keep up with demand for dies (Copper nickel coins in the 1860 - 80's) The mint does not intentionally use cracked dies. And since the 1830's it has not been possible to use a hammer die as an anvil die or vice versa. The dies are shaped differently. A hammer die used as an anvil die would not be able to push the coin out of the collar after striking. An anvil die used as a hammer die would have insufficient clearance for a planchet to be fed into the coining chamber.

While it might be valued higher I see no reason for it to grade higher.

 

I realize this is your position, but you offered no proof other than to say it was common sense. Clearly it is no more common sense than to suggest that toned coins should not be gradable.

I never said I gave planchet flaws a pass. A planchet flaw is clearly a flaw on the coin. In fact I specifically said that an unblemished planchet was required for an MS70 grade. Having said that, as planchet flaws are original to the coin, they should be graded with more leniency than is given to similar flaws imparted post mint. If a planchet flaw is severe enough but the coin is otherwise original, the coin should get an error designation rather than details. Why give a details designation to a fully original coin just because it has an original defect that puts its value out of line with the actual grade?

Coinage itself is inconsistent; complex and full of exceptions. Series/dates/mints that are exclusively weakly struck, varying composition, varying methods of manufacture, varying storage conditions, etc. It is not a surprise that the grading rules are likewise complex and full of exceptions.

Are there instances of inconsistency with TPG grading? Of course there are. On the whole though I think they are attempting to consistently apply a sophisticated ruleset with exceptions selected for the series/dates/mints that warrant them.

 

And those periods of prevalent use of cracked and otherwise deteriorated dies are what I'm talking about. When they realized a die became cracked they made a decision based on available resources about whether or not they should replace the die or keep using it. When that decision was to keep using the die, at that point it becomes the intentional use of a cracked die and the resulting appearance of the coins is intentional. There are likewise many coins out there intentionally struck without die cracks because they decided to retire a damaged die.

 

Are there any good examples of proof coins with die cracks?

 

Survey says: yep.

Die crack found on reverse proofs | Numismatic News

Professional Life Cents Show Flaws - NumisMaster

Die Crack Errors Abound on Silver States Quarters - NGC

 

I actually googled it myself and was reading the same articles while you were posting this. Seems as if they were more of something that slipped past quality control than something done intentionally.

 

Proofs are exceptionally scarce for the series I collect, but after a brief search, here's an 1836 B-2 PF67 courtesy of Heritage. If you look closely at the reverse, you'll see die cracks going from the tips of the top two arrows to the dentils.

 

Thank you!

 

Oddly enough I realized after my last post that I didn't have to do any searching at all. The coin I use for my avatar is an 1831 B-1 PF66 and that variety always has a significant die crack on the reverse. It starts in the field to the left of the lower tip of the 2 in the denomination then runs clockwise through the branch leaves, across the tip of the wing, and then winds its way through UNITED STATES.

 

Probably would have gone 67 without that die crack!

Btw, beautiful coin!!

 

Double post

 

I remember those from high school. Those were the circles, right? Lol.

OK, try this out for size. Take a painting. It's eye appealing. Anyone with eyes can see it's eye appealing. Incorporated in that eye appeal, however, maybe not anyone with eyes can see that. That takes, well, education? Knowledge of art? To really appreciate and understand what one has in that painting, one has to have a little more going for one than eyes that can see. One has to be a little more on the ball. Isn't that right?

To wit, and, I mentioned this, before. You see, we've been over this distance of ground, long before. I have a friend who "collects" art and has a Picasso sketch hanging in his library. I'm ashamed to tell him it's been hanging upside-down for some ten years, now...

 

Yes...care to try for extra credit ?

Not a good example, IMO. No 2 paintings are exactly alike. Each painting is unique. Lithographs are in theory identical.

But coinage -- as art -- supposedly has thousands or tens of thousands or millions produced very close to or identical to one another. So they should be similar.

BTW, for those posting pics of coins to illustrate what we are talking about, I appreciate the photos but for simplicity sake it might make it easier to use either Morgan SD's or $20 Saints to show bad planchets, die cracks, etc.

The coins are bigger, created later, and we're more familiar with them. Just a thought.

 

And that is my point, which are marks and which are planchet roughness? Areas of planchet roughness on Jefferson Nickels are usually confined to the cheekbone, jawbone, and coat collar below the ear. If we look at the nickel I posted again, we can see that roughness exists in all three of these areas.



It is safe to say that the disturbance low on the collar in the rainbow toned area is a mark since the edge is well defined and it falls out of the normal area for planchet roughness. Likewise, the road rash on the cheek and behind the mouth is almost certainly planchet roughness as it would be impossible to impart those tiny little marks with coin to coin contact. There is also a disturbance on the collar below the ear. I submit this is actually remnant planchet roughness due to the wavy nature of the imperfection. The real problem area on this coin is on the jaw bone. Significant planchet roughness remains, but there is also a well defined mark in the same area. While I agree with the grade of this particular coin, I have seen coins where marks in this area have been ignored and included as part of the planchet roughness on the coin. Furthermore, planchet roughness exists in the focal area of the Jefferson Nickel and does negatively impact the eye appeal of the coin. Additionally, coins exist in every date/mm that are free of planchet roughness.

So when people argue that "as struck" flaws should be counted in the grading process, they certainly have a valid point. Once a die is broken, every coin minted thereafter will bear the evidence in the form of die cracks. However, with respect to roller marks and planchet roughness, there are plenty of coins that do not show these "as struck" flaws. After all, the existence of planchet roughness and roller marks is almost always in conjunction with a weakly struck coin. Even if the coin's grade is not affected based on eye appeal, perhaps the grade should be affected based on the strike of the coin which is also an element of grading.

I find myself torn on the subject as I think that die cracks should be treated neutrally. I also have no problem with roller marks being treated neutrally given their rarity. But with respect to planchet roughness, I would prefer that it was not considered an "as struck" flaw. That said, I understand the TPGs policy and adjust accordingly. If a coin with planchet roughness does not meet my standards for the assigned grade, it will not reside in my collection. Rather than everyone get in a uproar over TPG grading policies, I don't understand why collectors can't apply their own standards to coins that reside in TPG plastic.

 

Ah, OK, then I try again. In a nut, equate paintings with coins, and an education in art with an education in grading. Are you able to agree that the latter is necessary to one's capacity to appreciate a painting or a coin? If not, what's art appreciation for? And the same goes for learning how to grade.

 

OK, I see what you are saying...or trying to say....but we are talking about grading -- an opinion -- on something that is supposed to be a constant, namely coins. We try and ascertain how far from perfection each coin is.

With a painting, each one is unique. There is no standard of perfect. A bunch of colored globs could be a masterpiece. Or it could be a bunch of globs.

Conversely, we know what an MS-69 or near-perfect 1907 EHR Saint looks like. That's our standard, and we work down from there. Same thing with other mintages and years.

 

It's kinda the same thing for coins. It is subjective. I understand a "70" is supposed to be a "perfect" coin, but is it really? Or is it "exactly how the mint intended" with no flaws?

Anyway, getting away from moderns, as I feel the mint does an excellent job with mint/proof sets, we are subjectively valuing coins by their beauty. At least our own judgement of beauty. Same thing with paintings. I don't really get Picasso. I get Van Gogh, Monet and others. Do you like Jackson Pollock's work, or is it just random blobs of paint? Do you like Barber designs or Weinman? Gobrecht or Longacre?

While there are published grading standards, they are still somewhat general. They also can't account for exactly where those contact marks might be on the coin. Is a small hit on the upper cheek of Ms. Liberty on a Morgan okay? What if that same small hit was right on the tip of her nose, squashing it down? It's only a small contact mark, but some may not like a squashed nose, so while technically it grades the same, it is the buyers subjective opinion as to whether they find it appealing or not.

When looking at St. Gaudens, I pay special attention to the head. I don't want a flattened nose, so even though it might be a 65, if the head has contact marks and the nose is flat, I don't like the look of the coin.

Once you've decided on a coin design that moves you, do you want blast white or natural skin? Do you only like colorful toning? So many choices and each one of us has our preferences. Just like art.

I get the comparison that eddiespin is trying to make.