I'm talking about mint coins here, not proofs. Lets say you have a nice merc or walking liberty that would grade around MS-63-64. But it has a fingerprint on it. Do the graders take that into account and mark it down? Or do they just focus mostly on the details and striking? I've always been curious about that. I know that nice toning sometimes bumps up a coin so does it work vice-versa?
There is another condition that can affect the grade, and that is eye appeal. So, it would probably depend on how severe the fingerprint may be. Also, it is my understanding that the oils from the skin can eat into the metal which would seem to me to be harmful to the coin. Chris
Yep, a fingerprint can etch a coin. Generally you can't see them when they happen. BUT once they become evident give the coin an acetone bath ASAP.
Just for accuracy, it is the sweat glands of the fingertips that causes the majority of any metal damage due to the large number of different acids and salt water they secrete as well as they are most prominent on the top of the finger'print' ridges and the sebum ( oil) glands are more in the depressions.
+1 to what @cpm9ball said. A fingerprint can be a huge negative eye appeal factor and can lower the grade by up to half a point if it's large and already set. If the print is light and restricted to the very edges of the coin, it won't detract much by itself, but I'd definitely conserve such a coin with an acetone bath.
I once owned a 1909 VDB in MS-65 in an NGC holder that had a prominent fingerprint on the reverse. My point is to say that if it doesn't preclude a coin from 65, it's not the end of the world.
Yeah, but without the fingerprint, would it have been a 65+ or 66? Who knows? BTW, was this coin in your personal collection or your dealer inventory?
I think everything Mike has is in his personal collection. What you should be asking is, Isn't a 1909 a bit old for him?
Another area I disagree with the graders. I consider a finger print to be damage. I wouldn't knowingly buy a coin with a fingerprint. Well, ok, maybe an 1804 Dollar, but not a coin that is readily available/affordable without a fingerprint.
Grimy 'paw' marks can detract from a coins' 'eye appeal' but sometimes they're hardly noticed........
I've considered coins with what looked like light, partial fingerprints near the edges, but I've never bought one. I'm also very careful to only handle coins with freshly washed hands, to minimize the possibility of creating one.
I can say (in my opinion) I have seen a point lower for fingerprints that were not too ugly. The older the coin the less it seems to matter though. Market acceptable like toning is a factor ugly and/or unattractive prints matter to the graders the most I think. The coin below has this area , old fingerprint : mint set toner and the NGC grade is MS64 it could 65 without the print. I like it as a 64 and even don't mind the print it has a cool look I like. FBL and decent color though that is subjective of course.
I think toned coins with fingerprints look awesome. The ones where the coin is rainbow toned but where the finger print is, it's still clean.