Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is this cabinet friction?

 

Good Morning Doug! If this quote is what you referred to in an earlier post...I'll AGREE COMPLETELY with you that neither the ANA nor ANACS ever claimed to put a value on a coin with the assigned grade. I have it on good authority that is the reason they lost the arena to PCGS and then NGC - services who attempted to assign a value (Commercial/market grading) to a coin based on the grading opinion on the slab label.

 

You forgot Photograde 1969. A grading guide that revolutionized the hobby.

 

Very True and that standard was changed in modern times because the "weasel's" realized that in some series (Capped Bust, Seated Liberty, all gold) not too many coins existed in Unc using the strict old standards.

 

Here is the problem in a nutshell: In the old technical system, as soon as a coin lost luster from the high points it became an AU. They did not have all the numbers we have today but I'm going to use them in this post. No wear: Unc Trace of wear: Au add a little more wear 55; little more 50. Wear was the only thing that lowered the tech grade! That's why it was so precise.

Adjectives were added to describe the surface so several entries made using the obsolete technical system today might read:

1. AU-58, Excessive bag marks.
2. MS-65, Flat strike.
3. XF-45, Scratched Obv.

Some may notice that "Details graded circulated coins" can be said to reflect Tech. grading because the grade is assigned based on the amount of detail remaining and the problem is stated. Net grading is NOT supposed to be used with "Detail" coins.

Now back to the problem above. According to the "Bastardized" ANA system as published in their first grading guide, an AU-58 coin (AU Choice) was to have very little wear and mark free surfaces. An AU-50 coin (AU Typical) was to have an average # of marks. SO THE AMOUNT OF WEAR ON A COIN WAS COMBINED WITH THE CONDITION OF THE SURFACE (# of marks, scratches, hairlines, etc.). Now they were trying to juggle two variables into one. This does not happen in the MS ranges of the book! Once the coin has NTOW it is Unc. Now the surface condition (all lumped together as EYE-APPEAL) determines the coin's grade.

Except for TPGS Market grading where a coins VALUE is added. Now again, graders are trying to combine two variables. Have I lost you yet? That is one reason why grading opinions vary so much!

 

IMO, the ANA called it market grading to cover the fact that the grading standards they had adopted were no longer realistic, not being followed by professional dealers, and did not reflect the ACTUAL way coins were being graded and priced in the commercial coin market. The ANA Guide is not Market grading.

 

I am working on this for you ...hopefully after Christmas and a Merry one to all.

 

True, but in the old days (No Trace of Wear) loss of luster from whatever the rub pushed the coin out of the Uncirculated grades. Anything we do to a coin that can be detected (and some that cannot) can reduce its originality. Take a perfect coin hot off the press and drill a hole in it (tech grade: Gem Unc w/hole) and we have reduced its state of preservation yet it is still fully lustrous, gemmy Uncirculated. That is a stupid example but it should make for a clear answer. Bag marks, scratches, etc. do not lower the coin to AU either but they do affect the coins MS level, collectability, and value.

 

So let's all pressure the ANA to step into the modern world and publish standards with the help of the TPGS so that everyone will adopt them!

 

I would call it a shallow scuff...LOL. Bet it will be called slide mark. NOT IMO Cabinet Friction. NOT IMO

It appears that the coin has full mint luster and something just scraped the cheek. Didn't bother the graders.

 

Good to know.

 

I just got back a Franklin from an original roll. It was the end coin. They gave it AU58.

 

I just got back a Franklin from an original roll. It was the end coin. They gave it AU58.
Sean5150, 33 minutes ago Report Best Answer

Coin is not attractive at all. If it were not toned they PROBABLY would have graded it UNC something. That's possibly because the "rubbed-off" toning on the brow of the eye and the white color under the chin & down the neck IN ADDITION TO THE LOW EYE APPEAL accentuates the trace of wear; thus lowering its $$$

Coin probably a slightly mishandled true Unc BUT pictures can lie.

 

I understand the point of your example, but it would also be details only and cannot be assigned a grade. The Sheldon scale itself is limited by being inconsistent. 1-60 describe the level of wear, but 61-70 describe the level of non-wear condition. Inherently this is the problem. The scale is not a continuum, but a scale on top of another. Due to this, you will have some coins on the top of the first scale and the bottom of the second that could go on either scale.

I think we would do better with something like this: AU55, AU/MS58, AU/MS60, AU/MS61, AU/MS62, AU/MS63, AU/MS64, MS65, etc.

This way you can describe whether the coin is AU or MS accurately, but then also assign a grade based on the overall state of preservation where the scales overlap, taking into account all other condition factors. It would be clear that an MS62 and an AU62 are be equivalently well preserved, while also making a distinction for wear. An MS62 will have no wear and perhaps very baggy surfaces while an AU62 will have a touch of wear but much cleaner surfaces.

 

As insider pointed out you missed Photgrade, but it only went through AU because as they pointed out (correctly I think) you can't show the absence of wear in a photo.

And Penny Whimsy did not publish a grading standard, it used the grading standards in use at the time and applied pricing ratios to them. The very first step was you had to determine the grade of the coin and then from that grade you gave it the price ratio.

 

There have been several excellent proposals being made to come up with a "better" way to signify a coin's grade but IMO, too much water under the bridge to change things much for now. Plus, the experienced, successful dealers do not need grading systems or books (although the slab game can help) to grade a coin and sell/buy it. Ever see many dealers purchase coin s at a show with a 16X lens as we collectors like to use? Absolutely not.
I can usually guess the grade of a slabbed coin from any of the top 4 (minus the + and stars like the one I missed recently) services at least 90% of the time. When I miss, the coin is often in a very high grade slab (where the $$ counts . From what I've seen, I'll bet a majority of major dealers, TPG's, and a bunch of guys here can do the same. They know "it" when they see it.

We all have personal standards. The closer ours are to the "Big Boys" the better for us!

 

Condor, Several of us want to know about your book!! Please reply soon.

 

I actually think it's the reverse roll friction they saw wear on if you look closely. No disagreement about the obverse, I think it went terminal on the way to PCGS. I just thought I'd share that sometimes they do give a coin AU58, unless I'm missing some context.