Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

After these articles, I looked at my PF69's of LBJ and on the obverse there was the same small patch of stipple in the same place on both coins. Die problem. If I had known what to look for, I would have saved myself $40. I will know better in the future. Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Assuming, of course, Doug is "right" and I, for one, am not sure I agree with him. I don't believe I'd worry about die polishing lines at all below MS/PR68, or that Mint-born die artifacts like that are even necessarily relevant to grade below 70. To the best of my recollection - correct me if I'm wrong - I remember nothing in the ANA grading standards about die polishing.

 

Absolutely. Agreed 100%. I'm stuck only on the specific case of such features on fleur de coin examples. The key phrase - to me - is "as struck" which doesn't seem exclusive of deliberate Mint actions on a die, and as far as I know the official ANA standards don't make specific mention of polishing artifacts.

My own thinking is in flux on this, stimulated by this thread (always use every excuse to question your own "certainties" because knowledge doesn't stand still either). And the more I contemplate it, the less I like the idea of a 70 showing polishing artifacts. I already won't offer a planchet with any visible defect a 70; why not hold the die to the same standard?

This is fun.

 

The answer most certainly can be "yes." Die imperfections, whether they be polishing lines, erosion, clashes, cracks, breaks, or corrosion, do not affect the state of preservation of the coin or the strike. They can affect eye appeal and luster for better or for worse. A slightly eroded die, not as perfect as a new one, will produce flashier luster on a coin. This coin may grade higher simply because of the luster. Die polishing marks in an innocuous location on a proof coin caused by the die have absolutely no effect on grade. Hairlines of the same magnitude in the same location caused by mishandling absolutely have a negative effect on the grade.

 

A severely eroded die has inferior luster, but for non-proof coins, there's a sweet spot where a little die wear makes great looking luster. This small amount of die wear can also cause die polishing lines to disappear, while the luster remains rather "tight." For proof coins, this doesn't apply, as any die erosion impairs the mirrors and therefore the luster.

I still don't entirely agree with your scenario, though. If two coins are of equal quality, with the luster, surface preservation, and strike being identical, die scratches that do not affect eye appeal cannot affect the grade. Hairlines from handling will affect the luster, eye appeal, and surface preservation.

Die polishing lines can affect luster, but it is rare. This is one of my favorites, a 1903 VAM 1A Morgan Dollar, correctly graded MS63.



(WTH? Animated GIF might not be showing up correctly: http://varslab.com/misc/03v1a-obv-anim.gif)

 

Given the gif, I'd have gone higher on the grade. Could you post that coin standing still Messydesk?

 

I've never argued otherwise as the point being made was that "some" hairlines originate on the die itself.

 

Now that's something I never took into consideration. I always thought that they might have been put there by improper handling......aka wiping.

 

While this is technically true, PCGS's standard for PR70 states "As Stuck" and I've sen my fair share of PR70 coins which adhered to that technical definition.

I'm not saying it's right as purchaser's of these coins should look "beyond" the label and make their own judgments on whether or not they want to pay the "PR70 Premiums" associated with a TPG's "opinion".

Now, after having resubmitting several coins back to PCGS for the grade guarantee, I learned that they stand behind their opinion more than their guarantee. And it cost me $27 per coin to learn that lesson. Mind you, I submitted these coins after having bought them off of Teletrade only to find that, had I sold them as is, that I'd probably be looking at return sales from the buyers. I try to NOT sell coins which I don't at least have some agreement with the grade.

I once bought a coin which had what appeared to be an "x" scratched into it. I sent it to PCGS for their guarantee and instead of giving it a genuine, they simply downgraded it to an MS64 from an MS65?



Did they get it right?

 

As did I.

 

I'd move your quotes over one word: ... some "hairlines" originate on the die itself.

The term "hairlines" is almost universally accepted to exclusively mean fine lines in the surface of the coin that are a result of some sort of improper handling, often rendering a coin market-unacceptable. It is important not to use the term to also mean die polishing lines, as these are absolutely acceptable and are on the coin as struck. Every collector will eventually need to learn the difference between the two and to use the terms interchangeably introduces unnecessary confusion.

 

Would a bag nick be less than a hairline when grading?

 

It depends how many of them and where they're located (for both hairlines and bag marks).

 

It depends on where either of them is and how severe, if you're talking about a single, stray hairline. If you're talking about a patch of hairlines that signal improper handling, that's almost always worse.

 

Very interesting. So with early (say before 1866) coins there is huge variation in strike. for example (as in another post I started yesterday) these two coins. Both are 1840 with the same generally category of reverse, but different dies. (The obverses are more similar in quality - neither is perfect to my eye. I've only included the reverses because they are so extremely different). The MS 62 is on another planet in terms of strike quality. The 62 is PCGS and the 63 is NCG but I have some sense that they grade similarly if not exactly the same. So what gives?

 

One is weakly struck, and the other isn't. There is some arbitrary point (not defined by any authority, to the best of my knowledge) where strike quality needs to factor into grading. I generally don't consider it below 65 and not often with 65-66, but I won't give a 68 to a coin with any more than the slightest of weakness and 69's and 70's need to be full, complete strikes. Either way, I wouldn't consider strike a factor at 63 unless it was an issue known to "average" really good strikes.

 

A coin can have a weak strike and grade MS63, or even 64. It depends for what is typical for the date and mint, and in some cases the die pair. This is from the David Lawrence Seated Half book:

Many of these coins are weakly struck, most have dramatically cracked die states, and a few have been found with bits of iron imbedded in the planchets. All these demonstrate the early minting problems of this new branch mint. This date is probably one of the most interesting to study: this is the only year with very small and small mintmark sizes, there are a variety of edge collars used (and consequently reed counts), and there are four major varieties.

As seen on davidlawrence.com | https://www.davidlawrence.com/books...d-half-dollars/chapter-6/date-by-date/1840-o/
​

The pictures shown in the book show the WB-104 (Large O) as having a weak strike that matches the NGC coin shown. The indication of a weak strike being typical for 40-O tells me that the PCGS coin has an above average strike. From what I can see of the two coins, I like the PCGS 62 better than the NGC 63.