ANACS RP/PRooF 70... But Not?

In any case, there's no way a grader could have missed that spot, especially one from ANACS and despite the short amount of examination given to coins by graders. I saw it within a couple moments of laying my eyes on the coin in hand for the very first time. This leads me to believe that the grader took that small mark into account, and still concluded a 70 based on "X" (whether grading criteria, as struck, etc.).

What I'm most curious about now is, what is the actual criteria beyond the standard and basic ANA guidelines for grading by each of the major TPGs to determine a 70 grade? So, does one require absolutely no flaw except toning? Would as-struck by the Mint be acceptable as a 70 grade by NGC/PCGS?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

and I am open to that possibility.
Doug, I have been a member here for 13+ years, and have never had a personal problem with anyone. I try to learn from everyone, and I have even learned from misinformation.

I may be getting a little touchy as we near the holiday, and for that I apologize, but I made a statement and got lambasted for it and I didn't reply very kindly. I always try to have an open mind and open ears.

 

Look for a grading company to announce sooner or later that their new laser scanner and program similar to NASA's astronomical analyses can now detect the minor points ( 69.00-70.00), so that the huge masses of current graded 70s may only be a 69.01 to 69.99 OR 70.00 worth untold amounts of money. So don't accept or buy the old MS-70s, they may only be a 69.72. You have to regrade !! or you will be shunned from the 'lists' of 'knowledgeable buyers'

And guess who has wrapped up most of the legal rights, patents, etc. for such techniques related to coin grading In my opinion grading will no longer be an opinion. Jim

 

Look, call me uninformed! Please note the correction Doug made of MY MISTAKEN OPINION resulting in me posting COMPLETE MISINFORMATION based on the memory of an old man (yours truly) who should know the facts before commenting.

My ignorant statement (thankfully corrected ) is just like me saying: "There is no such thing as a perfect 70!" Hopefully, the opinion of everyone in this thread will give you something to think about.

As to Mr. Gallino, I never heard of him. So what! I don't care if every member of the ANA Hall of Fame and every living major coin dealer signed on to the quote attributed to him. As I have written, his statement leads me to believe he is setting up a "straw man" - making a simple concept complicated - just to be able to explain why it is so complicated. I've used that technique before.
Anyway, I consider his quote just as misinformed as mine and some other's here.

You know, just about every student in a grading seminar (basic to advanced) has an opinion. The ones that benefit the most from the classes I've been in are those who question everything and are open to learn their opinions may need some "tuning." That goes for the professional instructors too!

 

Sorry, sometimes as hard as I try, there is no "nice" card in my deck. So PLEASE ...you made a silly misstatement. So did I. It is no big deal if it gets corrected and we all reach agreement on a "Black & White" concept: Perfect coins do exist.

 

No way, PCGS or NGC? Care to share more about what you know? Computer grading was a farce in the past. We should all be dead before that happens again.

There is a way NOW to scan each coin (fingerprint) so its grade stays the same each time it is seen if no change takes place.

Here is one for the history books. One grading service insider proposed that a microscopic physical or chemical mark be applied inside the reeded edge of coins so they could be ID'd if seen again. Never happened.

 

I don't want you to be nice, I don't care if you are personally. What I took offense to was this:

That's kind of ignorant and is akin to trying to shout down someone in a room with a differing opinion. Don't tell me what to post, and don't tell others what to think.

That's as black and white as I can be.

 

Actually, I disagree. I have no "feelings" about anyone here (except perhaps Jim "quick-on-the draw yet fair;" and you because of your warm and fuzzy way with words ). I have not been around CT long enough to remember more than one or two posters who usually post . Mike is not one of them - as I wrote before - to the best of my (apparently failing memory) his posts are very informative.

Words mean something. That's what dictionaries are for. I have an ______ (word I'm not allowed to post) personality. I try to be a "wordsmith." So "Perfect" is a well understood word to me and not subject to wiggle room. Mike and I were NOT saying the same thing at all.

Hopefully, your post cuts through the "smoke" and "fire" making it clear that perfect coins do exist both graded and raw.

 

Well, I see you have learned nothing from this thread. Too bad.

 

I've always thought of this, too, with respect to 3D laser mapping a surface of a coin. I didn't know that someone(s) already had the patent rights for laser mapping, but I'm not surprised at all.

Anyway, the issue I've always wondered is what the baseline coin would be to which all other coins would be graded. One can manually grade the most flawless coin and use that as the basis for the mapping, but that would be begging the question - is the baseline coin perfect and how would we know definitively? And, what would happen if no "perfect" coin exists, especially for pre-modern coins - do they simply extrapolate some sort of simulated image? But that would be controversial, to say the least. Alternatively, one could use the original dies and invert the design, but I don't see the US Mint allowing anyone near their in-service dies, let alone permitting its scan every single year for each new release. Not to mention, every other country's Mint would have to allow it, too...

 

They've had those patents for years. It's not going to happen other than maybe as an internal step as part of the process. The market values eye appeal over purely technical grading which alone is enough of a reason that this won't happen, not anytime soon anyway

 

Re: Mr. Gallino - I don't know who he is either, but his writing was accepted by Coin World. Does this make him an expert? Of course not, no more than anybody on this forum. He has his opinion and it is a valid as anybody else's.

As far as a "perfect" coin. Yes, they do exist - in theory. But it all depends on the level of examination that you accept as being sufficient to apply that appellation. There are coins that, examined by the naked eye are perfect MS70 examples. Take that same coin and examine it under increasing magnification and, at some point, defects such as minor tooling marks or inclusions in the planchet or contact marks and handling scratches will begin to appear. So, the question of whether a perfect MS70 coin exists is relative only to the amount of magnification used to examine it. Perhaps the designation should be amended to something like MS70/00 (naked eye), MS70/05 (5x magnification), MS70/10 (10x magnification), et seq to designate the maximum magnification used before defects begin to appear.

Does a Pratical MS70 coin exist? Yes. Does an Absolute ms70 coin exist? NO. Any MS70 coin examined under a SEM will become a MS69, or less.

 

The partial quote above is the best opinion I have read in a long time. This is exactly what is taught in some grading seminars I've been in.

 

I've been wondering when something like this would be put in place. It seems like a perfect business model for the tpgs. I will always rely on my loupe and opinion over what the plastic states; even though I respect their opinions.

 

My standard is way above 5X. I want one of the truly perfect coins that are a percentage of the coins w/ a 70 label.

 

PCGS has owned the relevant patents since the 1990's.

 

I knew they did, just surprised that they have never implemented them. Wasn't Q. David Bowers proposing St. Gaudens grading with a decimal some years back. I remember hearing him speak at (I believe) the FUN show about it in the early 90's. I don't recall ever hearing this extended to any other series though.

 

Maybe they're not implementing it to control the market from further competition, while sticking with what works and is profitable for them. By the looks of it, it seems like they're trying to keep the status quo for as long as possible.