MS-69 Coins Before 1950: How Many ?

YOUR POST:
"But between 1986 (3rd edition) and today (7th edition) the ANA grading standards did not change."

I may have misunderstood what appeared to be a statement of no justifiable legal basis for TPG to vary actual application of a differing standard than that of the ANA.

We both recognize the real market grading changes of the TPG, regardless of the published ANA standard.

I started my posting by questioning the source for current TPG standards!

I apologize for my confusion, believed similar to charleys'.

I trust you'll understand my ignorance of your history/knowledge, as I've only been involved in Numismatics for 75 years, beginning as a 9 year old secretive assistant in a BM coin shop, earning different coins from around the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Confused I am not.

But, since you mentioned me...maybe revisiting my thoughts is helpful: (comments to follow).

 

MY non-confusion, Mr. Imrich, to wit:

 

The confusion isn't of our ilk, but of why others will vehemently discuss both sides of an argument, believing questioning of the unproven/opinioned side is unacceptable.

 

Doug, is 2004 when most people or experts like you NOTICED the change....because others also cited 2000 as a key turning point, maybe when it STARTED ?

Started 2000...became noticeable by 2004 ? Is that correct ? Or both started and noticed in 2004 ?

 

When Luster was compromised, is probably the pinpoint of when most numismatists noticed the change. It started happening before 2004.

 

You mean forgiving or ignoring a small amount of rub on a single or multiple high-points, right ?

Net-grading, right ?

That's what Albanese was talking about in 1985.

 

It isn't just the highpoints. High points are what is considered rub, stacking, etc. The brilliance of one coin to the next in the same grade is luster, forget about contact, bag marks, and high point rub.

 

Got it.

Nah, I'm not that old, GD .....but the nuances and subtle differences here really make the argument. You have written some fantastic pieces on grading -- I think I saved them in Word/PDF -- but I am finding it a debate without end as you can't get a definitive answer from EITHER side.

I mean, over on another forum you had an ex-grader with decades of experience going up against another grader/collector on the whole definition/existence of "weak strike" being the cause of dull/wear/rub on high points. Depending on who got in the last word, that could be what sticks with you.

And look at what John Albanese countered 40 years ago with other smart, savvy dealers....ultimately, I think there IS no answer and it just depends on the buyer.

 

Sigh....you are doing it again.

Your Dazzle em' with Blarney skills are exceeded only by your ability to convolute subjects, and by doing so present yourself as the one true God of all things numismatic.

No. I counter that it is ignorant to use as a claim of "grading change" or anything at all to do with grade changing in 2004.

One subject matter ( although you are mix and matching 5 subject matters in your Teaching GoldFinger 1969 Sessions) has absolutely no connection to the others, but your authoritative phrasing sure reads
impressively.

 

Yes, on that you are 100% correct.

I was referring specifically to this wear/rub/friction debate on high points which seems to be THE CRUX of the issue in grading today, specifically with regards to CACG's initial grading results.

Lots of coins that were apparently given some latitude or net-graded as MS-62 up to MS-65 (66 ?) apparently were really AU-58's, the so-called "sliders."

Usually low-60's, I guess, since it's only a slide.....not a plunge.

Luster enters into it becuase the existence of luster breaks would indicate circulated wear. But me personally I have trouble seeing a luster break unless it's pretty sizeable. GD, you and other vets here are much better graders than people like me who started in this hobby late and simply can't devote the time to learning about grading nuances like you guys did. I wish I could go back to the 1970's or 1980's -- but I can't.

Next time I'm at FUN or another big show, I may ask someone I know to show me 2 coins, one with and one without luster breaks.

 

BTW, GD, those Population Reports are -- in the words of Kenny Bania -- gold....gold, GD, gold !!

If somebody had them all digitalized from inception, that would be very useful to have !

 

We must admit it seemingly defines some things, as he has good publications/facts!

I also could sum an opinion to a futile end!

I consider some as the "MR WONDERFUL" of Cointalk in suppressing effective Discussion!

JMHO

 

This is another example of my concerns with GD thoughts.

As I have mentioned on many occasions in the past when responding to his commentary, there are YNs that assume his status on CT means his Posts are the definitive fact.

He has replied many times in this Thread.... as he does in the majority of his Threads.... with less than the rest of the story, and both YNs and inexperienced (and a number of experienced) collectors assume correct completeness of his explanations.

I can set aside his pomposity and condescending language method of transmitting knowledge to others with his Posts, and readily admit I should, and not consider excess egregious intent.

But when the Posts are coupled with serious lack of completeness of explanation, knowing YNs and other enquiring collectors are following his position AND assuming completeness, that is simply wrong.

Luster is not always present on new minted pieces.

GD, knowing he is responding to you in a teaching modality, could have, but did not, explain the absence of Luster in PL/DMPL coins, as an example.

The Luster....and there are many types.... are a function of the Dies as they are used.

Which type of Luster are we discussing? What Series? Is it artificially polished and/or whizzed?

How would the YN/enquiring collector know, without completeness of explanation and the watch out for/don't assume it is Luster or is not Luster scenarios.

There is also the issue of polished coins and whizzed coins expertly done that can simulate Luster.

Then there is the issue of polished Dies, but that is another aspect.

Then there is the the issue of elusive coin series and dates such as the Jefferson and Buffalo 5c. pieces.

You would appreciate and benefit from the comments/ authorship by Physics and/or Mark Feld, as examples of excellent conveyors of information concerning the subject of Luster.

I have, on a continuous basis over the years, seen/heard/read comments about Luster by new and very experienced collectors alike, that have a misunderstanding of Luster, while holding the piece in their hands, and especially when judging from an image, and making an assumption the piece is circulated/MS, or AU when it is not, and the comment associated with the opinion is always Luster.

Or, and this happens quite frequently, not understanding a cartwheel appearance vs. type of Luster appearance, when the piece is in their physical possession, or calling the Ball on an image of a coin.

I do acknowledge and am aware of the caustic-like possibly discourteous "tone" of my thoughts when responding to GD comments.

I will be cognizant of this personal failure in future replies, IF GD can stop using "YA SEE....".

'....That is all I have to say about that...."

 

Wow, I did NOT know that.

I suspect that others will chime in here -- pro and/or con -- and I will not have to ask any questions on that.

The best explanation of luster I have read -- at least for Double Eagle gold coins -- comes from Roger Burdette's magnus opus on Saint-Gaudens DEs:

Luster, as understood by coin collectors, is the visual result of light reflecting off of thousands of tiny ridges and grooves of metal in the smooth (i.e., field) areas of a coin. These imperfections were created in a working die as the hard steel was stressed during the striking of thousands of blank planchets.

The original surface of a coinage die is smooth, somewhat satin-like and largely free of imperfections. This die face is made of very hard carbon steel (mostly martensitic steel formed by rapid cooling of austenite steel) that has been tempered for toughness. Modern techniques further harden the surface through application of special coatings, but this was not done on dies made for Saint-Gaudens double eagles.

In use, the hard die face impacted a soft metal planchet composed of 0.900 gold and 0.100 copper. The pressure, or force, applied to the planchet was approximately 100 tons to 120 tons per square inch acting over a short period of time. Energy of the blow, pushed planchet metal into the recesses of the die so that the coin became a mirror image of the die face. With each blow of the die, an imperceptible movement occurred in the crystals of the die face. Following several hundred strikes, the die face had distorted slightly so that the fields were no longer com-pletely smooth, but consisted of microscopic ridges and grooves. These radiaated from the center of the die face and also emulated the general pattern of metal flow in the planchets. Once metal flow was established, it tended to aid metal flow in planchets and the die surface then changed very slowly.

This type of surface alteration was most prominent in the fields of a die where movement of metal was greatest and least inhibited by details of the design. The portrait, inscriptions and other design elements were subject to similar die deformation, but at a much lower rate and magnitude. This explains why a coin shows luster in the fields but not in the raised areas.

If a die is kept in use too long, or was improperly tempered, surface distortion will con-tinue to where ridges and groves appear to join into larger structures. Their amplitude also in-creases and the defects become visible streaks on the die surface. This also begins to abrade the edges of details and creates additional ridges that blur design detail. At this point, the die is said to exhibit “starburst” named for the bright star-like pattern of radial lines.

I know Mark is an ex-grader and has helped me on other forums. I did not know he had written about luster and/or the physics of luster. If you can direct me to what he wrote or where he wrote it, I would be most appreciative.

No doubt that luster on a large gold Double Eagle is going to look different than the luster on a much smaller dime or nickel comprised of different metals. That's an excellent point.

 

I am referring to the member Physics.

Mr. B is also deservedly respected for his knowledge, and has written about PL and DMPL vs. Luster, and has also written about the categories of Luster in various Types.

 

Concur. Many many many many years ago, this was hammered into my psyche via saintguru (Jay Brahin) and Dr. Duckor and their pieces.