Question about die cracks on PCGS graded coins

My simple opinion is with @C-B-D and @okbustchaser
All the things that have been pointed out above, can be construed negative towards the eye appeal of a coin- definitely to the collector who is a purest. But, these type of coins do happen at the mint, they leave the mint, and there are collectors out there that do not believe they detract from the eye appeal of the coin, and that simply leaves us with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What the graders and TPG's job is to grade the coin upon it's merits or lack of.

To say that a coin with a die crack that is every bit worth the grade of gem 65+ should only be a 63 or 64 is ridiculous to me. The coin is as struck because the mint continued to use a worn out die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Disagree. It is in fact, part of the coins design, because the die produced that effect, and the coin was then struck to reflect perfectly what the die looked like.

Now, as far as other aspects you mentioned, I am plainly biased. I grade like the TPG's grade. They take strike into account (such as full and weak) when grading. Makes sense. If you had to choose between two coins and one had a more complete strike than the other, then yeah, I would choose the better strike. So does PCGS, NGC, etc. Same goes for luster, (though I would argue that 99 coins out of 100 that have a different or weaker luster when compared to their counterpart, probably do because they've been messed with).
However, when it comes to die cracks, the TPG's don't count that against the coin, and neither do I. I get that you think that's wrong and I'll agree that you can clearly argue it is inconsistent, but in my mind it makes sense. Look at the Walking Liberty design. I would say that without exception, every single year those were minted there was a strike weakness of Liberty's hand in the center of the obverse. And I would also say without exception that the possibility for an MS70 still exists because they were "as struck". As far as I know there is no MS70 Walking Liberty half-dollar, but to me, the possibility still exists because that's the way they were struck. If there was a giant die crack on one of those coins but the luster was there and it was as struck and there were few hits and no circulation, then I would still great it on a 70 scale just like the tpg's do. So I separate out the die states of a series and grade based in the state of the die. Blows the mind, I know, but that's the way we do it.

 

I personally prefer them to not downgrade due to a die crack. I buy from pictures often and would prefer one less variable when looking at a coin. I can decide for myself if the die crack is a factor in my wanting of the coin at the listed grade (often it's a bonus for me with very old series especially). I don't need one more opinion about the coin there's enough subjectivity in grading as is the last thing I need is to sit there and think "that's a medium sized die crack I wonder if they deducted 2 points for it" or "that tiny die crack is barely noticeable I wonder if they netted this at all or let it pass".

Just my opinion. Here's an 8R I picked up recently with a cool crack splitting the reverse in half:

 

On early coinage perfect dies are extremely rare. Almost every die is chipped, cracked, or otherwise flawed, even in early die states. Should we downgrade all early coinage?

 

I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with you at all.

A flaw on a planchet is unique to a coin. A flaw from a strikethrough is unique to a coin. A weak strike is also unique to a coin (though it can be similarly repeatable if it's an issue with pressure or die spacing). These are so dissimilar from a die crack that they are bad examples.

In contrast, a crack or die line may be viewed as a flaw on a die, but the flaw does not transfer to the coin. You get a perfect coin that is as struck from a flawed die, much in the same way that an overdate can be seen as a flaw on a die, but does not produce a flawed coin!!!!!

 

Analogies never work and seem to always complicate things. Die cracks are not equal to contact marks or scratches. And a flawed die, IMO, does not create a flawed coin. It produces a die variety.

 

I see how you reach these conclusions based on the assumptions you are making, however, a die crack on a coin is not a flaw, and a flaw on a die does not produce a flaw on a coin.

To address my previous example, I don't think you can argue that an overdate is not a flaw on a die. The same goes for a centering dot on a die. Neither are intended design elements. They are imperfections on the die that get transferred to the coin, no different than die polish lines. Coins produced from that die are not flawed because the die is flawed, they are perfect representations "as struck".

 

Although I both understand and respect your position on the matter, I also have to respectfully disagree. While cracks can add character and interest to an otherwise dull coin, it's not unreasonable to consider them flaws when compared to an example without simply because they were not originally intended. In large part it's a personal decision as to how they should be viewed, meaning this is something each individual should decide for themselves.

As for if it should impact grades, I'm somewhat torn on the issue being able to relate to both sides of the debate. I personally don't believe a coin displaying cracks (particularly classic types) should be dinged for them as long as the state of preservation doesn't warrant it. Still, they're not as originally intended and can quite reasonably cause such coins to be viewed as sub par. Perhaps in an ideal world some sort of designation would help address the issue, but we simply don't live in one, and the TPGs have already shown an utter lack of consistency with those they already award. Collector-assigned designations are even worse, so personal preference is likely the only viable answer imo.

 

If one shows their ugly face with flaws everywhere in a mirror does that mean the mirror is flawed?

 

Only if you're so ugly that you break the mirror.

 

A brilliant analogy. This, exactly.

Ah, but there are lots of features on a coin that are not originally intended. How do you define original intent exactly? Whose intent? Where is the authoritative source of intent? The original concept art from the artist is altered for political or mechanical reasons, the engraver may make a mistake, etc.

I would argue that if a die that has cracks is selected to strike coins, then that conveys intent to produce a coin as struck. Certainly there have been times when the mint has chosen with intent to strike coins with completely shattered dies.

 

Doug sounds like he's getting frustrated with us and our arguments. This is typically when he starts saying we lack reason and logic. Sad.

 

On the die sure. Is a centering dot on a coin a flaw? What if all known examples of an issue have a centering dot? Are there no unflawed examples then?

I would agree with you here, except when we apply common sense we get different results. I don't think we're actually in disagreement over what is and what is not a flaw on a die. The difference is that you believe a flaw on a die becomes a flaw on a coin, and I do not.

The mirror analogy is a perfect one. A mirror reflecting a flaw does not make for a flawed mirror or a flawed reflection. It's a perfect reproduction.

 

If the image stayed there after you moved it, yes

No because the mirror image is transitory, like a scratch on a coin holder. it isn't permanent ( on the coin)