Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

Not really. Higher number = higher points = higher price. Were top pop prices really as insane before Registry sets as they were after?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The amount of better/best sets that are just buying numbers is minuscule. The best sets are overwhelmingly people buying the best quality they can with some variations in personal taste of whats the most important to them. The idea that registry people are just blindly buying what scores the highest is another internet fallacy.

 

This will not happen as it was tried by the ANA in CO on their certificates at one time.

IMO "true" technical grading as used VERY SUCCESSFULLY long ago to describe a coin's condition of preservation was very easy to learn and apply. It was also more precise as virtually ALL of the subjectivity was removed! A coin's eye appeal, strike and especially its VALUE (the BIGGEST MONKEY WRENCH to any grading system) did not play a part in its grade that was recorded to ID it. Any unusual strike characteristic was mentioned separately - strong or weak - along with anything else such as splotchy toning, corrosion, holes, etc.

If this technical system (used for internal records at ANACS while in DC and at the first TPGS - INSAB up until I left) had been adopted by the geniuses who wrote the ANA's Official Grading Guide, then coins would have been graded EXACTLY the same today as in the 1970's and ONLY their VALUE (as established up or down by the commercial coin market) would have changed.

Additionally, the stupid folly of connecting the number of marks on a coin and the amount of wear on it within each grade as expressed by "typical" or "choice" would not generate the confusion it has to new students.

Think about it, marks are easy to quantify, the strike is easy to quantify, luster is easy to quantify, and the amount of wear is easy to quantify. I can teach anyone with good attention to detail and eyesight how to grade coins "technically" in a short period of time. What they will not learn without a great deal of effort is a coin's value as EVERY AU/MS 1884-S $1 will have a different value no matter what its true "technical condition" is!

 

I just read this thread again. A lot of great info and honest opinion here. I think if it could be compressed and edited it would make a nice chapter in a TPGS guide to show both sides of the "coin." I shall use many of the posted opinions (unattributed of course) as a starting point for more articles - THANKS!

Morgandude11, posted: "I will simplify the issue greatly. Cabinet friction= storage. It is no different than Morgans making contact with each other, and causing marks. The coins haven’t circulated, therefore, they are MS. The whole spiel overcomplicstes what I see as a very straightforward issue."

Actually, it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Sliding abrasion is not the same as a mark/scratch from impact.

BuffaloHunter, posted: "This whole discussion reminds me of a coin show I attended many years ago in Vegas. One dealer had nothing but gold in his cases. I bet he had over a hundred common date Saints, all graded the same - MS63. Many were priced at what should have been the going rate for a MS63 Saint at the time, but there were others that were priced higher. He had priced the better looking ones (coins that now would probably grade gem or higher) accordingly."

Exactly! I have a related story. I needed an Uncirculated $20 Saint for my teaching set. A true "technical" MS coin having full luster and no rub at all on the knee, breast, or top of the eagle's wing and his breast. I did not wish to "pay-the-piper" for what I needed.

Thankfully, the good folks at Heritage let me pick a coin from several boxes of Saint's graded MS-62 that they were "blowing-out" at the show. I got my coin! I found three and took the one with the fewest marks, a full-frosty beautiful Uncirculated piece.

Jaelus, posted: "How many here readily defend calling circulated coins mint state when we know a large number of examples have actually acquired surface damage from circulating? The defense for calling them MS is that you can't tell where the surface damage comes from.

Yet so many here object to calling apparently uncirculated coins mint state when they have high point rub with pristine fields. And the defense for calling them AU and not MS is that you can't tell where the rub (surface damage) comes from.

Wear is not special. Any surface damage (hits, hairlines, wear, etc.) acquired after the coin is issued from the mint is all the same."

Now you've gone and done it and here they come:
IMO, much of this post is mostly pure, misinformed, nonsense!

First, as you have pointed out, ancient coins are graded differently than more "modern issues." Therefore, they have no standing in this discussion; and I'm afraid the way they are graded has strongly influenced your opinion and introduced more confusion into this thread.

 

I take offense at being called misinformed. I know how to grade. I'm using the term mint state above, not as the numismatic definition (since we are debating that here), but to refer to the literal state a coin is emitted from the mint. I gave examples. Everything I'm saying is correct. Your basic refutement here is that mint state only means what it has come to be accepted to mean. This definition is flawed and fundamentally creates bias against wear. If you don't have a good argument to refute me (you didn't even address my chart above) and want to just cherry pick thought exercise examples that were tongue in cheek I can't stop you. But it's a shame you won't engage in this discussion seriously.

 

Wear most definitely is special. It's one of a very small number of types of damage we tolerate before calling a coin a "problem coin." Generally speaking, we tolerate anything that could have happened in normal circulation and don't tolerate things that could not have. The things that are tolerable include wear, bag marks, and potentially a few hairlines.

But, the thing that makes wear special among even the types of damage we tolerate is that wear impairs luster and degrades detail. Isolated hairlines (not from cleaning!) do not impair overall luster, and do not appreciably degrade the detail of the coin. Moreover, since wear is expected on the high points of a coin, this is taken into account in the grading system, and does not fundamentally count against the coin. Bag marks on the high points or prime focal areas do count against a coin, as do distracting hairlines.

"Uncirculated" is just as meaningless a term as "artificial toning," IMO. We've had the debates about AT vs questionable color before, so I won't go into it here, but, nobody can truly say whether a coin with no wear has circulated or not unless they literally either pulled it from a mint bag or from circulation themselves. This is why those coins are rightly graded "Mint State," and not "Uncirculated." "Mint State" is a state in which a coin could have left the mint. Coins get banged around a good deal at the mint, so, bag marks are acceptable here, but wear is not, simply because they don't suffer the kind of friction that would induce wear at the mint.

Totally consistent.

Again, these are totally consistent, provided you define "wear" to be something that can only happen over time in circulation. And that's what I think people who want to talk about "cabinet/roll/stacking friction" are getting at. I don't have a problem with that, but I do think it should be more rigorously incorporated into the grading standards, generally speaking.

What's meaningless about "a state in which a coin could have left the mint"? That's meaningful and completely consistent.

Come on, now. If you've used the Sheldon system in practice at all, you know it's really two grading scales: one for mint state coins, and one for non-mint state coins. The very first step in deciding the grade of a coin is to figure out whether it's Mint State or not. Most of the time, that's easy, so we forget about it. Within the two scales, among problem-free coins, we do have a linear representation of quality. You could even argue that the Sheldon scale as a whole is a linear representation of quality in the form of surface preservation, where wear is the most important factor.

I don't think that's what you're trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to say that the scale is not a linear representation of value or price, and those things are completely subjective based on market whims (c.f. toned vs non-toned coins). If you want a scale that has this property, then you've got it: the $ scale; starts at face value and goes to infinity.

Yeah, like you've never come across blurry or deceptive photos on eBay.

 

I didn't say wear wasn't different. I said it wasn't special. Other collectibles markets don't distinguish between wear and tear. It's all just conditions that degrade the item.

Every answer I get here to this reads as, it's special because it's special. It doesn't count against the coin because we say so. I've already addressed this. Wear is just a well understood problem that negatively affects value in a predictable way. A coin with the problem of wear to a VG level has a more severe surface problem than an uncirculated coin with a scratch. Wear isn't special just because we say it is so. That is an artificial distinction.

Yes exactly. I've pointed out many times that it is two scales. It doesn't work. The purpose of the scale today, and the original purpose of the scale itself, was to establish value. When you start by identifying if the coin is mint state, you've already gone wrong.

AMD as for mint state representing the state a coin could have come from the mint; it's also hogwash. There are tons of MS60 and MS61 coins that no experienced numismatist would consider to be in a state that could possibly have come from the mint.

 

But "normal circulation" thoroughly begs the question. I mean, most coins these days get rolled for distribution, which means each coin has a 1-in-40/50/20 chance of coming up with roller marks, which are still counted as damage. But that's absolutely part of "normal circulation" in today's world!

 

I have actually already condensed the material here for a presentation to my coin club next weekend. And don’t worry, I am giving equal weight to all sides with their respective pros and cons (and then opening the floor up to discussion afterwards). Should be fun, especially with Bill Fivaz and an EAC expert in the room.

YAY!! More uncertainty!!!!

And in such cases I fall back on the return policy. But I have only used it a few times out of many hundreds of purchases (and half of those were the result of the wrong coin being sent).

The Sheldon scale was outdated, irrelevant, and obsolete the day it hit the printing presses in Penny Whimsy. It assumed a linear scale of value when that is (and was) obviously not the case. It really should not have entered the whole of numismatics, but here we are.

 

There is no point in "having a discussion" with an advanced numismatist and collector of ancients, world (?) and US (?) coins who does not understand the simple fact that a four hundred year old coin or one from any time period, country, or metal can STILL BE MINT STATE when it is handed to you to examine.

As for offense, you'll get over it. Meanwhile, I have to read this wacko stuff and refute it before it takes root in the heads of less informed collectors than you.

 

Where did I say that or anything like it? I had one example that was a thought exercise (look it up). But you keep ignoring my actual points here. Ignorant.

I'll spell it out for you. Whether or not coins are actually mint state is increasingly less relevant for MS grades, making the concept of mint state itself in grading less relevant. That is an observable fact. And it makes perfect sense as it is aligning the grading scale more with its intent. Anyone who doesn't get on board with this will find their personal grading style becoming increasingly obsolete.

 

Jaelus, posted: "Where did I say that or anything like it?"

I really don't have time to go all the way back and correct the nonsense again so I'll leave you with this one:

Jaelus, posted: "How many here readily defend calling circulated coins mint state when we know a large number of examples have actually acquired surface damage from circulating? The defense for calling them MS is that you can't tell where the surface damage comes from. [Actually, in many cases some folks can. ]

This statement indicates to me that someone needs to learn the correct numismatic usage of both "wear" and "damage." Oh, some folks can misuse /confuse the terms because anything we do to a coin after it is struck (including touching its edge and leaving finger oils as we remove it from the die can be considered to be a form of surface damage just as a little friction removes atoms BUT do you see how insane this can get? ) can be called damage including friction wear from circulation. Fortunately for all of us , very few knowledgeable numismatists equate wear from circulation as damage similar to the other types of PMD. The two types of "DAMAGE" are described by two different words with two different meanings. Anything else is silly .

See if this helps: I can take a mint state coin right off the press and jab it a dozen times with an ice pick and now it is called a DAMAGED MINT STATE COIN. It does not drop in grade to an AU UNTIL I kick it 20 feet across the concrete and put friction wear on it starting with its high points! Easy concept right?

 

Jaelus, posted: "I'll spell it out for you: Whether or not coins are actually mint state is increasingly less relevant for MS grades, making the concept of mint state itself in grading less relevant. That is an observable fact. And it makes perfect sense as it is aligning the grading scale more with its intent. Anyone who doesn't get on board with this will find their personal grading style becoming increasingly obsolete.

Excellent summation .

Perhaps, you can clearly explain the difference between wear and damage this well too.

 

It's a lot easier to explain quantum effects on time dilation and thus apparent speed to a Highway patrol.

 

I claim to be there in the beginning of "modern" grading so let me try. I'm more interested in reading what you have to say.

This change to the way coins are graded has taken place slowly. It was going on way before 1986, just not very noticeable. Nice "gemmy" AU's were auctioned and sold as MS. Sometime after the major TPS's took over, the changes came faster as they abandoned their strict grading. I think dealer pressure (the TPGS major customers) and the rising prices of rare coins (grade must match increasing value) was the major reason. Another reason is coins are often graded by eye. How many of you have seen a coin dealer at a show put a glass up to a raw coin (or slab)?

The last time I taught coin grading at the Summer Seminar I told the students to read the beginning of the ANA Grading guide they were given in the class but purchase Grading Coins by Photographs to use for grading as many images in the 6th Ed of the guide were too conservative. The newer 7th edition is much better. So right there in print from the first edition of Photograde and through the ANA guides you can trace the evolution of circulated grades. MS grades changed each time another # was added to the system.

When I learned grading, an EF coin had most of its blazing luster intact (EF-40: Only the slightest trace of wear, or rubbing, is to be seen on the high points. Today, that describes an AU-58 and many coins with a hint of luster somewhere in their design recesses are graded EF!

As for admitting that standards have changed, it is something everyone knows. It was explained to me in this way by a major TPGS Finalizer: "Grading has evolved because we have learned more about how to grade coins."

The changes will continue. At one time a coin with a little weakness would never rate the "gem" grade. That's almost totally out the window now for many coins because they are rare fully struck! it is all about $$$.

 

The above sums up what I've been saying nicely.

Grading is not directly about identifying whether or not a coin is mint state or what the state of preservation is. Of course the grade will correspond to quality, and likewise will have a correlation with the coin's state of preservation. But the grade is about assigning a number that relates to its market value, just like any other graded collectible.

Try explaining to someone in another area of collectibles that you've graded their item a 7.0 on a technicality but it's really worth what a 9.5 would sell for - only an expert would be able to tell though. You would get laughed out of business so fast your head would spin. Yet we put up with this nonsense with the Sheldon scale and accept it because it's the way it's been done? That answer is just not good enough.

 

And that is why for profit corporations should not have control over grading standards. Corporations have only 1 objective, to maximize profits for shareholders; if you don't beleive this then you know nothing about business.

 

Ok I will try. How about this?

I don't disagree with you. Wear is a type of damage (to be clear - I'm not using the numismatic meaning of damage here - I'm saying that wear/rub damages the surfaces of the coin). As wear happens in a rather uniform and understandable way on a given type, this type of damage (non-numismatic - I'm talking about literal damage) has been used to grade the state of preservation of the coin.

But the problem created by using damage from wear to grade the coin is that it doesn't leave any way to grade coins that don't have damage from wear. Which is why we use 61-70 instead of just a single grade for 60 representing no wear. Obviously there are states of quality that also apply to coins without wear.

What I'm advocating for is solving this problem by saying wear is not special. Instead of using wear to grade the coin, you use any damage, including marks, hairlines, hits, rub, etc. which accounts for wear and also accounts for marks on non-worn coins. This way you have a continuous scale from 1-70 without a break when you encounter coins with no wear. As a side effect of this, it no longer becomes important to distinguish mint state coins from virtually mint state coins.