Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by TypeCoin971793, Apr 26, 2019.

  1. WashQuartJesse

    WashQuartJesse Member Supporter

    Baseball,

    I feel I laid out my "context" pretty clearly.

    I don't see how anything suggested in my post is dangerous, going against the market, or is something that will hurt people in the long run. I'll do my best to continue avoiding cabinet coins, given the choice.

    All things equal... I'll pass.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    The same can be said of your opinion. I choose to buy what I like. If I choose not to "buy" into what you and the TPGs are selleing, that is my choice. If you can give your opinion on the matter to whomever so can the rest of us. Then it is up to the reader to decide for themselves how to proceed based on their own experiences and tastes.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  4. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    So you’re saying modern coins should be graded more like ancient coins? :)
     
  5. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Not at all. Personally I don't see much point in slabbing coins struck before the mid 17th century or so.

    I'm trying to point out the indefensibility of a position that the grading system is absolutely correct to the exclusion of other ideas, when only a minority of numismatists worldwide even use it.
     
    NPCoin likes this.
  6. LA_Geezer

    LA_Geezer Well-Known Member

    Buttered?
     
  7. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    I wish we had a LOL option. Please keep this discussion related to coins. There is a big difference between not using horses anymore because the automobile came along (as irrelevant as a firetruck example), and ignoring the simple to ID and apply standard for friction on a surface: "No trace of wear."

    If the ANA were to publish a new grading guide with no change up to AU-58 and then inserted AU-60-64 (all with the same amount of friction as a true AU-58) before continuing with the MS-60 on up range, much of the complaining/disagreements would end. The number of contact marks would only be important for coins grading in the AU and MS range. Once a coin was not MS, only loss of detail lowers its grade. AU-60-64 would be graded with the same criteria we use for MS as the friction is ignored and indicated by the AU before the number. The new AU-62 would be on most coins now graded as MS.

    This would possibly put enough pressure on the TPGS to change. They could claim that getting in line with the ANA was the reason to change and not anything they had done.
     
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Yup, then the TPGs could say - we certify that mule to be a horse ;)

    I completely agree, they may as well do it Mike, they've been doing for 15 years anyway :smuggrin:
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  9. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor

    Why not take AU all the way to 70, and then the 'New UNC' can go to 100. every one has to get re-certified to get the new labels. Insider can get new emojis of Beans, Okra, Pumpkins, Chemical factories, and $$$$$$ for all, sellers and TPGs. It probably won't be long until Amazon or Ebay starts their own TPG service :p:D:cool:
     
    Insider and TypeCoin971793 like this.
  10. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Your comparison of change due to emergent technological advances (the automobile) is not valid. There was no fundamentally missing technology when the fire brigades were in operation that would have prevented municipal fire fighting from being implemented, except a willingness to re-evaluate how things were done. That's a valid comparison. Regardless, you've clearly demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to consider that there are valid alternative ways to look at wear. There's no further point in me discussing it with you.

    I could get on board with this as well (as an intermediate step towards full market grading). Lots of people have used AU64 colloquially anyway for years.
     
  11. BuffaloHunter

    BuffaloHunter Short of a full herd Supporter

    I think a point that some people keep missing here is this: If the standard is not the same as it was before, then document it. Every major TPG references the Sheldon scale and has descriptions and even pictures proclaiming how they grade coins. Clearly their own references are not being followed, so what good are they? I am completely fine if the standards have changed, however, the biggest problem is that they are not acknowledging the change. I'm sorry, but if I were in charge of a multi-million dollar business and had instructions on my web pages of how I operate my business and were not even following them, what perception am I giving my audience?

    I have brought this up more than one time and, alas, my request remains unfulfilled: Please provide any links to press releases or documentation from any TPG stating that the standards for grading coins has changed.
     
  12. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    I resemble that remark :D
    I'm 77 and have been collecting since 1955.
    I found when I went to the ANA Summer Seminars (Grading 1 and Grading 2) that I was a technical grader.
    Naturally I had a strong tendency to undergrade.
     
    Paul M. and Jaelus like this.
  13. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Fair enough, but many of the others in this thread, including Doug, don't accept it and think it is impossible to differentiate between wear and roll friction.

    Why can't a coin with friction on both sides suffer from cabinet friction? Is there a rule that says the coin must be stored obverse up?

    And you keep railing on these ultra rarities from the 18th Century. These are $100,000 coins and there is probably less than 100 of these in existence in the mint state grades. Coins like this are not so much graded as they are ranked. They compare the coins you have shown above with other AU58 examples and determine that the coin is worthy of a higher grade, despite the origins of the high point wear. From a philosophical perspective, you have a very valid argument. From a practical perspective, you most likely won't ever be in a position to collect these coins and the people who are want the difference in overall quality represented by the grade, not the mere presence of high point wear. For example, compare the MS62 coins shown in your post with the AU58 shown below.

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    It's like complaining about traveling in the NBA. Everyone knows that they get away with it, but the end product is enhanced by applying the rule very passively. In other words, it is a grey area.
     
    Paul M. and Jaelus like this.
  14. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    Yes all things equal no friction would be ideal, but going with a dog of a coin to avoid it is going against the market so would preferring more bag marks over a touch of high point friction.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  15. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast



    It isn't nonsense, I was referring to bags of Saints.




    Really??? Doug has contended for years that nobody can tell the difference between roll friction and circulation wear. Is he wrong?


    I want to thank you for being the only one with the courage to comment on this Morgan Dollar, but I think you missed my point. There is clearly what appears to be wear over the ear of that coin, but as you astutely pointed out, EVERYONE in the numismatic world accepts that New Orleans mint Morgan Dollars are prone to strike weakness and the flat area above the ear is in fact "incomplete strike" rather than circulation wear. My contention is that it is indistinguishable from circulation wear and that the only reason we accept the determination of "incomplete strike" is that it happens at exactly the same spot on every coin. This is exactly how the TPGs treat roll friction within certain series, specifically Saints and SLQs, yet many of the same collectors who would consider the Morgan Dollar show above as mint state, would argue that coins showing roll friction should be graded AU. Just a little numismatic hypocrisy to spice up the conversation.

    Btw, ask Doug what grade he would give this coin. There is no way in hell he would grade this coin MS65 or even MS64.


    PS. For the love of God, would you please learn how to use HTML tags. It took me like 10 minutes just to fix this awful mess you left me.



     
    Jaelus likes this.
  16. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    The system isn't broken at all. We grade coins based on differences in quality. Those with a higher level of quality get the higher grades. What you complain about is the lack of transparency in how the TPGs arrived at the conclusion that they did. But if they provided you with more information, you would simply complain that their evaluation is incorrect. In short, your standard for grading is that you are correct 100% of the time, and that if anyone dares disagree with you, including the TPGs, by default, they must be wrong.

    And this crap about me simply agreeing with whatever the TPGs do is just that, CRAP! I have stated many times in the past that I would like to see the TPGs assign a numerical grade for each of the four elements of grading. I also suggested that they assign specific weighting to each of the elements and then publish that as a recognized standard. That way, they could simply include the four numbers on the back of the label in fine print and everyone could understand how they arrived at the final grade on the slab.

    Lastly, my comment about "depressing" and "tragic" referred to a grading concept that is so elementary that it was simply incredible that anyone on this forum would not be able to comprehend it.

    So what you are saying is that you know what they are doing, you can accept what they are doing, but because they have failed to disclose any/all changes to their grading standards publicly, you believe that consumer confidence in the TPGs has been shaken to its core! I call that synthetic indignation.

    No, you want them beholden to your standards, because you disagree with their standards. Standards which are proprietary that they are not required to disclose. Furthermore, every coin is seen by at least 3 graders, and the guys grading the "high end" coins you are talking about have more years of experience grading coins than you have alive. It isn't butt kissing to trust career numismatists over a disgruntled kid on the internet.
     
    Jaelus and baseball21 like this.
  17. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Jaelus likes this.
  18. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    What would happen to all the coins with AU surfaces that have been net graded to say MS61 or MS62, but under your revised standard would now grade AU63 or AU64?

    Keep in mind, I like your solution, but I'm just pointing out there would be some unintended consequences.
     
    RonSanderson and Jaelus like this.
  19. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    If there's going to be AU 64 than there should also be MS 50 for the dogs. Conflicting the two would be too confusing to a lot of people, it would make more sense to just drop the letters all together and go 1-70 with no friction line or to just rewrite the grades allowing for slight high point friction and putting more weight into the coins overall quality
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  20. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Exactly. This is what I've been advocating this entire thread.
     
  21. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    I'm 100 percent on board with you. I think the hardline was a mistake from the start and am very happy that it has been and hopefully will continue to erode. Makes no sense for things to be stuck in 58 purgatory that are clearly far superior to coins graded higher
     
    RonSanderson and Jaelus like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page