Anyone see why this didn't grade?

I guess they don't have a BD-00 grade yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it's probably the mintmark like others have said, just wish they would be more specific in situations like this. Can't be that difficult to put "mintmark unverifiable" or something on the returned coin.

 

The grade of any coin can be lowered by a number of "accelerated" means. If done purposely, I suppose it could be called counterfeit. If done skillfully, it is not differentiable from "natural" wear because the same mechanical mechanisms are used ... it's just done more rapidly. It would probably not be profitable to strike or cast low grade coins unless base metal is substituted for precious.

I can't get excited about the rush to the bottom seen in lowball registries. It's a contest to see how much wear can be put on a coin without making it ungradeable.

Cal

 

Agree about the MM.
I can see the date, and even with the scratches I was P-01.
But if you can't determine what the mm is, or if there is an mm or not,
I guess you can't grade it.
Also agree with post 22.
The odds are that it is a Philly or New Orleans coin. Maybe there are
some markers to determine that without the mint mark visible.

 

One would think that Philly mint coins would be less likely to get a PO01 grade than branch mints. Of course they have no mint mark to begin with. So a grader has to convince themselves that if a mint mark had been there originally, it would have been readable. In other words, they have to be positive about a negative.

In the case of Morgan dollars, the mint mark would be below the bow of the wreath on the reverse, so presumably wear (or lack of it) on the bow and adjacent wreath parts would be the determining factor. Looking at the PCGS pop report for Morgan dollars, it appears that graders err on the side of caution in this. Yes, there are PO01 coins for the Philly mint, but for many years, branch mint PO01s are more numerous. There are other potential factors in this: 1. original mintages, 2. survival in general, 3. protected survival (e.g. being stored in government vaults), 4. hesitancy to submit for grading a worn coin with no mint mark (was it from the Philly mint or has mint mark worn away?).

Cal

 

People have been known to take fakes/replicas and wear them down to lowball levels

 

What's the world coming to? Faking worn out coins now. Sheesh. I wonder what the 'markets' would value this trend at? Wow.

 

It means that either the date and mint can't be determined conclusively, or given the date and mint, it can't be verified to be authentic. The latter comes into play typically for key dates.

Artificially worn coins are body-bagged as damaged.

 

Low-grade coins get less scrutiny than high-grade ones. The counterfeiters and scammers take advantage of that fact

 

I just wish I'd held onto the ones I scrapped for silver. Who knew?

 

Sorry to bring this thread back up, but seeing the following coin made me wonder. If a coin can be slabbed as "no date" with a straight grade can it be slabbed as Some date (like 1889 in my case) and "Unknown Mint" with a straight grade?
(Although the ICG example might be different as Insider says he might know the date).

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1028524/now-this-coin-is-confusing-me

What do you think @Insider ?

 

Do other TPG'ers slab "no date" coins?

 

The only po-boy I want is a sandwich from down south........

 

The thought of young boys pulling the wings off of butterflies comes to mind........

 

What?

 

Musing.......

 

One of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po'_boy

 

This is the first I've seen from any TPG (outside of coins that can be easily distinguished even without a date).