Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

Well, it really depends how SLIGHT we're talking here...it could be something that doesn't detract from its appearance. That'd have to be itty bitty, like the corner of the designer's signature or something, that no one would notice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Obviously it can if that's the way the TPGs define things, and I don't think it is up to me to agree or disagree -- not any more than it would be to argue that the ANA or EAC standards are too tough -- it is what it is and the markets have spoken clearly in their support...Mike

 

If we're talking wear that is so minute that it can't be seen without a good loupe and must be studied to even find the "wear" let it be MS .
rzage

 

In reality how many AU-58s out there have you seen that have only a bit of wear , most AU coins I've seen look like they should be EXFs ( slight exageration ) When I first started grading I graded coins that the tpgs routinely grade MS as AU , thus I was going by the notion that any wear meant it was AU , but then after looking at sllabbed and unslabbed coins I realized the market didn't work that way .
rzage

 

Quite candidly, I don't really have a personal opinion, and I don't get caught up in written standards because they are wrought with interprative subjectivity (much like grading itself).

To me at least, the grade (and grading standard) is immaterial. The only things that matters to me are the coin and the price. The grade, and the grading standard, while perhaps a means to an end, is really just noise.

What I find rather telling, however, is that no matter which grading standard you use -- ANA, EAC, or TPG -- the resulting price is remarkably similar. A coin graded XF 40 by ANA standards, VF 35 by EAC, and AU 55 by TPGs are all, amazingly, priced about the same. That is not a coincidence, and in large part why I don't get caught up too much in grading standards. I just try and understand them comparatively as the first step in the valuation process.

 

Arizona, I hand you a coin that has very slight wear on the high points. Now that is all you know about it. Your job is then to look at that wear and decide if it was caused by being in a roll, or in a cabinet in which case you would call it Mint State, of if it bought a beer many many years ago in which case you would call it an AU-58. All you have to do is look at the wear and divine what caused it.

Sorry wear from a roll looks like wear from a cabinet looks like wear from light circulation. The fiction about friction is simply an excuse for the TPG's to call AU's Mint State.

Wear is wear no matter what causes it.

 

Stupid question time what is EAC ?
rzage:smile:hatch::whistle:

 

That is awful nice of you to say, GDJMSP.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- rarely do we learn anything by agreement. It is usually through (hopefully respectful) disagreement that we can all learn from each other...Mike

p.s. Rzage, EAC stands for Early American Coppers: http://www.eacs.org/

 

I agree. His communication skills have gone up since my trip to the 50th state. We must be going through another micro chatting pattern. hopefully we all will take full advantage of it

 

Personally, I don't think the amount of wear or the location of the friction on the coin matters. If the TPG grades the coin AU, they are recognizing the friction and the highest grade it can attain is AU58. If they choose to ignore the wear, then by default, the coin becomes a mint state coin and the process of grading a mint state coin takes over. It is possible to have a coin with immaculate surfaces, superb strike, booming luster, and great eye appeal along with wear. If the TPG recognizes the wear, it is AU, if not, the coin might very well be MS67.

Case in point, what do you think the TPG graded this key date Walker? Photo courtesy of Heritage.



:smile

 

Try this on for size:

On nearly every series, the TPGs grade the AU/MS line not by luster/wear on high points, but luster/wear on the fields.

Think about the implications of this, and I think you will realize why GDJMSP is (rightfully) making such a stink about it. It's a huge shift on grading AU and low to medium MS coins....Mike

p.s. Lehigh, Anyone who can grade that walker accurately from a single (overexposed) photo is fooling themselves. Obviously a fairly hit-free coin and as such could grade anything from 58 to 68, you can't see the luster/wear from the photos. All IMHO.

 

Would it have killed you to play along. Still, it proves the point though. I disagree about one thing. IMO it grades 58 or 65 to 67. No way is this coin MS60-64, unless the photo is really really bad.

 

OK. 66 is my guess.

 

I like the varying points of view - this is a good thread that everyone needs to read.

 

I'll go along with that because it's the bangs and dings and nicks and things that hold a coin in 60-64 and it's very plain from your photos that there are none of those of any consequence present on this coin. So now, please go to my next post. I'll ask the questions, you find the answers...

 

I don't have a question, here...just a, huh?

You're saying, then, it's whatever the TPGs choose; however they happen to personally feel that day? Maybe they're impressed with the outstanding pedigree...so, it's MS? Maybe this other coin-owner is some punk, so his coin doesn't make that first cut? Is that, IOW, what you're calling "grading?"

And did this just answer that question? It looks to me as if it did. See real problems, there, though, paisan...I have to be honest with ya...

 

I have a couple of thoughts about this, but it really comes down to this. If you are buying a coin that is labeled MS66 buy a major tpg, but you think it has slight wear/cabinet rub/roll friction on the high points, are you going to pay MS66 money for it, and if you do would you be happy?
I wouldn't be, I would rather have a very clean AU58 where the wear has been admitted to.