Question about grading standards for Proof Morgans

This was a duh moment on my part, of course the majority here is correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

dingo, posted: "How is MS60 a borderline problem coin? It just indicates the [ABSENCE of friction wear & condition of the surface] amount of wear."

It has nothing to do with whether it’s been cleaned or not."


EXACTLY!!

I believe this has already been answered:

"Which brings me to my original point - business strikes that are cleaned receive details grades, while proof coins just get docked points on the scale."

 

Proofs that were cleaned were just called "impaired."

 

Goldfinger1969, posted: "Not an expert on those coins by any means...but if they were to consider that corrosion a form of unpreventable chemical process -- sort of like "bad toning" -- wouldn't that explain it ? Not saying I agree with it, but if something happens to a coin that is no fault of a person's, that might explain the leniency.

Again, not saying I agree, so please don't attack me."

Think of it like this. Most old unrestored cars have rust. It is acceptable. Now, we can either ignore the non-original, environmentally changed surfaces on our cars or coins or not. That does not change the fact that IT IS THERE! However, it comes down to the degree of rust. And the personal standards of the owner/buyer. Are there some specks on the chrome or are the body panels rusted through?

 

That high of a grade for a proof coin is ridiculous an should not have been graded because of the severe cleaning.

 

DMPL, Your posted coin example is a good reason you don't buy the holder, you buy a coin based on eye appeal. The coin you posted is horribly impaired by harsh cleaning. I expanded the picture and note the cleaning lines on the neck and other areas. Is SEGS the only grading company that details proof coins and then an explanation of the issue? A knowledgeable or experienced collector would totally ignore the holder and purchase or not purchase that coin based on its eye appeal. They would also have it in the back of their mind that coin is an IMPAIRED Proof, not a circulated proof. Not details grading that coin or any other hair lined proof is a disservice to a collector, new or old. In my post on my 1937 Australian Crown Proof which got a SEGS Proof 63 DETAILS Environmental Damage (due to having been graded and authenticated by ANA in the early 1970's and placed in a PVC heat sealed flip) from PVC. Maybe one day the two top tier TPG's will give a numerical grade details on Proof and mint state coins rather than what we see here or a coin that says UNC details cleaned. Is a coin an MS-60 details or an MS-62 details or an MS??? what details? Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic.

 

Proofs and business strikes have surfaces that react very differently to handling, so differences in grading are appropriate.

What bothers me infintely more is that prooflike coins are graded like business strikes, even though they have surfaces that are like proofs. Kind of throws the justification for different proof grading right out the window.

 

Bob Evancho, posted: "Your posted coin example is a good reason you don't buy the holder, you buy a coin based on eye appeal. The coin you posted is horribly impaired by harsh cleaning. I expanded the picture and note the cleaning lines on the neck and other areas. Is SEGS the only grading company that details proof coins and then an explanation of the issue? A knowledgeable or experienced collector would totally ignore the holder and purchase or not purchase that coin based on its eye appeal. They would also have it in the back of their mind that coin is an IMPAIRED Proof, not a circulated proof. Not details grading that coin or any other hair lined proof is a disservice to a collector, new or old. In my post on my 1937 Australian Crown Proof which got a SEGS Proof 63 DETAILS Environmental Damage (due to having been graded and authenticated by ANA in the early 1970's and placed in a PVC heat sealed flip) from PVC. Maybe one day the two top tier TPG's will give a numerical grade details on Proof and mint state coins rather than what we see here or a coin that says UNC details cleaned. Is a coin an MS-60 details or an MS-62 details or an MS??? what details? Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic."

There may be a reason TPGS's (except SEGS ???) don't try to put a specific grade on an MS/PR coin. Let me give you an extreme example to make a point. What if I took a perfect SE graded MS-70 and it actually was a perfect coin under 20X. Then I cut that MS-70 in half. What is its MS grade?

 

What do you mean by this ? Same silver, just polished differently so one may show more and another less of being touched by a cloth....right ?

Is this true ? Can you tell us what this means in terms of grade given ?

 

That mirrored proof surfaces are very delicate. They will be hairlined to the naked eye by sources that do not do the same to a business strike. The eye appeal is also significantly higher than a business strike with the same amount of marks. Proof grading indirectly takes this into account, whereas prooflike grading does not.

I tend to think that an MS60PL or MS61PL may be a very attractive coin, whereas an MS60 or MS61 may not be attractive at all. Case in point, I have a coin in one of my classic sets that is an MS60 prooflike. I had the opportunity to upgrade to an MS64, but the eye appeal on my MS60 was superior to the 64. That shouldn't really be possible with market grading.

 

Jaelus, great answers....does your answer change or account for the fact that proofs back then tended to look different than proofs today...you don't see the fields looking jet-black for instance....you had these sandblast and satin and matte proofs that looked pretty much like business strikes, just better preserved because they were proofs and probably went to serious collectors.

 

Yes but for the PL designation on a business strike, the coin is going to have to have mirrored fields. It's not going to be analogous to a matte proof etc. so I'm not really talking about those other proof finishes, or even necessarily PL strikes (special collector strikes like Canada, Hungary, etc.). My point is that if a coin is uncirculated and has mirrored fields it should be graded differently than a business strike, regardless of how the mirrored fields got there.

 

Today, proof means mirrored proof. They've looked the same for years, decades.

Back then, many times, the proofs WEREN'T mirrored. You'd see more "mirror" in the PL or DMPL business strikes.

 

I agree with you. If you look at what you quoted from me it says to the naked eye. That's the difference - the appearance.

 

Luster is caused by the reflection of thousands of these microscopic ridges on the surface of the coin.

We think the coin is "smooth" but even a polished dye creates gold or silver with a surface that isn't perfectly flat but more like the roof of the house.

Light reflects off these ridges and that creates the luster.

 

circulated proofs are encapsulated as impaired, no?

 

what tpg or 4pg grades using 20x?

 

i am probably wrong, but, i don't think so.