Doug; As you know, I am generally very open-minded when it comes to learning about coins, but we had a very long and arduous discussion last year about grading and after digesting it, I came across something that i need to be clear for my own edification. Ok... you say that coins are not graded across series, but by characteristics of that particular date and mint for that coin. here's where I am unclear: What about at the very beginning of the year? The (as the TPGs call them) first releases are generally graded very early in the year before many of the coins are in circulation. How do you know how to grade these if you don't know what the general strike characteristics will be? If they grade by date and M/M, when there is a very low population available but billions yet to come, how do you know?
OK Mike - you asked for it ! What 9roswell said is true. And you're right Mike, they don't know. Neither do we. So with brand new coins you grade as you would those typical for the series until such time as it is known that there is something special about that particular date/mint that justifies different grading.
Mike, If I understand your question correctly you are wondering how a TPG knows what the typical strike characteristic of a particular date/mm when they only have EDS coins available to grade. The answer is that very few modern coins have incomplete strike issues due to technological advances in the minting process and reduced relief of coin designs. Therefore, the TPG does not need to consider striking quality for moderns. However, if you are referring to die state, it has been designated by collectors for years. EDS (early die state), MDS (middle die state), and LDS (late die state) are the typical terms. By itself, die state is not a factor in grading a coin, however, it can affect the grade of the coin. Both luster and strike are elements of coin grading. Some LDS coins may be limited in grade due to incomplete striking caused by die wear. This is independent from the stike weakness that may or may not be typical for the issue. However, LDS coins will often display incredible luster that may actually increase the coins grade in the event that the strike is still complete. To make the issue even more confusing, some collectors focus on EDS and others on LDS. In my experience, the EDS collectors are the strike conscious collectors while the LDS collectors are variety collectors. Here is a link to a question posed on the PCGS message board and the repsonse by David Hall about die cracks which are usually indicative of a late die state coin. http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=151440
I've often wondered how the heck they grade war nickels. Surely there aren't any MS70's and many have bag marks and beat down stairs. Also do they even count the 2 sairwells on the right and left of the main stairs? This question was only for discussion, I don't want any part of beating that dead horse.
but what becomes of the potentially (already slabbed) over-graded specimens? IOW - I send the first roll of 2009-D Nickels in to be graded by TPG X. They grade them. Later we find that the strike for the 2009-D is particularly crisp and well-defined. Now I understand what you have always contended that the way to properly grade is to look at the characteristics for that date and mint, but none exist. So you grade based on typical series standards but you later learn that most if not all of the coins are spectacularly struck. What you initially thought to be MS-69 is actually properly graded (according to your system) MS-66. What then becomes of the previously slabbed coins and how does the buyer then determine the difference?
good points, Lehigh. I especially like how you contrasted the EDS collectos from the LDS collectors and I think it's a spot on observation
I assume that you're not going to humor me and respond to my 2nd question, Doug? C'mon, the horse is still kicking, I have to go alot further until he's dead!
I'll answer question in the old days the mint had some problems. there were good/bad years, and good/bad coin specimens, thus grading became vitial to obtain the best speciman , based on mint perfection/inperfection, .... bury the horse
Ozark, you're not getting what I asked. It has to do with grading a series across all of the dates versus date by date. Doug says that you grade coins based on what the typical minting qualities of that coin are. I asked that if the coin is brand new (say 2010) and there are no known "typical" qualities yet, how do you grade them? If you say like any other date in the series, that is inconsistent with grading them coin by coin and is where I am having a problem digesting the idea.
Now when have I ever failed to humor you or answer a question Mike ? :smile But I do need to read it first before I can answer it. I'm not always here you know. Anyway, your scenario is a bit extreme. Grades would not change 3 points (from 69 to 66) based on quality of strike. But they might change 1 point. Regardless of that, I understand what you mean. Not that I think it would ever happen with coins being issued today - but I get what you mean. So let's assume for a minute that it did happen - that some very early releases were over-graded, and that over-grading was determined later based on the quality of strike for that date/mint combination that was unknown at the time of the initial grading. There really is only 1 answer Mike - the TPG would have to admit that they screwed up and over-graded those particular coins. Their grading guarantee would come into play on those coins that are re-submitted, and they would buy the coins back or replace them with properly graded examples. ----------------------- It seems what you keep trying to do Mike is to find some way to disprove or invalidate the premise that coins are graded differently based on whether or not they are known for being well struck or weakly struck. Well, you can disagree with the premise all you want. I didn't write it nor did I make it up. But I understand it, and I agree with it. It is a basic grading principle that has been with us for as long as we have had coin grading. And this premise, this grading principle, was established by those who know far, far more about coins and grading them than you and I shall ever know. And it is a fair principle for it works both ways. With coins where the entire mintage for a given date/mint is known to have been exceptionally well struck, like the early S mint Morgans - those coins are held to a higher standard. They will only be graded as a 64 where coins of the same date from other mints and of the same quality will be graded as 65's. And coins like the 1892-O Morgan where almost every one is known to have been very weakly struck, those will be held to a lower standard. They might be graded as 65's where coins of the same date but a different mint and of the same quality are only graded as 64's. Now as I said, you can disagree with this principle if you like. But pretty much the entire numismatic community holds this principle to be true, and they adhere to it, they follow it. And as has been said already, this principle is typically applied to the grading of coins from the past, coins where the various strike charcateristics are already known and have been known and chronicled for many years. At some point in the future the scenario you describe above may come to pass, but I doubt it. The reason it it is unlikely to happen is because we no longer have the same circumstances at the various mints - for that matter we only have 2 today. The minting presses are much more modern and produce far better consistency in regard to quality of strike. The coin relief is much, much lower today thus precluding, or at the least lowering, the chance of weakly struck issues. Things just aren't like they used to be. The things that necessitated the allowances used in grading for various date/mint combinations in regard to quality of strike. So -
