MS-69 Coins Before 1950: How Many ?

But how do they DEFINE "wear" ?

That's the rub.

No pun intended.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not to mention doing so from an internet photo, and then applying a titillating word to what is observed and adamantly rejecting any other definition, without ever having the piece in hand, especially a gold piece.

Remember my good friend SaintGuru, and what he would have said about the coppering effect, at the locations GD has defined as "wear"? Then again, SaintGuru didn't know much about that stuff.

Word Salad is not a support system substitute for in-hand evaluation.

 

They publish the book, but the books themselves say they are just reporting current standards NOT making them.

The TPGs/market as a whole. There was a time when they could have been setting the standards if they chose to which they didnt, but they're far too irrelevant today to be the standard setter.

Ultimately its collectors that set the standards. If they dont like what they are they wont buy it and they'll change.

 

I use the actual contemporary standards, its foolish to use anything else.

I've also been on record for years now how stupid of an idea that arbitrary line at 58 was and how it was long overdue to get rid of that and grade coins by all their merits not just a single thing

 

Explain Standard, as you interpret it. Is it Fact, or Opinion?

Amazing. The lengths taken in this soliloquy to proffer that a "Standard" is fact, is not supported by any fact other than an Opinion and self interpretation of an Opinion.

 

Well said.

 

But then how can you be 100% positive that the "wear" you see on high-points of a Saint or another coin are not multiple hits from coins banging around in a bag ?

I AGREE with what you are saying above. But if all those items you say are NOT wear happen to hit a high point you could be ASSUMING it is wear or rub....Right ?

Right, including banging against another coin in a bag. In the fields, it leaves a bagmark but on a high-point of a device, it might look like rub.

Luster (at least on gold coins/Saints) is the reflection of light off thousands of microscopic ridges caused by minute deformations/wear on the surface of the die. It doesn't take much to interrupt these light-reflecting ridges which are probably measured in microns.

Agreed...just wondering how we determine wear hits from non-wear hits on larger coins with big fields and high devices.

 

And? There are 19 choices in the dictionary of the word "Standard". None state "fact".

The "thing" that really matters is: what the collector decides is acceptable for their particular opinion. It is not your opinion is the correct opinion, and it most certainly is not that the ANA Standard is anything but an opinion that was foisted on the collecting community as a wonderful and purposeful and useful method to expand the hobby and create a market for the hobby.

If ANA was so successful and the bestest of the bestest and the Standards were created by individuals with nothing to gain and was/is the only acceptable fact of the condition of a coin to adhere to, there would be no TPGs, and there would not have been coin doctors (you mentioned earlier concerning the contributors to the ANA publication and insinuated, by wording, your association with the contributors). Read the list again. How many formed TPGs? How many formed a 4PG? How many were dealers with nothing to gain? How many were in the insurance business? How many were coin doctors? You should know... just review the names.

Your bloviating of the superiority of ANA "Standards" as created by somebody not trying to sell something and created by "those" that have nothing to gain, is Baloney.

Has the organization helped grow the hobby over the years? Yes. Other than that (which is really the only reason it should exist), it is no more or no less capable than any TPG, and certainly is not as capable as a 4PG-specifically CAC.

I vote that CAC be the "Standard" for "Standards". After all, using your interesting terminology of ANA, CAC represents the present "contemporary grading standards", and are certainly more contemporary than your position that ANA is more contemporary than PCGS. Please.

My opinion is that you are not in favor of any TPG or 4PG entity, for some unexplained reason that can't be supported by logic, and prefer your position to be the correct and only position on the subject of acceptable "standards", and that is fine. But (there is always a "but"), it is not fact.. It is no more and no less than an opinion.

 

I know....send it to CAC.

 

Actually, GDJMSP has been very clear about why he doesn't like their grading standards. They use market grading, he is a purist who goes with technical, old-style ANA standards.

Gotta respect that, even if you disagree.

Not sure how you can then buy lots of coins today if you have a totally different evaluation standard for grading.

 

It is not a matter of disrespecting his position because I disagree. At no time, in the entire history of ANA,were the "Standards" of ANA anything more than Market Grading. Yes, I know...the old technical grading vs. market grading opinions and one is evil and one is not, etc.

Purity is in the eye of the beholder. The illogical logic of that purity position is that there should not have been any cleaned coins or counterfeit coins or doctored coins or undegraded coins or over-graded coins in any ANA Holder.

Your last sentence is not clear; do you mean if I am not sure? Or do you mean collecting in general?
I definitely do not know what "totally different evaluation standard for grading" means.

 

No one cares about a guide written 20 years ago you seem stuck on. The PCGS website was updated in 2022, you see their standards every day.

Again there are no ANA standards, they're just reporting other standards

 

Like "Doug" I prefer what I believe will ultimately be tested in the courts based on loss of valuation as in the PCI existing precedent. The validity of the 1977 documented A.N.A. grading standard.

It's believed that standard can be advanced but not altered, although it appears that every TPG may have a different standard.

We each can have our own standard, if we don't refer as meeting a specific different standard, as I referring to the 1977 pictorial standard, rather than faulty photo standards.

My standard is quite specific, that the coin was produced in the proper mint, and if slabbed, by the proper firm.

I regularly buy lots of coins that meet my standards, although maybe not a firms'/organizations' current.

JMHO

 

I'm just trying to learn about this whole debate. It's fascinating to me.

I meant collecting in general, not you Charley.

If theoretically all coins were 2 grades too high...but everybody was OK with it paying artificially inflated prices....but someone like me came along and said "I'm going to pay the market price for 2 grades lower since I think the coins are misgraded" -- not sure how much buying (or selling) I would be able to do.

 

Your learning is not necessary, for this subject. I know your capable knowledge.

I wasn't sure if you meant me, and at first thought it was that spellcheck/changing words thing. Now I understand what you mean, and yes, that 2 grades high 2 grades low blarney that was market hype (and still continues in the hobby....way too much)....that triggers only one logical response: buy it as long as it has a CAC pass, regardless of the piece. But, you know this.

 

I doubt it. 2003/2004/2005 is not going to happen again. Opinion is opinion. You are referring to the Precedent that wasn't.
There is not one thing that will happen that the insurance co. does not agree with.

ANA grading "Standard" is a horse that got out of the barn and the Comanches ate it. It will not arise from the dead, no matter how much praying or chanting or faith.

 

closest I got is a 61 quarter in MS69Cam a 65 in MS68* and a 58 and 56 wheat cent in MS 68.. Highest I got below 50 is a 44d Nickel in MS67 and every one of those was years of hunting to come by