Featured Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?

"IMO, adhering to firm rules will result in just as many improperly graded coins as are from using a holistic grading method. There is no written standard that can account for all of the different variables that occur while grading coins. Without ambiguity in the standards, our grading efforts face inevitable failure."Paul, that was very well stated, though not at all surprising, coming from you.

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doug, I agree with much or essentially all of what you have written and I know that I have made reference to the ANA Grading Guide in the past for others, too. I've always thought it a terrific guide for circulated material, but that as the grades rise the utility of the book is diminished. This is likely something that is a necessity since the grade window becomes smaller as the grade increases and one cannot possibly hope to have a completely comprehensive guide.

 

1. This thread has a lot of good information in it by people that I freely admit know a lot more about grading than me. I voted no and was surprised to see how few people were in that group.
2. I think it's possible that a coin is so outstanding in all other areas that a significant mark will not prevent a gem grade. I think the instances of it are pretty rare.
3. It seems PCGS and NGC allow a one point bump for outstanding eye appeal, so a coin might slide in under this criterion alone.
4. I have a PCGS MS65 Walker that I purchased, knowing full well that it had a significant mark on Liberty's upper leg, right below the left hand. I told myself at the time that the coin was so nice on all other technical points (luster, strike) that the mark did not prevent it from being a true MS65. I no longer can convince myself that it is properly a 65 because of two points straight out of the Mark Feld playbook (it's on his website):
a. If something about a coin bothers you initially, it will only bother you more over time; and b. eye appeal is great but don't ignore technical merits of a coin.
5. Although my Walker doesn't get there, I think a coin with truly stunning eye appeal (great toning for instance) can merit a 65. I just don't have a good example myself.

 

Prime focal areas are just that, a place you look first, I'd say even minor marks in those areas could be enough from keeping a coin from the next grade.

 

Please define "minor" in such a way that everyone would be able to make an objective determination? And at what point would there be too many?

 

By definition these grading "standards" aren't standards at all. Merely guidelines. If anything is subjective and can't be measured then they can't be standards. "This coin has much luster" How much is "much"? What is the measurable standard? "Minor/major marks" What is the standard of comparison? 0.5mm? .008% of surface area? Who is to say that this or that mark is minor/major? Grader A? Grader B? You? Me? Until this becomes a more exact science, there can be no "standards"
JMHO.

 

I agree with everything you said, but I believe that's what someone is forced to do when they grade by market acceptable standards.

I think the Morgan I posted helps to show TPGs don't strictly follow the established grading standards. So someone, such as myself, who chooses to follow the standards set by how the TPGs grade can not grade strictly by the established standards either.

When I grade a coin I'm always going by "What would PCGS/NGC give this coin". And I admit it's really a gut feeling combined with experience of how TPGs grade. And that experience simply comes from looking at examples.

Is it the best way to grade? No, because 1, I believe it takes a lot of practice to start to get that feel for what a coin would grade; and 2, because your not following strict guidelines, it can sometimes lead to inconsistencies in grading (Just like the TPGs).

 

On the flip-side, we do not and should not have the option of choosing which established standards (if any at all) others should be forced to follow.

Of course, this causes great debate in the industry, as well as confusion, when referring to any given coin's condition and haggling a price and value for a coin during a sell. You may be trying to simplify the situation by implying a reference to only two or three standards for grading, but we already know there is a plethora of grading standards throughout the past handful of decades.

Not everybody follows the same standards, and not everybody follows their proclaimed standard of choice exactly nor consistently. I would personally attribute this to greed. Yet, regardless, we must also realize that there are many that have been in the industry for many decades now, and not all of them are "recognized experts". It is not the "recognized experts" that determine the standards - it is the individual collector and dealer - the ones who are actively making the market.

It is their own personal philosophy and standard that prevails.

Now, that is not to say that an individual may not choose to follow a specific standard, whether it be by published or apparent standards used by PCGS or NGC, the ANA Standards (in all of its delicious flavors), Ruddy's Photograding, Halperin's NCI standard, the ACCUGRADE standard, classic Brown&Dunn Standards, Yeoman Redbook guidelines, Heritage standards, and the list goes on and on; and follow said standard strictly and religiously.

However, that is not the real world. In the real world, individuals have their own philosophies, and they will glean from that which has a tendency to agree with their philosophy. There is also subjectiveness. What is a major detraction to one, could be a borderline or minor detraction to another.

In any case, it is important for individuals to identify which standard they follow, or at least validate their reasoning for a grade. That is one reason I really do not care to read the "guess the grade" posts. Reading through twenty-some replies of a number are meaningless unless the individual validates the standard they use and give a proper answer to their reasoning for assigning such a grade (or for disqualifying it from another).

Any argument that any standard is antiquated is moot.

As I said before, there are numismatists that have been in the industry for numerous decades. As new ideas and new standards come about, these individuals may or may not adhere and embrace the new philosophies. They may also simply incorporate and glean portions of these new "standards" into their own philosophy for grading. After time, you would now have a plethora of hybrid grading philosophies and individual standards that may look like this standard or that, but in truth are a completely different monster.

That is why communication is important. As important as the differences in subjective matters of grading (especially eye appeal) are concerned, the most important aspect of discussing grade is the standard used. If you do not understand or recognize the standard of the one you are debating and conversing with is, and vice versa, then any debate on the matter produces nothing.

One person will have one set of standards in mind, while the other may have a variant or totally different standard in mind.

Open-mindedness is important in discussing grading in numismatics. If you take an MS-65 graded by PCGS and an MS-65 graded by DGS and try to compare the two and make a determination of which one is graded correctly and which one is not, you will be sorely disappointed. PCGS primarily grades on a skewed variant of the ANA standards while DGS grades primarily on Ruddy's photograding standards. You would be comparing apples to tangerines.

Yet, at the same time, we cannot simply discount one or the other because we do not agree with the philosophy behind the standard. In the same way, we cannot discount an individual's grade simply because we do not agree with their philosophy.

That is what debate is all about - discussing with open-mindedness to view your opponent's philosophy on a matter for the purpose of articulating a convincing rebuttal to turn them to your own.

 

Now, with what I said in my previous post, I answered "yes" the mark on the shown coin should keep the coin from attaining a "Gem" grade. Now, there are different definitions for the term "Gem" used in different standards. I am using it in the same manner as Bowers does in his introduction to the Fifth Edition of the ANA Standrads to imply a grade of MS65. Now, I believe it is important to understand the grade that the coin would be in if kept from a Gem status because of a technical issue. This grade would be Choice (MS63/64).

The question was specifically aimed at one technical area: detraction in a prime focal area of a Morgan dollar. Now, the poster already defined the "prime focal" area as being Liberty's cheek. We do not have to debate at all about that. The exact mark is even identified for us. So, now, we must determine what the requirements and differences between a Choice and Gem coin should be, and come to a mutual understanding (not necessarily agreement) as to the mark itself.

According to ANA standards (5th Edition, pg22), with regards to contact marks, a Choice coin may have light scattered marks; a few of which may be within a prime focal area. A Gem coin may have light scattered marks as well. However, the difference is that none of these marks may be in the focal area if they are: detracting; and, major. Thus we have two subjective requirements that would determine if the coin should be kept from a Gem grade.

Now, let's go to the series specific guidelines for the Morgan dollar for Choice and Gem Uncirculated:

Now, the OP identified the detraction as simply a "mark". I would qualify the mark as a bag mark and not a striking trait. Thus, assigning a gem grade and remarking the mark would not be appropriate here. The OP termed the mark as a "significant" mark. Because of the example the OP showed where the coin is clearly Gem without the mark, the mark is most definitely detracting.

Now, a Gem Morgan should only have a few minute bag marks or surface mars. The guidelines claim that, other than those few minute marks, the coin should be as perfect as an MS-67:

Thus, we see that any imperfections other than minute, scattered marks (including in the prime focal area) should be very minor imperfections. Therefore, we must determine wether or not this imperfection in the prime focal area is very minor.

I would state that it is a definitive "no". The mark was already demonstrated by the OP that it is detracting to the coin. Because the Gem grading guidelines do not allow this techinicality, the coin should be barred from being assigned a Gem grade. As well, assigning a Gem grade and remarking the detraction is not meritted because remarks on imperfections for a Gem coin should be for striking anomolies, not post-strike damage.

The reaon for this is because it is damage to the coin's surface. This damage mandates that the coin should be considered a Choice coin, and not a Gem coin. Just as with any damage to a coin, the damage lowers its grade.

However, because there are exceptional attributes to the coin, especially in the arena of eye-appeal, the grade should be Choice (MS64) with qualifying remarks such as "exceptional luster", "exceptional strike", and any other remarks that would qualify it as having Gem qualities.

 

Got to this post late but voted YES that it should not be a gem with a mark in a primary focal area. I know that we have "guidelines" and that grading is subjective, but this one seems more of a firm rule to attain gem status. TC

 

Quote:
In many, if not most cases, the ANA standards to which you refer are general and ambiguous enough such that they do not allow one to distinguish one grade from the next. And that is not a complaint, as I don't think written standards are capable of doing that.
"Sorry, but I disagree. I find them quite clear."

Doug, since you disagree with me and find the standards to be "quite clear", in so far as being able to distinguish one grade from another, please answer the following with respect to the differences in the ANA standards between MS65 and MS67 Morgan Dollars:

Originally Posted by ANA Standards, 5

th​

Edition, pg.286
MS-65 UNCIRCULATED No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS-67 except for a few additional minute bag marks or surface mars. Has full mint luster but may be unevenly toned. Any unusual striking traits must be described.



Originally Posted by ANA Standards, 5

th​

Edition, pg286
MS-67 UNCIRCULATED Virtually flawless with very minor imperfections.

​

1) Precisely how many additional minute bag marks or surface mars constitute "a few"?
2) Precisely how small or large is a "minute bag mark" or "surface mar"?
3) Precisely how different is "nearly"?
4) Precisely define "virtually flawless"
5) Precisely define "very minor imperfections".

And those are two point differences between MS65 and MS67 examples. What about the even more subtle differences between MS65's and MS66's or MS66's and MS67's, which are one grade apart and not two?

I repeat, that in many, if not most cases, the ANA standards to which you refer are general and ambiguous enough such that they do not allow one to distinguish one grade from the next. And that is not a complaint, as I don't think written standards are capable of doing that.

I challenge you to illustrate otherwise, specifically enough so that people would be able to apply the information consistently and objectively, in order to arrive at one specific grade, and no other grade.

I maintain that it can't be done in a written guide. That's because there are an infinite number of subtle differences between different coins. Those differences can't all be taken into account, distinguished and neatly fit into or included in a particular numerical grade classification. And because of the subjective nature of grading.

​

 

I know your post was directed toward GD, but I would like to interject just a few things:

This comment is debatable as to the degree of ambiguity, but the guidelines do have a level of ambiguity because grading is subjective. Even with the technical traits of grading, there is some subjectiveness.

Please refer to the general guidelines on page 22. With regards to contact marks: MS-67, 3 or 4 miniscule, none in prime focal areas; MS-66, several small, a few may be in prime focal areas; MS-65, Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.

Now, at first reading, it appears that if you count more than "3 or 4" miniscule marks on the coin, it cannot be MS-67. However, these are general guidelines. The size of the coin makes quite the difference as well. A large coin, such as the Morgan in question, would merit the higher grade with more marks than a small coin such as a dime or $1 gold.

Obviously, this is ambiguous and subject to the consideration of the grader. However, it is not so ambiguous as to be impossible to consistently determine the difference. But, that is not to say, either, that you will come to agreement on the subject. You will be absolutely correct according to your philosophy, just as GD will be according to his. Yet, there will be the point at which your philosophies come to agreement: that point at which both of your personal standards will not tolerate the damage and detraction to honestly claim the coin to be in the higher grade.

Again, subjectiveness. Some find corrosive damage of any kind to be detracting and grade accordingly. Others absolutely love the coloration that natural toning has, and the way it appeals to their senses. This same subjectiveness is given to the size and detraction created by damage to the surface preservation of the coin.

On this point alone, the determination of grade based on technical merits comes into debate. What is the largest acceptable size? 1/2mm, 2/3mm, 2mm on a silver dollar? Using Ruddy's photograding or the photograding used in Halperin's NCI standard could help to make this determination, but even then, the ambiguity on this matter is just another instance of subjectiveness.

That is why a coin may be MS-67 to you and MS-66 to Doug, but the grave differences between an MS-67 and MS-65 may be so clear, even with the ambiguity involved, that you would both likely agree more than disagree on the grade if given only MS-67 and MS-65 as possible grades. Just my opinion.

Approximately 3 to 4 marks on an average sized coin.

This one clearly depends on the grader's vision and overall view of the coin as a whole. When grading, we know that we should hold the coin at arm's length and get a good overall view of the coin in general. This helps us to determine the coin's overall eye appeal and the level and severity of any damage to the surface area. I would believe we could agree that a "very minor" imperfection would be one that is lost to us at first sight when taking in the overall preservation of the coin, but becomes apparent only upon closer inspection of specific areas of the coin's surface.

Yet again, this is completely subjective. There are a number of qualities about a coin that may distract our eyes away from these "very minor" imperfections including luster and strike, that others may not be detracted by.

I would have to disagree on this one point. It is making an assumption that any grade at all is an absolute truth. This is just not so. Absolutes are objective. Grading of coins is subjective to many things, including one's own grading philosophy. The Halperin NCI standard is one of the more objective photograding standards, but still holds much room for the grader's subjective opinion.

Where the problem lies is not necessarily in any fact that the individual cannot make the determination, so much as the subjectivity in grading results in one person's opinion stating one grade, while another person's opinion claims a different. This is why many TPGs grade by quorum.

Grading coins is subjective. You would both have to agree first that coin grading is objective and then agree to the standard to be used.

Now, I didn't post this to debate your opinions, except where the standard referenced shows some level of objectiveness that should allow for some agreement as to definition or term, such as "how many".

 

I don't think that's what folks are doing at all. They are merely expressing an opinion - a reasonable thing to do regardless of level of expertise.

They are not necessarily saying what the "accepted standards" are - they are expressing their opinion of what they should be.

 

Doug, our earlier exchange, which I have included below, led me to believe that you were not confining your remarks just to the standards of an MS65 Morgan Dollar. Clearly I wasn't speaking only about MS65 Morgan Dollars, and your reply didn't appear to be either.

Mark:
"In many, if not most cases, the ANA standards to which you refer are general and ambiguous enough such that they do not allow one to distinguish one grade from the next. And that is not a complaint, as I don't think written standards are capable of doing that."

Doug:
"Sorry, but I disagree. I find them quite clear."

​

 

The PCGS definition for 65 is ambiguous. It uses terms such as "some", "minor", and "few" without defining them. Until they define such terms with scientific rigor, their definition is vague.

 

I think they terms are intentionally vague so that they can be applied in a way that allows for each coin to be graded subjectively. Clearly defined written standards would result in improperly graded coins because no written standard can possibly account for the infinite number of variables that occur during the grading process. It is almost like the United States Constitution.