Define Damage On A Coin

The first coin is scratched. I do not believe it is severe enough to not grade it - especially since most have not even seen the scratch yet.

The second coin looks to me to have been cleaned. If so, it should not be graded

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Penny,
This has been told to others many, many times not just here but on other forums as well...........

If something about the coin bothers you now, it will always bother you. If this is the case, you should return it for a refund.

Chris

 

Okay, Doug! What is the verdict on these two gold coins?

Chris

 

No damage tho the eagle looks to have been cleaned, these are coins I have not run into in my short time collecting, so do not buy them based on my not seeing damage. (as if he would) I am looking forward to what to look for in these coins, who knows, I might run into one or two of these someday (yeah right)

 

I'll 2nd Borgovan's definition...:thumb:

 

So, would toning fall in this category of damage? It certain deminishes the eye appeal (at least for me; all I see is color and not the coin) and is distracting (so much so people pay higher for the colors) and can be a result of cleaning...just throwing it out there.

 

I consider the unintentional manipulation during use or the expected wear and/or aging of a coin to be completely natural and outside the realm of damage. This includes, but would not necessarily be limited to, rim dings, incidental scratches, toning (oxidation) and wear. Damage, in my opinion, is gained through the intentional manipulation of the coin or from use outside the realm that could be expected during its manufacture. This would include drilling a hole into a coin, dipping, artificial toning or other abuse.

However, I realize that the TPG usage of the term damage is not perfectly consistent with my definition and there are instances where I would reduce how I valued a coin even if it fell under the undamaged definition I have given above.

 

Please?

 

Then state your opinion and let us pick it apart instead of vice-versa.

 

Hi Chris, It only bothers me if it is a defect-post strike (lots of cash-ola). If it is some sort of collar, misstike, etc error- I'd love to keep it! (love them errors).

 

I agree! But you'll only see that phrase once more in this reply.

I agree! But, then again, I also disagree. True, many of the things considered as damage are subjective. Yet, damage is damage. It does not matter the severity of the damage, it is still damage. Now, the affect damage has on the grade or description of a coin is based on the severity. And that is itself subjective. And it is also dependent upon the market acceptability at the time of grade.

And because it is subjective, I would suggest it is preposterous to be preponderous in determining if one authority's determination is right while another's is wrong. It is opinion, not necessarily fact. One authority may append or describe damage to the grade of a coin, while another ignores it. They are both technically right, because they are both applying their own subjective opinion on the matter.

Again, it is still damage. Whether or not it is damage enough to warrant describing in the grade is another matter.

Is not corrosion itself the reason for toning? Toning does not "become" corrosion, it is simply corrosion to an exponentially lesser extent than what would cause pitting.

Dipping is exactly the alteration of the surfaces.

The problem I'm having with all of this, GD, is that you seem to be saying all of this is not damage after previously showing the TPG list .98-Damage as separate in their 9x-nongradeable list, while things like whizzing, improper cleaning, altered surfaces, etc, as being non-gradeable reason outside of "damage".

Yet, you contradict yourself. In the very beginning you claim "damage is anything that happens to a coin post strike". But, then you go into a whole list of blemishes, "abuse", and practices of "mishandling" claiming they are not damage.

In Michael Fahey's introduction in the ANA Grading Standards (5th Ed.) on Basic Grading Techniques, he claims:

Regardless if some find it necessary to establish certain forms of damage in "a category of its own", it does not change the fact that it is damage. The conclusion of your post contradicts the introduction to this end. Either "anything" post-strike is damage, or it is not.

Just as consideration of grade is subjective to the grader, so also is the determination of damage. Just as severity of detractions is subjective to the grader, so also is the consideration of the severity of damage. The important thing is that the grader is consistent in their subjectiveness.