What do you call a siver coin

that is below G4 in condition, but you can still tell what it used to be? 4 Decades ago Poor was an accepted coin term, but I don't see it being used much anymore (except by me). I mean, like for instance, I have what was once a bare breasted Standing Liberty quarter (she wore off long ago), but there is no date on it anymore and only the lack of stars under the bird on the reverse tells me it used to be either a 1916 or an early 1917 quarter. I have many Mercury dimes on which the date merged with the rim decades ago, and only the distinctive front and back tells me what kind of dime it used to be. I also have a half dime which requires magnification to make out the 'half dime' and traces of the wreath with the obverse date side worn smooth. Only half a grade above a 'piece of silver' or a slug. What do we call coins of such condition when they are below any talk of 'Good?' Poor 1, poor 2?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It would be PO1, FR2, and AG3 or in other words, Poor, Fair, and Almost Good.

 

You need a readable date for most coins to get PO1 or FR-2.
I think the 1916 quarter can be gradable, without a date.

 

Some half cents have design diagnostic that determine date...without a date.

 

A 1913 Type-1 Buffalo nickel would fit into that category, too.

 

...or an 1851o trime (no date, but "o" visible)

 

...or 1917 Type 1 SLQ
...or 1912 (d/s) Liberty nickel

 

...1839 Large Cent (Silly/Booby Head)
...1843 Large Cent (Petite Head/Large letters)

 

...1945s Mercury dime (Micro S)

 

Chain cents.

 

Well that is my problem. I have lots of bits of silver without readable dates. <half a .30 caliber ammo can full.> There is enough left of them so I can say, 'oh this used to be a liberty quarter, or a Roosevelt dime, but beyond that.., since the year is unknown, how can it be graded?

Regarding the quarter, if I could confirm it was a 1816 vs a 1817, well then I could grade it. Right now tho, the best I can say about that piece of silver is; an almost good once controversial coin, if you don't mind the lack of a date and never knowing if it should go in the 1916 bucket or the 1917 pail.

 

I guess my point is the American Numismatic Association should, IMO, formally address the issue of how to grade a coin whose type is identifiable, but a specific date can not be ascertained or proven. Versus the mix of terms we see in reply to my original post. To me, any coin that because of wear cant be specifically dated is automatically Poor, but even then, we need something to indicate it is poor with no date (PND?), versus poor (as in a magnifying glass is needed to see any details, but you can make out enough of the date to properly bin it).