Trying to Understand Coin Grading

The coin in the image was graded and sold as MS64.

I have seen these high grades on otherwise un-sightly coins before, this is not the first time. Looks like someone took a wire brush to the one side.

I buy a few of these Canadian dollars occasionally and if this coin were in a stack for me to look at, it would be one of the first I would set aside in the un-wanted pile. I have a tube I keep for melt value Canadian dollars and don't think there is a coin that un-sightly, in it.

Unless of course, someone did a switch-a roo.

It's very frustrating when you think you have a grasp on grading coins and you see something like this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It appears to be a no problem, original coin with toning that most would find at least somewhat unattractive. I see no evidence of surface manipulation on the coin. I expect you find the side with Queen Elizabeth to be the side that has been altered, but truly it appears to be toning in and around a latent fingerprint. This is also quite common on US coins that were originally sold in the double Mint Sets from 1947-1958 exclusive of 1950.

 

I knew somebody was going to say that this coin was graded correctly. ..and I'm sure Tom B isn't wrong, don't misunderstand me.

Yeah, I'm trying to understand grading, too.

When I see an ugly Mother Hubbard like this, it makes me think: "Is YOUR mind's-eye image of the grade, 'MS-64' the same as MY mind's-eye image of the grade, 'MS-64'?"

To me, eye appeal is everything.

 

Fair enough Tom, it just looks dirty and the details don't stand out like you would see on a coin with a nice strike unless of course, visual appearance doesn't matter when a coin is graded.

I'll hopefully understand grading someday.

 

Please understand that I don't know if I would grade the coin as an MS64, but the images are not telling me that the coin has been manipulated.

Eye appeal is only one component of a coin's grade and should be considered along with strike, luster (where applicable), wear and the number and severity of hits and marks. These all go into what one might call a floating pool to determine the final grade. It can be more tricky to explain or visualize on MS or PR coins instead of on circulated coins since circulated coins give a pretty well defined window for grade based simply upon wear patterns.

I don't know what this coin would look like in-hand and the especially dark areas around the rims might actually pop a bit with deep greens or reds. Regardless, I think the coin is fairly dark and mostly unappealing on one side while it has a much nicer presentation on the other side. Also keep in mind that when I write that it might be a problem-free MS64 that this does not mean that I would buy it as such. In truth, if that coin looks in-hand the way I think it would look then it is not a coin that I would want to own.

I hope this was clear, but please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

Most of that is clear and thanks, but the Young Queens head looks to have wear, when compared to the attached similar coin.

I can now see how big dollars can be made flipping coins because I would have sold it as EF, give or take as described it as cleaned.

 

The first coin attached in the thread is a business strike while the second coin attached in the thread is a proof. Proof coinage differs from business strike coinage in that proofs can be struck from specially polished and prepared dies and planchets, can be struck with greater tonnage (force) and can be struck multiple times. Therefore, it would not be surprising at all to see a proof coin have much more fine detail than a business strike coin.

As for the coin in this thread, the toning pattern on the business strike piece is quite distracting and masks some of the details while the proof piece is untoned and lit quite well for the image.

 

I learned a lot tonight, maybe you can comment sometime in the future on how to tell if the blackness around the edges is years of grime or actual toning.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the grading company that uses those flips is a Canadian company called ICCS. And IIRC, ICCS uses a method of technical grading rather than the market grading employed by American coin grading services. In other words, they don't take luster & eye appeal into account when grading, just surface preservation.

 

It's my understanding that ICCS has a very good reputation within Canada for grading Canadian coins and I think they may also have the reputation of looking heavily at the technical aspects of a coin rather than the eye appeal of the coin.

 

nothing to add to this coin discussion, but glad to see another rush ran on the coin forums. ...they've been my favorite for 25 years now. saw them twice on the clockwork angels tour.

all the best and coin on.

 

Oddly enough, I am also a Rush fan and have seen them live several dozen times going back to the Permanent Waves tour.

 

This was helpful.

I've cut and pasted your response into a Word document. I'm saving all these little bits of info from you more experienced people. The info on different grading criteria (ICCS) vs the "market grading" system used by PCGS/NGC was very enlightening.

I have read here at CT that the British grade "tougher" than the US standards.

So much to learn...

 

To me, its proof of why attractiveness shouldn't be part of the grade, and sight unseen should be a laughable joke or an idea. Grade should be a purely technical measure. When you start incorporating attractiveness you by definition date the coins grade, since what is considered attractive on a coin has changed tremendously over the years. These toned coins in slabs today years past would have had deducts to their grades because of tarnish. The ball may swing back someday, so to me grade should be as technical as possible, knowing such things as where dings are affect the grade to two graders differently. It can never be purely technical, since no two coins are alike, I just believe no coin should be given a higher grade because the grader, on that day, thinks its "pretty".

 

One thing that is hard to see sometimes is that grading in it's purest form is about condition...not eye appeal. This coin does not have any wear and appears to have pretty clean fields. Therefore, MS64 is an appropriate technical grade. However, it is ugly due to the unattractive toning. Would this coin bring as much money as a nicely toned or a blast white example...no, it wouldn't. But, it is still MS64. As has been said many times here, no two coins are the same...even if they have the same grade.

 

I was talking about desirability of toning and other factors Doug. I said there will always be valid disagreements as to what a certain contact mark in a certain area lowers the grade by, how much to ding a coin for a heavy contact mark, etc. However, if points are given simply because a person today, using today's market preferences, of a coin being "pretty" then that grade is aging itself. Someday, that same coin WON'T be viewed as being as "pretty" since all markets change opinions over time.

 

So of course it doesn't then. No one has ever noticed pedigreed or rarer earlier coins EVER get any kind of grade bump.