ONE MORE TIME

No that is not what I am saying at all ! Wear, regardless of where it occurs or when, is wear.

I can't see that coin well enough to tell if it has any wear on it or not. But getting beat up like that, looking like the coin came in 8th in an ax fight - does not constitute wear. Contact marks, scratches, abrasions, etc - are not wear.

That's why it is simple.

edit - This is how PCGS defines an uncirculated coin -

Uncirculated

Term to indicate a coin or numismatic item that has never been in circulation, a coin without wear. See “Brilliant Uncirculated,” “Mint State,” and “new.”

http://www.pcgs.com/Lingo/U

 

No they don't, but they sure do in their published grading standards -

https://www.amazon.ca/Official-Grad...33160-9359538?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

 

No, not right.

That's because they are both "wear-ish", there no difference between them. Wear is wear, regardless of it's cause.

Correct. Pretty sure I said exactly that here -

Wear is caused by repeated rubbing (usually), of the coin against anything, in the same places on the coin, those "places" are usually the high points of the coin but not always by any means, - not by single contacts.

For example, when coins are minted they pop out of the presses and fall into a large hopper. The coins already in the hopper are hit by the additional coins coming from the presses. As the just minted falls and hits the coins already in the hopper, contact marks are the result. Those contact marks do not constitute wear because they are caused by a single contact between 2 coins - one hitting the other. And a single contact cannot produce wear.

By the same token contact marks made inside a mint bag are not wear either - they are just contact marks. Contact marks made in a cash register drawer are not wear. Contact marks in a counting and rolling machine are not wear. Contact marks made or formed anywhere, inside or outside the mint, or even in actual circulation for commerce - are not wear - they are just contact marks.

Wear occurs when two coins repeatedly and over a period of time rub against one another - in the same places. It doesn't matter where those coins are. And it doesn't have to be 2 coins rubbing against each other, it can be a single coin rubbing against anything. A coin rubbing against the bottom or side of the hopper it falls into when it is minted can cause wear. A coin rubbing against the side of a mint bag can cause wear. A coin rubbing against the side of a counter top, a table, anything, can cause wear. A coin rubbing against another coin in a roll can cause wear. A given high point of a coin rubbing against the side of the hopper, and the same given high point on the same coin rubbing against the side of a mint bag, and then rubbing against a cash register drawer - can cause wear.

Wear is the same spot on a coin rubbing against anything and everything, even several different things, usually more than once. But sometimes once is enough, other times it is not. The thing that defines wear is when the luster is broken, and it doesn't matter if it takes 1 rub, 2 rubs, or a hundred rubs to do that. Once the luster is broken it is wear - no matter where, when, or how it occurs.

But a contact mark, or a scratch, or a scrape, or an abrasion - is not wear.

And no, you don't need to go away. If there is something, anything, you still don't understand - then ask.

 

I have always thought that a large part of the misunderstanding or confusion when discussing numismatics is due to the many different words we use and the definitions of those words.

Take the word abrasion for example, use that word and let 5 different people read it, and I'll bet that you have at least 3 different things pop into their minds as to what it means exactly. In other words, 3 of those people would have different definitions as to what exactly an abrasion was. And the other two might each agree with any of the three. Or to say it another way, what I call an abrasion may not be what you call an abrasion.

This phenomena occurs with everything in life, not just numismatics, use almost any word and somebody somewhere has a different definition for that word than you do. Look up almost any word in a dictionary and you'll find from 3 to 8 different definitions, so it is to be expected that different people have different definitions for words in theirs heads. Hear or read the word and different people visualize different things.

So how do we all know what each other means ? Context I guess. Numismatics has its own, sometimes unique, set of definitions for many, many different words. And even then some of them are different for different people. Myself I try to be very careful, very specific with the words I use when I write and when I speak. Take the word "cleaned" for example. If were to use the word "cleaned" when talking about coins 9 out of 10 people would be sure they knew exactly what I meant. Well guess what - all 9 of them would be wrong. If I were to say "cleaned" what those 9 people thought I meant would actually be harshly cleaned. I never, ever, say cleaned when what I really mean is harshly cleaned.

For me, cleaned means a coin that has been properly cleaned. Harshly cleaned is a coin that has been improperly cleaned.

The same thing happens with words like abrasion, scrape, scratch, luster, hairline, wear, hit, ding, contact mark, rub, devices, even rim and edge get mixed up for some. Use any of those words and different people will see different images in their heads.

So how do we avoid that ? For the most part we don't. About all we can do is explain, go into detail as to what exactly we mean when we say or write something. This very issue is what has brought about this thread, or at least the extent of this thread. Form the very title on - One more time - and the comments and questions of the OP - this issue is what we are talking about.