Help me understand this Trade Dollar

There's a very simple explanation for this coin - it came in 8th in ax fight And yes, that's my own, personal, description that I use for coins that look like this.

Now on a more serious note - I usually don't post in threads like this anymore. I used to, and all the time, but to be honest it's not worth the aggravation. Too many arguments usually from some who have no clue regarding what they are talking about. But because I was asked in this case ...........

- yes Larry I agree. The lines in the locations that you describe are from the die, most probably die scratches in my opinion. But those are the only ones I can see from the die, the rest, which I'd say are 95% of them, are post strike.

And they are everywhere, on the obv anyway. They are all over the devices, the fields, the rims, the denticles, and even some of the stars. The rev is pretty marked up too, but not quite as bad as the obv.

As for the cause of the marks, who knows ? Many, too many to count anyway, are short scratches, the rest contact marks of various sizes, depth, and severity. Were some made deliberately in order to "cover up" others ? I have no idea but it's certainly a possibility. It also possible that happened purely by accident.

As for the grade of the coin, there's nothing so severe that I would say it's a no grade. There is obvious obv wear on the left leg and foot, the ribbon, and the motto. On the rev on some of the legends, the motto, the eagle's head & neck, the talons, and light wear on some of the feathers. Even some of what we see in the fields, on both sides, is wear. My result, 50, 53 at best.

They're not blind, they can see the same things I can see. So the only conclusion I can draw from that is they simply ignore most of what they do see.

Absolutely not. I don't think even they could ignore that much.

Yes.

Wellllllllll - yeah I have comments. The only stupid, ignorant grading systems I see - are the ones used by the TPGs. And that's primarily because they don't follow any standards, not even the ones published by themselves. And only 1 of them, PCGS, ever published any. NGC, ANACS (today's ANACS), and ICG have never published any at all. To put it quite simply, in today's world they grade a coin as high as they think they dare - because that's what their customers want. Coins with obvious wear are routinely graded 61, 62, 63, and even some 64s and 65s. Coins with obvious post strike scratches, scratches large enough and of such a number as to qualify the coin for a no grade are ignored by using the excuse that they are "die polish lines" - when they are nothing of the sort. And they do these things because the "market", their customers, allow them to get away with it. Why ? Because that's what they want.

As for the ANA standards, at least they are written, at least they are consistent, at least THEY make sense. In their standards wear is wear - regardless of cause. In their standards ANY wear precludes an MS grade. In their standards the number, location, and severity of marks only really matter with the MS grades. In circulated grades the amount of wear is what matters, they don't even mention marks.

Now I'll ask you a question, given your opinion of the ANA standards, what exactly would you replace them with ?

 

Right. The word abrasion has a distinct and quite clear & simple definition - an abrasion is a scrape. An abrasion is not a scratch, it not a contact mark, hit, or ding, not a gouge, and it is not wear.

Again, it's pretty simple. Wear has a very distinct look. When wear is light it is seen as a break in the luster. When wear is more severe than light, but not yet heavy, it is seen as a smooth spot, sometimes even showing flatness, and there is no luster in that spot. When wear is heavy it is smooth and flat, and there is no luster in that area.

And yes there are different kinds of abrasions. The way they look is determined by whatever made that abrasion. If the surface of the abrading object is rough, then the abrasion will be rough. If smooth then it will be smooth. And abrasions are typically small in size, but they can be larger, and they can occur anywhere on the coin. And they typically only occur as a result of a single contact with the abrading object.

That said, if a coin is repeatedly abraded in the same spot or area, an abrasion can become wear as a result of that repeated contact. (At that point the abrasion ceases to be an abrasion.) But if and when it does it has a very distinct and different look than an abrasion caused by a single contact.

Again it's simple, different kinds of wear cannot be distinguished from one another. There is absolutely no difference between the wear a coin receives from being in circulation and the wear a coin receives from rubbing against other coins in a roll, an album, a coin cabinet, etc etc. Wear is wear, regardless of its cause.