Searching for a Saint

I've never heard what I'd consider a strong logical argument for the existence of the apparent commonality of "cabinet friction," as it's defined. There weren't enough well-heeled collectors employing "coin cabinets" back in the day to create so many, and they'd all have to have been constantly cycling coins in and out, and industriously opening and closing drawers all day to do so. If you love the coins enough to collect them in Mint State, are you gonna be rubbing them in your cabinets?

And just how many of those well-heeled collectors - people whose interests ran to $20 gold coins and Crown sizes the average person rarely ever touched or owned - were willing to compromise to acquire coins which had circulated for a few months to acquire the bare beginnings of wear? And then (successfully) preserve them for a hundred years or more into our day?

Frankly, the logical answer to me is that everyone, from the TPG's (particularly the TPG's) on down to random Internet speculators like myself, is employing insufficient granularity of thought to determine all the subtle ramifications of imperfect strikes and bag storage. Do we really think there were enough Morgans pulled from the barest amount of circulation to account for seven thousand Heritage auction results for AU58's, or 7500 Liberty Double Eagles?

Yes, there are true AU58's and true "cabinet wear" (or some similar mechanism) coins. But not this many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately, I don't think your quote above answered my question! So, do you agree with me on this point? ...and since the Mods say no one is required to answer a question, I'll understand if you don't wish to answer.

 

Need sharper photo. Since there is a defined change of color that ANYONE can see on the high points - it can be either one.

Nevertheless, it does not matter on a coin such as this. It's like the Brasher Doubloon that has significant wear but is graded Mint State.

Post a sharp photo of any Saint and I'll give you my opinion and the reasons for it.

 

I disagree. By the strict ANA Grading Standards there SHOULD BE many more AU's no matter how they lost their luster on the high points!

PS I apologize for my ignorance but what the heck does "insufficient granularity of thought" mean? Will someone ask him for me as I am "blocked?"

 

I think I've cracked your code insider. With your propensity of making huge mountains out of molehills you must work for the government.

 

IMO, you and I WERE discussing an extremely important part of grading not making mountains out of anthills!

if a coin has full original luster, its past history has no bearing on its Mint State condition. A grading seminar instructor that was once a dealer explained this FACT using some experiences in his past that I cannot forget.

1. He opened a bank wrapped roll of BU Buffalo nickels. As soon as the roll was examined, several of the coins COULD NOT BE graded Unc by his aand the ANA's strict definition as they had "roll friction." Others in the same roll were FMS gems with no sign of friction.

2. A gold dollar was picked out of an old lady's black change purse. It was full of junk coins, lint, dirt, debris and as soon as that OBVIOUSLY CIRCULATED coin was removed from the pile it was a FLAWLESS GEM - no hairlines, no friction, and no marks (using a stereo scope to examine it)! He added that the beginning collector he sold it to showed the coin to several other dealers in the city. A week later, when the STUPID IDIOT returned it to him for a refund, it had been reduced to a hairlined AU-58!

IMO, these two cases illustrate the point I am trying to get you to agree with. A coin's history cannot be determined. Its STATE OF PRESERVATION can.