The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

Lehigh96, posted: "No, he [Doug]espouses that there is no such thing as an untoned coin, and he is correct. [Then nuts to both of you for that silly opinion. A few questions come to mind immediately. 1) How many seconds does it take for a coin to become toned after it leaves the die? 2) How toned is a coin I just dip?] What we perceive as untoned coins simply have a thin film interface so thin that the refracted light does not cause us to see any color on the surface of the coin. [I sure wish I had your level of vision! Sort of like if you cannot see something it is still there. Oops, I see a ghost in the room. LOL. There is an old saying...Keep it simple, ________.]But the absence of color doesn't mean the coin isn't toned. Therefore, if you consider toned coins "damaged" then you must also consider untoned coins "damaged" because all coins have some measure of toning on the surface. [Oh, my...and you are a very knowledgeable numismatist and corrosion expert. Please. Some folks have screwed up coin grading so bad by spouting nonsense. For those who are not knowledgeable, I'll suggest this:

1, If you cannot see something on a coin, pretend it is not there. Don't believe there is color, bag marks, etc. on a coin IF YOU CANNOT SEE THEM!]

Weimar White is a crackpot [He does have some extreme beliefs. For example, he believes all toned coins are damaged! I replied to him once that I want to buy all the rainbow "damaged" coins he could get for me. LOL. That said, IMO, many of his writings are as CRACKPOT as I read from you at the other extreme.] who fear mongered collectors into believing that toning is "damage" and if left untreated, would ruin their precious coins and destroy their value. Conveniently, he had just the product to sell them that could save their precious coins. How many coins is that man responsible for destroying with his acid dip? The fact is that if your coins are stored properly, the existing toning layer on the coin's surface will not advance discernibly in our lifetimes.

I'm not sure who here doesn't agree with the fact that there are different stages of toning, that end stage terminal black toning is tantamount to environmental damage and makes the coin a problem coin [Apparently, major dealers, CAC, and the professional graders at the major TPGS don't agree! Take a look at all the high grade, very expensive slabbed coins with corroded black rims!], or that rainbow toning can be beautiful and increase the value of the coin.

Of course exceptional eye appeal increases VALUE. That's why we are having this discussion. A COIN'S VALUE SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS CONDITION OF PRESERVATION. You guys have been scammed an love it. Defending this dealer-made concoction that has caused gradflation: XF/AU coins are now graded MS (value) because it is the status quo does not make it correct.

Getting angry with the folks who understand this and see the "naked truth" is not helpful. Fact is not going to change anything or any opinion. I see both sides. I have personal grading standards yet I put on my apron each day and enjoy feeding folks the poison they love to eat!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Lehigh96, posted: "I will give you the same advice I gave TypeCoin, go start your own TPG if you want to employ technical grading. NGC & PCGS have been market grading coins for decades and giving higher grades for rainbow toned coins the entire time. It isn’t lawless and I would gladly accept people calling me a fool if that meant I could have the most money."

Questions:

1) Has NGS and PCGS changed the way they grade coins?
2) Do you think they will change the way they grade coins now sometime in the future?

Perhaps you can post some hearsay from your grading room buddy.

 

Morgandude11, posted: "Honestly, the merits of toning
If individuals and TPGs want to reward toned coins for having a colorful, attractive patina, what is the problem? Some people love that patina, and will pay a lot for it. To those collectors, it is like a beautiful impressionistic painting."

The PROBLEM is that we can take a technical MS-63 or 64 coin and have it become beautifully toned by either natural or artificial causes and have it grade MS-67 and sell for very, very, VERY BIG money.

"If TPGs wish to follow the eye appeal desires of toned coin collectors, and give a coin a bump for attractive patina, what is the big deal? I have seen Morgans getting a bump for being incredibly blast white, so the results are totally analogous. I say again, if one does not like toned coins, and sees that bump as overgrading, DON’T buy those coins."

Ideally, color, eye appeal, whatever would not change the coin's GRADE; it would just rate a qualifier such as a gold star that would indicate that professionals think it should sell for more money than its assigned grade would indicate.

 

Perhaps the TPG's could start putting two grades on the holder. One with the technical grade (64) and one with the market grade (67 for an excellent coin, 58 for a dog). When grading first came out, didn't they grade both sides and break it down by different aspects?

 

You have an animus against toned coins. I strongly suggest that you do not buy them, and leave them for those of us who like our “overgraded, big money coins.” I will continue to assert that the grading for toned coins is no different than the dipped ultra blast white coins that you’re only too happy to allow them to be overgraded for gigantic premiums.

 

Shouldn't the toning start immediately after the final cleaning process, or even before the metal has been processed into planchet/coin???

 

Yes, starting at the end of 1972, the first authentication service in the US, graded each side by strict technical standards for internal records to help ID the coin that they authenticated. Later, the second TPGS located in Colorado issued certificates with each side graded and other qualifiers. After changing to plastic slabs, I believe they assigned only one grade for both sides but they also assigned a net grade too.

Net grading is stupid. One single grade for both sides does not completely describe very many coins but that's what we have today although many of the grades used to represent a coin's condition have changed substantially.

 

Unfortunately, you seem to be lacking in English comprehension! Please look again.

I love toning! I don't consider MOST colorful toning as damage! I own some beauties. I give grade bumps for eye appeal (market grading) when warranted (if the under coin is technically close). The folks I have worked with over the years are not as tight.

WHAT I DON"T LIKE is raising a coin's true grade because of color. Raise its VALUE not its grade because if I dip that gem, it will loose ALL OF ITS "EXTRA" premium for the color that is no longer present!

 

My English comprehension is just fine. You’re just resorting to an Ad Hominem attack, as a couple of people don’t like your position on the grading of toned coins. Perhaps, that means that you’re running out of substantive positions on the issue with which to successfully argue.

 

It isn't a silly opinion, it is a scientific fact.

1) The planchet already has an oxide layer prior to the minting process. In the event that the oxide layer is completely destroyed during the striking process, then yes, the first oxide bonds will happen within seconds of it leaving the die, unless the mint takes steps to ensure that there is no hydrogen sulfide gas on the mint floor, which I highly doubt.
2) See the answer to number one.

When I posted my degree, it was a warning for people to stay in their lane. Instead of heeding my warning, you have decided to go full retard. Just because you can't see the oxide layer, doesn't mean it isn't there. You can't see any microscopic particles with the naked eye, but I'm sure you will agree that protons, neutrons, and electrons are not imaginary things like ghosts, right?

If you are unconvinced that oxide layers invisible to the naked eye exist on all coins, we could easily use an SEM (scanning electron microscope) coupled with EDS (energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy). It would tell you both the thickness of the oxide layer and identify the elements in the oxide layer.

So for anyone reading this thread, Insider's advice to pretend things aren't there because you can't see them is some of the worst and scientifically ignorant advice I have ever had the displeasure to read on this forum.

My views on toning are not extreme at all, in fact they are basically identical to the industry standards which are employed by the TPGs and accepted by the large majority of the numismatic community.

They allow terminal toning on the rims, but if it advances onto the surface of the coin, usually they will grade the coin as problem coin for environmental damage. If a coin with terminal toning on the surface gets into a problem free holder, I would highly recommend to any collector that they not purchase that coin. It is no different than a cleaned coin in a problem free holder, it happens.

YES

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HECK IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN? A coin's value is completely dependent upon condition, what's more, that is what you do for a living.

Incoherent babbling!

The only thing that you do that makes me angry is your complete and utter disregard for the quote function, but I'm not spending time to fix it anymore. I'm just gonna quote the entire jumbled mess of both our words and enhance the color differentiation between your remarks and mine.

Black text = Lehigh96 remarks

Blue text = Insider remarks

 

What are you talking about!

Do you understand this:

However, I don't agree with bumping the grade of inferior coins due to toning. Unfortunately, that is what is done ALL THE TIME because folks are trying to let everyone know that the coin is more valuable with color. Don't you remember when "WHITE" was more valuable?

 

Lehigh96, posted: "It isn't a silly opinion, it is a scientific fact.

1) The planchet already has an oxide layer prior to the minting process. In the event that the oxide layer is completely destroyed during the striking process, then yes, the first oxide bonds will happen within seconds of it leaving the die, unless the mint takes steps to ensure that there is no hydrogen sulfide gas on the mint floor, which I highly doubt.
2) See the answer to number one."

I AGREE! Fortunately, I don't care about things I CAN'T SEE like oxygen molecules all around us or MS coin that HAVE NO COLOR! If I did and wanted to continue this silly conversation then there is NO SUCH THING AS A COIN WITH an 100% original surface. THEY ARE ALL AU. We just cannot see the missing atoms!

"When I posted my degree, it was a warning for people to stay in their lane. Instead of heeding my warning, you have decided to go full retard. Just because you can't see the oxide layer, doesn't mean it isn't there. You can't see any microscopic particles with the naked eye, but I'm sure you will agree that protons, neutrons, and electrons are not imaginary things like ghosts, right?"

Check out my response above and please don't ask anymore silly questions like this: You can't see any microscopic particles with the naked eye, but I'm sure you will agree that protons, neutrons, and electrons are not imaginary things like ghosts, right?

PS I'm very glad to know your qualifications. If I were running this place we would know as much about every poster. I hope you are enjoying this discussion as much as I am!

"If you are unconvinced that oxide layers invisible to the naked eye exist on all coins, we could easily use an SEM (scanning electron microscope) coupled with EDS (energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy). It would tell you both the thickness of the oxide layer and identify the elements in the oxide layer.

So for anyone reading this thread, Insider's advice to pretend things aren't there because you can't see them is some of the worst and scientifically ignorant advice I have ever had the displeasure to read on this forum."

Actually, I thought I made it very clear THAT YOU SHOULD NOT IMAGINE SOMETHING IS ON THE COIN IF YOU CANNOT SEE IT. That includes just about everything you have mentioned (atoms, etc.) that IS ON THE COIN AND MAY be visible with enough magnification.

Besides, I'm just a ignorant fool that will not call a "blast white" coin toned or oxidized in spite of what a corrosion expert thinks.

"My views on toning are not extreme at all, in fact they are basically identical to the industry standards which are employed by the TPGs and accepted by the large majority of the numismatic community."

We already agreed on this point: Nothing is going to change in the industry regarding toning. Ah, unless it can be proven that most of it may be artificially induced and "white" makes a comeback.

"They allow terminal toning [CORROSION/Environmental damage often into the edge also.] on the rims, but if it advances onto the surface of the coin, usually they will grade the coin as problem coin for environmental damage. ["They" also call polished or heavily buffed coins "CLEANED." That does not make it right.] If a coin with terminal toning on the surface gets into a problem free holder, I would highly recommend to any collector that they not purchase that coin. It is no different than a cleaned coin in a problem free holder, it happens."



"YES"

(?)

"WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HECK IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN? A coin's value is completely dependent upon condition, what's more, that is what you do for a living."

I think you are mistaken again. I grade coins by their condition of preservation. I let other people including the end user of the slab (the submitter) price them.

"Incoherent babbling!"

(?)

For those who need help understanding the way I post:

Red and Green text Insider.
Black text surrounded by quotation marks Leghigh96.

 

“A COIN'S VALUE SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS CONDITION OF PRESERVATION.”

I think what he was trying to say is that a coin’s surface preservation should be the sole determiner of the grade and should not be influenced by its value. Otherwise, I am at a loss for the point that he was trying to convey.

 

Go to the head of the class!

Example: I have an 1884-S dollar and an 1885 dollar. Both are in exactly the same condition of preservation. If I cover the date and the examiner knows nothing about what the rims of P and S mint coins look like, they will confirm the coins are exactly the same.

NEVERTHELESS, when both are sent to the TPGS, the '85 comes back as MS-62 and the '84-S is graded AU-55. Why? It all has to do with VALUE the main reason grading is screwed up!
LOL, at least once every two weeks one of my "grades" is reduced by many thousands of dollars by the Finalizer.

 

I'm curious, why would an uncirculated coin be missing atoms? As long as there is no wear, the chemical change in the formation of the oxide layer doesn't remove any atoms from the coin.

Well, at least you aren't pissed at me, that is a bonus.

OK, when I brought up this point about untoned coins having an invisible oxide layer, it was in response to Typecoin saying that rainbow toned coins are "damaged". Therefore, if you are going to consider oxide layers "damage" then every coin is damaged, because every coin has an oxide layer, even those you can't discern with the naked eye. And anyone who propagates the ridiculous notion that toning is damage will get the same lecture, even though Typecoin doesn't even believe the point he was making, he was simply trying to win an argument.

So let's make a deal, I won't force you to call a "blast white" coin toned or oxidized as long as you don't call a rainbow toned coin "damaged." And yes, I know you just told Morgandude11 that you don't consider rainbow toning damage, so we should be all good here.

Yep, that is the big fear regarding toned coins, I agree 100% and have been saying the same thing for years.

You're right.

Yes, you grade coins. The higher the grade, the higher the price. To say that your service as a grader doesn't provide a value for the coin is naive at best. That is the whole point of having a coin graded.

 

Lehigh96, asked: "I'm curious, why would an uncirculated coin be missing atoms? As long as there is no wear, the chemical change in the formation of the oxide layer doesn't remove any atoms from the coin."

Please remember who you are discussing this with. I'm a self confessed ignorant old man when it comes to corrosion science or things I cannot see on coins that may be/are present on a coin. So I must apologize for being incorrect and using the wrong word. Forget the atom reference in this case and change it to the "corrosion products" that have destroyed the coin's originality - although at the beginning we cannot see them. The coin looks original "white" to most of us who are not stuck in the mindset of a scientist who insists on being absolutely correct. As you posted, we cannot argue with scientific fact!

"Well, at least you aren't pissed at me, that is a bonus."

Never going to happen. I'm just learning here but so far my opinion has not changed (yet?).

"OK, when I brought up this point about untoned coins having an invisible oxide layer, it was in response to Typecoin saying that rainbow toned coins are "damaged". Therefore, if you are going to consider oxide layers "damage" then every coin is damaged, because every coin has an oxide layer, even those you can't discern with the naked eye. And anyone who propagates the ridiculous notion that toning is damage will get the same lecture, even though Typecoin doesn't even believe the point he was making, he was simply trying to win an argument."

I think a scientist as yourself can make the case that an oxide changes the surface from its original state and therefore THEY may consider it a FORM of DAMAGE. I am not on their side. Some oxides/patinas/colors are good and others are not. Example: I'll take an evenly-colored, green, bronze copper ancient coin or rainbow toned Morgan every time over the alternative.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT. Should the patina on the ancient or the color on the Morgan increase its GRADE or its VALUE? The answer is OBVIOUS! IT'S BOTH, because collectors have been brainwashed (due to Sheldon's original idea to link the two) that a grade indicates a coin's value. Now, the tail (value) is controlling the dog (actual condition).
Now AU's are commonly and "incorrectly" called MS by the TPGS.

"So let's make a deal, I won't force you to call a "blast white" coin toned or oxidized as long as you don't call a rainbow toned coin "damaged." And yes, I know you just told Morgandude11 that you don't consider rainbow toning damage, so we should be all good here."

DEAL!

"Yes, you grade coins. The higher the grade, the higher the price. To say that your service as a grader [That is NOT what I wrote! ICG grades are virtually identical to the other three major TPGS. The only difference I see is we may be more critical about letting problem coins get straight or net grades. I posted that I don't assign a grade based on what I think the coin should be worth!] doesn't provide a value for the coin is naive at best. That is the whole point of having a coin graded."

Now...back to the bump in grade for eye appeal...

 

Now that you mention it....
If a +/* is given, isn't that to reflect eye appeal/high end of the grade, why not give a -/! (or such) for ugly/low end of grade ?
I don't particularly like an entire point bump for eye appeal. (market grading an entire point) I think a +/* is sufficient. ("JMHO")

 

We all have the free will to decide for ourselves what we find attractive or desirable. If you do not like toning/tarnish/oxidation/corrosion or whatever you want to call it, you don't have to buy the coin or even agree with the grade.

PCGS, NGC , and many collectors view "attractive" toning as having a positive influence on the eye appeal of a coin- which is one of the 3 pillars of coin grading:
Surface preservation
Eye appeal (luster and toning)
Strike

I believe gradeflation as well as + and * were planned by the grading services to keep collectors resubmitting coins, similar to 'planned obsolescence' of electronics. How else would they survive once the majority of coins have been graded?

 

Patrick King, posted: "We all have the free will to decide for ourselves what we find attractive or desirable. If you do not like toning/tarnish/oxidation/corrosion or whatever you want to call it, you don't have to buy the coin or even agree with the grade."

Pat, You should have stopped there. Please allow me to "massage" the rest of your post so it is closer to the way it is taught.

There are actually four major "pillars" of grading MS coins. Marks, strike, luster, and eye appeal. I prefer to think of it in this way. Marks, strike, and luster are the "three legs" of the "grade stool" with eye-appeal being the major part of the grade - the seat of the stool.

Strike and luster stand alone. The "marks" part of the equation is more complicated as it is broken down by number, location, and severity. "Surface Preservation" is too general a term as it covers everything such as oxidation, marks, hairlines, damage, and cabinet friction (LOL).