Grading a weak strike.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by davidh, Jul 28, 2008.

Page 3 of 4
  1. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    When I said a coin with a strong strike in a series or date known for week strikes should recieve a bump in grade , I worded it wrong , instead of bumping it up a grade which techniquely should only be say a 65 , it can't be a 66 because it has a great strike , only if say 2 coins were borderline , say 64+ then give it the benifit of the higher grade because of the superior strike .
    rzage:smile
     
    rzage, Jul 30, 2008
    #41 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator


    If I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about making allowances for cases where all known coins of a given date, mint & denomination are known to be weakly struck. If that is the case, the ANA standards do make allowances for that.

    The rule about a weak strike being no higher than 64 (not 65) does not apply in these cases.
     
    GDJMSP, Jul 30, 2008
    #42 + Quote Reply
  4. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    Well, just to me - perhaps (after reading and seeing all the contradictions posted recently on this forum) it sounds like the original ANA grading standards have metamorphisized into more grading interpretations and exceptions than there have been borders in/of Russia. :goof::vanish:

    Reasons: Maybe hidden agendas, or perhaps with other smoke and mirror reasons...

    My Honest Opinion ;)
    Take Care
    Ben
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #43 + Quote Reply
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Bone is that perhaps because you never really understood the ANA standards ? Even the first edition, and every edition after that, mentions that allowances in grading are made for coins where the entire mintage is known for a weak strike. That has never changed.
     
    GDJMSP, Jul 30, 2008
    #44 + Quote Reply
  6. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    Hmmm, I wouldn't bet on that...
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #45 + Quote Reply
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Bet on what ? What the standards say or that you didn't understand them ?
     
    GDJMSP, Jul 30, 2008
    #46 + Quote Reply
  8. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    :eek:
     
    Leadfoot, Jul 30, 2008
    #47 + Quote Reply
  9. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    Relax, it's just my opinion... Go ahead and get the last word, tell me how much I'm wrong and know nothing about grading coins.

    But, before you do, I'll interject that Steve Herrman; BHNC President, found NOTHING wrong with the grades/attributions of my 140 Plus Bust Halves or the other coins I showed him on July 5th. Yes, he checked each one individually, even the raw 1908 Double Eagle, etc...

    Sir, I'll remind you that grading is subjective as are the interpretations of the standards, they change with each coin & series. If they were written in stone then perhaps these type of varying discussions wouldn't develop. Personally, I'm glad there is room for this type of discourse/discussion/disagreement to cheerfully evolve into useful knowledge for every member of CoinTalk to enjoy.

    As I'm sure you recall, in the past, we've often carried these "ahem" dark disagreements off list and perhaps that was in error. :confused: Now, I look at these 'Private Numismatic Debates' we've had as being a disservice to the other members of the list for they missed some vital insights into the forum personalities who post here daily. Even me...

    GDJMSP, it's imperative for you to understand that we (those who'll admit it :)) each harbor our own "Secret Set" of subtle Coin Grading Standards which may vary somewhat or significantly from the Holy Bible of Coins, whatever that tome is...

    There is no question, you know your coins and books that's for sure, but you aren't the final answer, interpretation, or solution to each of our numismatic needs. Knowing the personality behind the grade or coin is something which is lacking. Guess, I'm simply trying to add some actual substance to the myth you've formulated for me. :) Please Understand, I'm simply responding in kind to the type of reply's I've received over the past three years...

    It, hasn't always been pleasant on the receiving end...

    Take Care
    Bonedigger
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #48 + Quote Reply
  10. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Ben you made one of your usual wise guy comments in response to something I posted. What I posted was a fact, not a matter of opinion. And because of your comment, which you left open ended, I asked a question, a simple and honest question, that's all.

    Now if you wish to read something else into that, that's your right. But I certainly didn't mean for there to be anything else to be implied by my comment.

    It seemed obvious to me that you thought my comment about the ANA standards not changing in regard to allowances for known weakly struck coins was in error. It isn't, all you have to do is read the books to know that. As I said, it is a matter of fact, not opinion.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with what you know about coins grading or anything else except what is written in those books. And what is written in those books is what you were questioning was it not ?

    So you get offended when I point out that you were incorrect about what is written in a book ? Why ? I don't get offended when you tell me that you think I'm incorrect, and you do it rather often.
     
    GDJMSP, Jul 30, 2008
    #49 + Quote Reply
  11. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    Good, I got you calling me BEN ;) musta' hit a nerve... I'll hold off on the "wise guy- type names" you felt compelled to toss out.

    Please understand, grading is subjective as are the interpretations of the standards...

    Take Care
    Bonedigger
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #50 + Quote Reply
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Can you tell me what there is to interpret about this, from the 1st edition -

    "Throughout the detailed sections on grading in this book, we mention areas in which striking may be charactersitically weak. Examples are certain branch mint coins of the 1920's. In particular, nearly all 1926-D nickels and quarters are weakly struck. Certain New Orleans Mint Morgan dollars are weakly struck at the center. ..........."

    That seems pretty dang clear to me and leaves little room for interpetation in any direction.
     
    GDJMSP, Jul 30, 2008
    #51 + Quote Reply
  13. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    GDJMSP et al,

    I use a 1956, 1962, 1974, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (pretty much the same depending on how you look at them) RedBook as the basis of my grading standards. Then I toss on the basic knowledge about the BHD series and other coins and vola' the Bonedigger Grading Standard is in play. I'm sure many other coin-collectors also employ similar standards.

    I seem to recall you had a question once about a certain BHDs Square Bottom Two -- Remember that? :eek: I was proud to answer (as a new member) that question correctly according to my interpretation., :) You had "No Thanks or Appreciation" for the information... Now, I'm not surprised: Then I was...

    Take Care
    Bonedigger
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #52 + Quote Reply
  14. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    Come on you old Rabble Rouser, chime in again... :D

    Ben
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 30, 2008
    #53 + Quote Reply
  15. AdamL

    AdamL Well-Known Member

    Hey Ben, I don't mean to try to stir things up anymore, but wasn't the disagreement about the ANA grading standards?
    And just to throw my very humble opinion out there, it was always my understanding that the ANA standards allowed for some leniency (not sure thats the word I'm trying to think of) in the case of coin date/mint/denominations that are known to be weakly struck.
     
    AdamL, Jul 31, 2008
    #54 + Quote Reply
  16. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger New Member

    No worries mate, you may be right.. LOL ;) But, IMHO Strike is everything...
     
    Bonedigger, Jul 31, 2008
    #55 + Quote Reply
  17. AdamL

    AdamL Well-Known Member

    Cool. If you are grading by redbook standards, and Doug is grading by the ANA book, then I don't see what the major disagreement is about, in this case. It sounds to me like just a case of difference of opinions due to the fact that, as you've said repeatedly, grading is subjective. No big deal. :)
    I look forward to possibly picking this discussion back up again in the morning.
    Goodnight! ;)
     
    AdamL, Jul 31, 2008
    #56 + Quote Reply
  18. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    You guys are fighting over unimportant details. :hammer:

    Technical grading is simply a means to an end (valuation). :hatch:

    The only thing that matters is the coin and the price (a.k.a. the great equalizer) - which is why I think the TPGs (and EAC) got it right and technical grading in and of itself is silly.

    So there! :pencil:
     
    Leadfoot, Jul 31, 2008
    #57 + Quote Reply
  19. NPCoin

    NPCoin Resident Imbecile

    Just imagine how much money we could milk from car collectors if we created a car grading company on the same premise! We could just throw a new paint job on the sucker (for the sucker), buff up the chrome, maybe even new plating, and call it a Gem Brilliant Original and sell it for Thou$and$!!!

    Heck, it doesn't matter that there is no trans or engine, no cooling or fuel system, that's all just technical stuff which in and of itself is silly.
     
    NPCoin, Jul 31, 2008
    #58 + Quote Reply
  20. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Man you got it down cold! :thumb:
     
    eddiespin, Jul 31, 2008
    #59 + Quote Reply
  21. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    what a way to settle that round
     
    spock1k, Jul 31, 2008
    #60 + Quote Reply
1 more message...
Page 3 of 4
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page