Good lord there's no way that coin has AU details ! Low XF details at best and maybe even high VF details.
I agree that the AU details seems awful high...but here is my question. First off, the photos are a little blurry so I can't see the surface perfectly...but the coin doesn't appear to have an obvious problem other than the planchet flaw. Since a planchet flaw is something that was "built into the coin" rather than damage after the fact...why would they have given this coin a details grade?
Why ? Because a planchet flaw is one of the problems that makes a coin a problem coin. 93|N-3 Planchet Flaw - Metal impurity or defect in the planchet – depends on severity edit - contrary to what many believe, just because something is, as you say "built into the coin", that does not preclude a coin from being a problem coin. Problems can occur at the mint just as easily as they can occur outside the mint. Where problems occur doesn't matter. It only matters that they are present.
OK, fair enough. I guess to me...this is more of an "error" than "damage." But, I'm not an error collector so I haven't bothered to learn that much about them. So, I learned something new today.
Just to make sure you understand, that 93 code I quoted, that is the code PCGS uses for problem coins with planchet flaws.
I totally understand...I'm just a little surprised. Like I said though, errors for the most part never interested me...so I didn't bother to learn that much about them. Let me ask you this...how is this different from other manufacturing processes like laminations and clipped dies? Both were caused by a production flaw...yet some are considered "desirable" errors and others (like this one) and considered a problem. I find this very interesting...because it is something I have never really given any thought to.
Personally I agree with you, it is confusing. But then the TPGs are not and never have been known for their consistency. Especially in regard to things like this. I mean a clip and lamination both are nothing more than a more severe form of planchet flaws. A planchet law, typically, is a hole/depression in the planchet. In other words the planchet isn't all there, a tiny piece is missing. With a clip, a piece is missing, sometimes tiny sometimes big. With a lamination, the planchet is coming apart. But they are indisputably all 3 planchet flaws, and more severe. The way I see it is this, the public wants clips and laminations graded, but they don't care so much about typical planchet flaws. So the TPGs ignore their own rules and grade the clips and laminations. To me it is no different than how they treat wear on coins. They will claim, even though there absolutely no way to prove it, that wear on this coin or that coin was the result of roll friction or whatever, so that coin can still be graded as MS, even though it definitely has wear on it. Same thing with these 3 things. They (the TPGs) claim that this kind of planchet flaw is different from an ordinary/typical planchet flaw, so this coin can be graded while that one cannot. It's a prefect example of how they change the rules of grading to suit the public and thus give the public what they want. There are many different examples of this changing the rules, involving completely different things. The FS designation for Jeffs is another. A Jeff, by design has 6 steps. But because there are/were so few Jeffs that actually had 6 full steps, the public requested, even demanded, that the TPGs classify coins with only 5 full steps as being FS. So the TPGs went along with them and gave them what they want. To me that's like saying you have two glasses of water and both are full. But one of the glasses really is full, while the other glass is only 80% full. But we're gonna say both of them are full anyway just so more people can say they have full glasses of water. The very idea is ridiculous of course, any idiot can look at the two glasses and plainly see that one is not full.But they do it anyway to keep the public happy. You see Richie, the TPGs do this with grading, problem coins, special designations, special slab labels, they basically do it with everything. But because the TPG is the one saying it, the public is willing to accept it because the TPG is saying what the public wants them to say. They want their coins graded higher than they should be. They want their problem coins put in slabs anyway. Their want their coins that are only close to actually meeting the qualifications for those special designations to get those special designations anyway. If you ask me, it's all a joke. I mean who are they fooling but themselves ?
That makes sense. I guess it all comes back to the TPGs being for-profit companies that tailor their product to their consumer base. If "collectors" as a general group want something, they adjust their policies to provide it. It simply creates more revenue for them. I suppose in a purely business sense, it's smart. Let me ask you this...and let me preface it by saying that my entire "collecting life" has been in the era of the TPGs. I started collecting in 1997 or so...heck I was born in 1985 so I haven't even really existed in a non-TPG world. Were these "planchet flaw" type coins (of all kinds) considered "errors" or "problem coins" in the pre-TPG days? I guess I always personally lumped these coins into the same "general error catagory" with doubled dies and other traditional errors. In my mind, (and again, I'm not an error collector) they were all coins produced at the mint with some kind of "defect." Having given this more thought...it seems to me that there is a distinct difference (from a desirability standpoint) between "errors" caused by the die and "errors" caused by the planchet. Is that a fair thing to say?
Yeah I'd say that's a fair thing to say. What you have to recognize, perhaps realize would be a better word, is that there is no accounting for people's taste. Some folks are gonna like this or that and others are not going to like it. Some folks are going to accept this or that and others will not. When push comes to shove there's all kinds of things that are flaws in a coin. Die cracks are flaws, die polish lines are flaws, doubled die coins are flaws, 4 steps or 3 steps or no steps - all are flaws on the coin. Weak strikes are flaws, subdued luster is a flaw, heck even toning is a flaw. Any error and even many varieties are flaws. And all of these things are flaws because they are not as per design. So what we end up with is a group of things over here, all of them flaws, that people are willing to accept and even desirable to some, and a group of things over there, again all flaws, that people are not willing to accept. Me personally, I don't accept any of them. Flaws are flaws.
I suppose that makes sense. I guess they are all flaws like you say...and I also suppose that the individual collector can decide what they like or don't like. I suppose if someone likes coins with these "errors" and can get them discounted because most find them less desirable...that's better for that collector. One of things I love about this hobby is everyone can find their own niche. Personally, I prefer my coins as they are meant to be...without these flaws. Sure, there are a couple famous "errors" I'd like to acquire for a little variety (1955 DDO for example)...but generally I'd prefer my coins as intended. My only true exception to that is I find die cracks really interesting. I don't know why, but if I find a coin with a "cool crack" I will pick it up.
