At what grade do you think its no longer possable for the naked eye to grade?

Sorry about that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for sharing that with us - but, it's TMI.

 

There's some truth to that.

Another perspective is Naked Eyes had already seen enough to disqualify the coin; there's no need to look further.

 

Agreed!

 

it would be hard for me to buy a coin in any grade without first putting a loop to it. Its hard to say what u might miss with out it. i recently bought a 1857 fe cent i graded naked as ef, iater i discoverd with 7 x small damage that to me brung the grade down to vf. so maby you can come very close maby even dead on. not a chance im willing to take again.

 

if you needed a 7x to see it are you sure it warrants the drop in grade?

 

prob. MS 66 to MS 67 ... interesting too with some MS-65 that can be slidders there may be only 2-3 visible nicks with a 10X loope

 

This is the exact reason that many people don't believe that coins should grade MS-70.

You know what? This made me think and the more I think about it, it doesn't bother me at all that coins achieve the highest grade possible. What bothers me is when the TPGs refer to MS-70 as Perfect Uncirculated. It's the use of the word perfect to describe a coin that has flaws of any kind that offends my sensibilities.

 

I'll take that to be in reference to me, Doug?

 

unfortunately, Doug, and this is not to say that I disagree in any way, but the TPGs are not allowed to invent definitions of words that already exist within the English language.

taken from Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:

per·fect - [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] - a being without flaw or defect: FLAWLESS

That's not an interpretation, that's the definition according to one of the foremost authorities on American English. If what they really mean is as close as you can get, they should call it "Nearly Perfect Uncirculated". Standards are not, nor should they be, based on slang or misuse, they should be clearly defined. Thus making them true standards.

As I had said, it's not the fact that coins shouldn't be graded as MS-70, as much as they shouldn't grade MS-70 as long as MS-70 is described as Perfect Uncirculated.

IIRC, when these standards were first devised, they used the word "perfect" and for years didn't ever grade a coin at that level. People were comfortable with this as I think most if not all would agree that although you can get near perfection, it is rarely if ever actually attained in any endeavor.

My position is and will continue to be that it's ok to relax a standard if you please, the market will compensate, (as will credibility) but don't take liberties with the English language and then tell me that I don't understand what it really means.

 

Doug, I have (and you know I have) read those two books as well as several others. I read a lot. In fact, I own more books on coins than on any other subject. To suggest that I (or others for that matter) haven't and that's why I (we) don't understand is a bit arrogant on your part.

Things aren't always as black and white as you and I tend to see. We both can be rather rigid in our thinking, but you're telling me to read the PCGS book in order to understand what it really means, whereas I suggest that if you want to know what a word means, check a dictionary.

 

I love you Doug, did you know that??? LOL And I mean that with all sincerity. I love that we can go back and forth as we have (for years now) and neither of us takes it personally, no matter how brutal we are with each other. I wish others would give and take like we do without letting their feelings (or pride) get in the way.

That said, this is purely a semantical argument. The two definitions that you posted are quite different. The first is fine, but the second has a different meaning. The second clearly says "A perfect coin!" and I don't think that there's much wiggle room in that sentence. The sentence after that one doesn't really qualify or change the meaning either. It merely states that "even with 5x magnification there are no marks, hairlines or luster breaks in evidence". This does not inherently change the meaning of the previous sentence, in fact it may imply that one shouldn't even use 5x magnification when grading an MS-70 coin. As that is what this thread has been all about, I think that it has been correctly pointed out to the OP that some magnification is necessary to grade coins at that level.

Their unfortunate use of the words "A perfect coin!" is clearly not what their standard is nor is it how they use that standard. To say perfect means perfect, period. Whether under 5x, 10x, or 100x magnification, it doesn't matter. Had they said that the coin was perfect under 5x magnification as they had in the first definition then there would be no argument, and the standard would be quite clear, but the "lingo page" definition is not the same, so I don't know which to go by. Therein lies the rub.

Poor communication is all too common these days. Allowing people to use the language as they wish is why people are unable to clearly communicate their message. In the case of PCGS, it could be that this is intentional, but it also may not be, I can't speculate what their motives or thoughts are. There are, however, advantages to being vague in business dealings and so the thought in and of itself is not completely absurd. But if we want people to all operate within the same wavelength, then we should be clear in our messages, not just say things as we wish and expect people to read between the lines and come to our way of seeing things. I am not the one making the personal choice to define the word "perfect" as I wish, they are making a personal choice to describe the standard on the "lingo page" as perfect, not perfect at 5x.

People don't need to "get over" literal meaning, it is the responsibility of the writer to be clear. Communication is a skill. Language is how it is accomplished. The onus is clearly on the author to say what they mean when they state their criteria. If you take liberties with the language then it is not a surprise when people become confused. According to the "lingo page" standard it is not a figuratively perfect coin, it is a literally perfect coin (because of their choice of words) and any attempt to adjust what I think to "interpret" what they said is their shortcoming, not mine. If I were describing their standard, then you would need to consider what I meant, but when they state their standard, you should take them at and by their words.

People weren't concerned about this term at first because coins weren't being graded MS-70 until years after the standards were established. No coin graded MS-70 and as many feel that the literal meaning was "what they meant", it was only from this point forward that people started to object. Many feel that the advent of PCGS and NGC graded coins at MS-70 may have been more of a business decision than a sudden appearance of coins at this level.

As for the arrogant comment, it comes from your suggestion that "I finally get it" when it is clear (to you) that they didn't mean what they have stated. We both understand what they mean, and I am pretty sure that you know that we both do. So you should realize that my lightbulb is still on. I didn't "get it" for a second and then suddenly lose my understanding.

Personally, I wish that they'd word the standard consistently because the two that you quoted are inconsistent and clearly (to me) don't mean the same thing.

 

Point made and taken, Doug. There are technical uses for the "industry specific" jargon used in business. When used in the context of that business they can and do sometimes convey a completely different meaning. It should also be noted, however, that when dealing with the public, we need to be careful in using such words in the cases where they can be confusing to customers of that business.

Not everyone who buys a PCGS coin is a numismatist. I suggest that if many numismatists misunderstand the wording, (as judged by the uproar) then a layman who reads the PCGS description might have little to no chance of knowing "what they mean". I posit that as in advertising, choice of words is vital and many lawsuits have been won over "misleading" or misused words. I use quotes around misleading because they may not really have been so, but merely judged to be so by the courts. PCGS doesn't just sell their product to the numismatic community. In fact many people who don't know how to properly evaluate coins trust what they say blindly. This is my opinion makes the buyer more of a layman than a numismatist. You may differ and say that it should be buyer beware, and that people should educate themselves before they buy but we both know that the law in this country has proven to view it differently time and again.

It was also readily accepted (and by law I might add) at one time in this country for people to own people. Hindsight and common sense show us that this is morally reprehensible, but it was readily accepted. The way that the world progresses is that things change over time. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes they just change but if you accept and rely on "the common wisdom" you will never get anything but "the common solution".

 

I believe that the grading companies do just that.