Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

But Mike, isn't it still an impairment in the coin's condition? It wasn't minted like that, it was minted without the "cabinet friction." While the mode of onset or the source if you will of "circulation wear" is different from the same for "cabinet friction," they're both wear, and both impairment in the coin's condition. Why does it even make sense to differentiate modes of onset or sources of wear when they're both wear and both mean the coin's condition is impaired to the degree of the wear? Are we out to fool collectors into thinking if we can call it "cabinet friction" the coin's condition isn't impaired or that they should forget about the coin's condition as being meaningful? That's where I'm stuck. What's meaningful to me is whether and to what degree the coin's condition is impaired. From a different slant, when you grade a coin with cabinet friction MS64, what's to differentiate that from a coin without cabinet friction graded MS64, which is clearly a condition-superior coin? There are probably other dilemmas, too, other such, well, unforeseeable consequences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great discussion from 7 years ago on the first 4 pages of this CT thread. This is the exact question I was researching a month ago when I came upon these 2008 posts, I immediately joined CoinTalk and resurrected this thread.

 

While the mode of onset or the source if you will of "contact marks" is different from the same for "wear", they're both damage to the coin, and both impairment in the coin's condition. Why does it even make sense to differentiate modes of onset or sources of damage when they're both damage and both mean the coin's condition is impaired to the degree of the damage?

You see my point? Damage is damage, but still, it is important to differentiate between coins that have been circulated and coins that have not. Some conditions that manifest as wear are not from circulation. You can make an educated guess by the appearance of the luster break and a lack of contact marks in the fields.

 

Good Morning everyone...two shopping days left and you guys have made me forget that Ebay exists. I have not logged on over there for almost a week Need to buy something soon for a "fix."

Yesterday I asked CT members if what I am about to do (color) is OK and not rude. It helps my old brain think.

 

Good to have you chime in today YOSU (You old stir-upper). I need get your take on the post above. Also...Yesterday I asked if it was OK to use Color "Between The Lines" for my posts. It is very helpful for me and I wish more members would do it if it is OK.

 

OK, then I'll change my terminology so I agree with you. The TPGS do "Value Grading" for the commercial coin market. They have quite the nerve trying to pass that off as "Market Grading."

 

I'll get to your coin in an hour...LOL. Depends on how long it takes for these humble comments/opinions made only to express myself and perhaps inform...

And the commercial market makers; TPGS; experienced,astute collectors/dealers; etc. don't care what edition and don't follow those standards.

I agree 100% with your sentiment. Incidentally, it was called TECHNICAL GRADING - the TRUE Technical Grading as practiced in the 70's - that was REJECTED by the coin market/dealers. If what you have written above could ever be done, much of the problems/differences in the hobby today would be solved.

 

Let me ask you a question Mike, what would you grade this coin ? And no, don't tell me you're not familiar with the series. Just tell me what you think of the coin.


What fun, let's see how I do:










I would buy this 1926 Albania 2 fr. in a "country minute!" Looks totally original, full mint luster with no apparent rub (There may be a touch on the eagle's right leg - so what). These coins appear all scratched up but the scratches/hairlines that most can see here are actually "raised die polish." I see a tiny planchet flaw/struck thru (?); several tiny hits + a spot (milk spot...LOL) under the "B"; and a tiny black spot in front of the face. I cannot tell from the photo if there are any Eye appeal high but all the die polish is very distracting. I grade the coin...
TA-DUM






TA-DUM


























MS-65. Do I get a job? One poster did this to me before and skipped a bunch of space. It was very funny. Hope you think so too.

 

PS for all of you. No matter if anyone agrees with my opinion, anyone who can grade a U.S. coin should be able to correctly grade or come very close to the correct grade of any foreign coin in the same minting era. Ancients are different.

 

When are you drawing the line for "as minted?" If you say that the instant the coin is ejected from the die, then any bag marks on the coin should be considered damage. Coins that exhibit "roll friction" are rolled later in the process but prior to circulation, unless you count bank to bank transactions as circulation.

In answer to your question, the TPGs will often apply a practice of net grading to coins with "roll friction" to differentiate them from coins showing no friction. For example,



This coin should be at least MS63, but the TPG net graded it to account for the friction. In essence, they treated the friction in much the same way they would a severe bag mark. What is wrong with that?

 

Lehigh96 asked me:
When are you drawing the line for "as minted?" If you say that the instant the coin is ejected from the die People I talk with have different opinions. For me, as soon as the coin leaves the die., then any bag marks on the coin should be considered damage Yes, for me also. So if the feed fingers or press bed puts marks on the coin as it is pushed off the press into the hopper (We are not talking about modern coins here. I have seen the "new" horizontal presses making quarters but I was not really much interested at the time - darn) More marks occur in the riddlers', and bagging operation. Nevertheless, marks do not make a coin AU but they can make it worth AU money or even turn it into a cull .Coins that exhibit "roll friction" are rolled later in the process but prior to circulation, unless you count bank to bank transactions as circulation. After the coin leaves the Mint, some say it is circulated; same goes when it was rolled; transferred to another bank; ditto, paid out. I personally don't care and cannot know for certain much of a coin's prior history so if it "looks" AS MINTED when I get my grubby, "gloved" - actually NOT, hands on it - that's good enough for me.

 

Doug, How did I do on your test? I'm going nuts over here waiting to find out...LOL.
I'm going to keep bugging you for the correct answer. Actually, if our roles were reversed I'd make you wait several days to find out how you did!

 

Dear GDJMSP,

How did I do on the test? I notice my answer should have read: ...if there are any hairlines from mishandling. Eye ...

 

Actually, I was addressing Eddie. Insider, have you ever considered going decaf?

 

I've been told that and to take SAMIE. I'm a 14 year old in the body of an old fart. I have only been posting for a few weeks and come January I expect the "thrill" will wear off and I'll be way to busy to jump on threads. I thought you were asking me as I have been discussing wear vs Mint State somewhere on the forum. Sorry.

When do you draw the line?

 

I see your point, but I think it's non-responsive. Can I explain that? Wear is seen on the devices. It's not a contact mark. It's called "wear," because the devices are "worn." That's the impairment. It's the impairment in the condition or state of preservation of the devices. Certainly, contact marks are damage, and, in another sense, impairment, as well. That's not wear.

Concentrate on the devices when looking for wear. If there's no wear, the coin is still MS.

 

Again, non-responsive. Wear is on the devices. It goes to the condition of the devices. When the devices aren't worn, the technical condition of the coin is MS.