Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

But that is the whole point. The devices (high points) can obtain wear before they reach actual circulation due to roll friction. That is the whole reason why the TPGs look for some luster impairment in the fields when they deem a coin with high point wear AU instead of MS on series known to suffer from roll friction problems.

And contact marks can be confined to the devices, so I find your argument about "devices" to be perplexing.

Btw, do you think that the TPG's ever mistake weak strike for wear or vice versa?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd grade that MS. That weak side of the eagle is an incomplete strike.

 

"The Book" calls the wear that brings the grade down from MS "circulation" wear. OK. However, here's the unforeseen consequence. It's the one I've been mentioning that's been ignored by everyone, still. If we can't equate cabinet friction with wear, what do we call a coin at the same grade, but without the cabinet friction? How do the market graders handle that one, when it's clearly a superior-condition coin?

 

The MS63 without the cabinet friction gets an MS63. The MS63 with cabinet friction gets net graded to something like MS62/61. This happens all the time. They aren't actually given the same grade like you're theorizing here. Or if you have an MS63 with friction and an MS63 without, the coin with friction was really an MS64 that was net graded to 63, so it's still a nicer coin otherwise.

 

So they keep it in MS and just grade it down. I see. What if it's a monster rainbow? Oh wait, I get it, they grade it back up. And there's market grading for you. Lol...

 

I did not ignore your consequence; I addressed the issue in post #193 and even provided and example.



I'm curious, what grade would you assign the SLQ above? And what grade would you assign if there was no friction on the leg?

It is possible that a coin with both rainbow toning and roll friction could receive the same grade as a coin without roll friction, especially if the toning covers the roll friction making it harder to see. The beauty of market grading is that it provides a way to accurately grade all the coins that are exceptions to the hard and fast rules that you and Doug love so much. As we have discussed many times before, strict adherence to the "wear is wear" rule would relegate virtually every mint state Saint Gaudens $20 to an AU coin.

 

I just took a sedative so I M O , I f I m a y zzzz.

You both may be correct as all coins are not alike. Remember, an original coin with good eye appeal and no cabinet friction that is graded MS-63 because of contact marks is OFTEN graded the same as another MS-63 with a similar # of marks, good eye appeal and a slight amount of cabinet friction. Cabinet friction is virtually ignored until it becomes TOO much to call cabinet friction anymore (even by a blind weasel). Then the grade is dropped to AU or the coin is net graded to 62. You want to learn the upper limit of cabinet friction: Study MS-62 coins. Want to see the lower limit: Study AU-58's (with marks) otherwise the "choice" sliders are bumped up to Unc.

 

DITTO to that!

 

The thigh is the weak spot and the draping over the thigh would show better if the wear hadn't impaired it. From a technical, condition-of-wear standpoint, AU58. Those $20 Saints should also go technical AU.

That said, I'm actually understanding this rationale for differentiating "cabinet" or "roll" friction from "circulation wear." Really, the first grading guides gave us that freedom when they broadly differentiated "Circulated" from "Uncirculated." If you'll read closer, however, you'll see, those broad categories are terms of art, describing, simply, states of wear and no wear, on the face of the coin. What's important isn't the strict, literal terms. What's important is the presence or absence of wear, on the face of the coin. Thus, one can find Uncirculated coins in circulation.

 

That is a really nice example. Die polish lines that are not consistent or parallel are something I would expect on this coin.

 

I take back my apology because: I just noticed your posted question was below my last comments and... Mike (that's me) was quoted giving an answer to Eddie. I'm going back on full strength coffee

 

Ever try haloperidol with your coffee?

 

Brew another pot and keep the info flying guys! Pictures Too!!! Learning A LOT out here!

 

Good morning,

How did I do on YOUR test?

Further, I have no idea what your post means. Either you believe this coin has mint made die polish or not. Please explain. What TPGS published info on die polish is propaganda? You know, when I became serious collector in the 1970's the ANA was calling WHIZZING (it was in print) CLEANING! At the time, I learned that the authenticators at ANACS back then (formalized the description and taught at the ANA Summer Seminar that the term whizzing from then on (as used for technical grading) would only apply to coins where the surface metal was pushed up into a ridge at the boundary of a relief element such as a letter.

***At the moment, I don't have the time to pull up the threads on "that old road" you have been down; but I'll try to take that trip this weekend and post MHO's.

 

But the actual distinction is important. We use the terms uncirculated and almost uncirculated to describe categories of grades. The idea of AU is not that it's almost mint state (which would open it up to lower condition uncirculated coins as mint state itself is subjective), it's almost uncirculated. This is deliberate.

 

Completely true Doug. There is a nice group of top numismatists listed in the grading guide as contributors.

Unfortunately, what you have said earlier is completely false myth! Fortunately, I was able to hear the truth from "the horse" (before he died?). Perhaps you may wish to ask (David, the contributor you picked) what his exact contribution to the grading guide was Now you really have me laughing and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all you guys and thanks for the education!

 

Doug, How did I do on the test you gave me??? Pretty please. Perhaps a Christmas present?