Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

"Uncirculated" as an accurate adjective is not inapplicable to a coin which no longer has every single atom of metal in the exact same place it was at the moment of strike. The coin's first movement after the strike - sliding into a hopper - is quite capable of causing "cabinet rub." I consider "cabinet rub" to be a colloquial term anyway - people didn't slide their coins around in cabinets, and a "coin cabinet" is only a tool of the elite collector anyway. What percentage of coins offered that appellation were ever worthy of a cabinet?

We immediately dismiss bagmarks as "appropriate" Mint State features, yet hold up any sort of lesser friction as evidence of a <60 grade. Was every_single_collision of every coin ever minted a violent act? Nothing ever just "slid?"

Or even rubbed against the inside of the bag?

I can't say I really love the guy, but the formative influence David Hall has ended up having on modern numismatics can't be underestimated.

This is just about as cool a software feature as I've ever seen in an online forum, and I absolutely love the capability. Too many people abuse Quotes with nesting and irrelevant copy, simply because it's easier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Plese

Please explain the propaganda (???????) about die polish lines as put out by the TPGS.

 

I like your thinking and the poster who put the photo of a man beating a dead horse. IMO, if a bunch of you were at a table drinking coffee w/that drug (suggested for me) in it; you would reach a final decision on the matter. I believe that everyone of you could be convinced that Uncirculated is a bad term because it has at least two meanings. So when does a coin loose its Uncirculated status? When it leaves the mint, when ....yada, yada. I learned (and have read here and many other places) that the TRUE technical grading system used Uncirculated in a much better way: Free from wear (the prevailing standard in the 1970's).

Now, if the guys at the table decided that the past history of the coin did not matter and adopted the "No trace of wear" standard; it should be EXTREMELY easy for them (and anyone else with good eyes who learned what loss of original surface looks like) to decide if a coin had a trace of wear (no matter the cause) now, and each time it was seen in the future! See, those dummies in 1970 at ANACS came up with a very precise system.

I imagine no one back then at ANACS gave a hoot about Cabinet Friction, Stacking, etc. (or I believe they would have addressed the issue) because to them (technical graders) any loss of luster on the high point was Friction Wear!

Today, the guys at the imaginary table just need to decide on the appearance of:

1. Loss of surface from Abrasive Friction Wear.
2. Loss of surface from Chemical Etching.
3. Loss from Stacking Compression.

Then, they'll need to decide on degrees of the above. How much "Cabinet Friction" removes the coin from MS. How much ...yada, yada.

Now let's introduce a coin's value into the equation! HELP!

This is what the TPG's try to do at that table. Sometimes they are more liberal on all of the above. Other times they are strict. Bottom line, all experienced numismatists know how to grade for their own needs and heck with the opinion of others It would be nice if we all could agree...

 

Here is a Micrograph of an English 5 Guineas gold coin. Pretend it is a U.S. $10 Liberty. Comment on what you see: Luster, different colors, ...

 

Forgot to add 15X.

 

A coin loses Uncirculated status when humans handle it in the course of business. That's not complex; if it's circulated it ain't Uncirculated. Of course, some of this can happen before the coin shows any indication it did. That_does complicate things sometimes.

A coin loses Mint State status when it begins to show circulation wear or artifacts plainly associated with individual handling after Mint possession. There have been many times when I considered a coin circulated more for the nature of the marks on it than any apparent circulation. Another space for argument.

It takes intellectual gyrations of the dubious, pretzel-twisting type to disassociate the two, though; an Uncirculated coin is also Mint State. Some follicleslicing might be possible depending on how far downstream original Mint bags got, and how many people handled them in the interim. Once coins start getting hand-counted by people, before being released to the public (if it ever happened that way; they probably mostly got busted open from full bags and handed out as payroll or to bank tellers to get them circulating), something definable as "wear" can appear.

But when a good cause case can be made for artifacts not discernible from wear to have appeared during the course of Mint possession, you have to question all of them. Not all "friction" AU's are as clearly circulated in-hand.

 

"Circulated" and "Uncirculated" are "terms of art," Jaelus. That's why this Montana quarter I got at McDonald's yesterday can be MS65. If these terms were to be taken literally, we'd be reduced to coin detectives to determine the grade. Did he get it in circulation, or not? A witness in the car will swear out an affidavit under penalty of perjury he got it at the drive-up window in change for the Caramel Mocha he bought, ergo, it's circulated! Uh, nnnnnnnnno...

Look at the face of the coin. Take your bearing on the coin's technical or condition grade strictly from there. Leave the forensics to the people who are still confused in relationship to these terms. They're "terms of art" denoting presence or absence of wear on the face of the coin, that's all. Keep your eye on the coin and don't fall for anything that requires you to put your mind's eye elsewhere. That's a sucker play, every time.

 

Tube,

This is no test. Just helpful to see what we have been writing about. I promised a while back to post some photos. There ARE NO incorrect answers, just educated opinions. I'll be sure (LOL, tape my mouth & gimmie some coffee) to tell what I think.

 

Of course, there are some circulated coins that appear to be uncirculated. Likewise, there are also uncirculated coins that appear to be circulated. We're making an educated guess based on the complete condition of the coin. I just don't agree that all wear should be treated as circulation wear and reduce a coin to AU58 in situations when it seems obvious from the appearance of the coin that it is not true circulation wear. You argue that it makes valuing coins difficult when there will be ones with "wear" at the same MS grade as ones without, but to not do this would simply move the true outliers down to AU58 coins and create an even worse disparity in quality at AU58 than we have now.

 

There's a danged lot of 'cabinet wear' out there that I like. I don't quibble. My eyes see it and my nature enjoys it........

 

An "educated guess" on what, the coin's state of preservation relative to when it was minted, or whether the coin was in circulation? I hear you trying to determine the latter. Am I right?

Understand, again, what you're evidently trying to determine. You're evidently trying to determine whether a coin was in circulation. Good luck with that. Understand what I'm trying to determine. I'm trying to determine the state of preservation of the coin relative to when it was minted. That's the reason the source of the wear is meaningful to you, and just as meaningless to me. That's why you're compelled to differentiate wear, and I'm not.

 

The same reason you make an educated guess on wear vs a weak strike. Not everything that looks like wear is wear.

 

I guess this qualifies as "most" of a BEST ANSWER because it is the final word. Combine this with pertinent (and expertly edited) excerpts from everything above and I feel it should be posted in Frequent Questions.

I hope I understand what they both are saying so I can make a decent summary:

eddiespin has revealed what the TPGS are attempting to do in order to grade a coin that is not MS but appears to have not circulated (or has the VALUE of a MS coin).

Jaelus takes the true Technical Grade approach. Loss of original surface = loss of MS status.

In this "modern" age of no absolutes and changing values/standards, THEY ARE BOTH CORRECT.

Bottom line: Each person who examines a coin has a personal standard/opinion based on many, many factors (including a TPGS's standards). That's why opinions are like buckshot into a target. Some will hit the X ring while most will not! Some folks care about the hits in bull's-eye, yet many will not. Many will not even know what the X ring is!

 

So as a general rule for you, anything showing what could/should be interpreted as "wear" ought to disqualify the coin from being Mint State whether actual circulation caused it or not. Unless you call weak strikes AU, you go through the same process as Jaelus.

Not that I "disagree" with you; there isn't a "right" answer here.

 

I just invited Conder over here to educate us about the appearance of circulation on copper. Hope he does.

 

And for Christmas I give you all rule #2
All Coin Talk members, young, old and in between, will treat all other members with respect and be civil at all times. You are expected to act as responsible individuals.

 

I'm pretty sure but I wanted to confirm it from you as I weaseled around giving reasons for my grade. So the MS-65 answer was within a few tenths of a point either way.

 

First let me say that I respect you, what you have possibly done/said you have done (I cannot find much under your name on Google) for numismatics, etc. I believe you and enjoy ALL OF your posts. You get a gold star. I'm just an opinionated old fart who was born in Missouri, THE SHOW ME STATE. I need to be hit/or hit over the head...in other words, I want PROOF as best we can do w/photos as to what is ACCURATE info and what is MUSH. All of us have opinions and they are just that UNTIL they become accepted - that is until the opinion is proven to be wrong and MANY of us see the light and change (Flat earth to Round (not actually) one.

So...With all smiles and good wishes and in an effort to educate and stir things up:

IMO on the subject of Die Polish an ANA Seminar educated YN should clean your clock! Do you think the lines were caused by cleaning? Too bad we cannot send it off to have it slabbed. That should seal my lips or yours on the subject of Die polish. The next time (possibly never) I get my hands on one of those coins I'll post a photo. I do have a coin from Israel I'll photo for everyone showing more Die Polish.

Thanks for the non-answer too. Is it a MS-64, 64+, 65,65+, or 66? Someone could make a case for all of them.

Finally, I realize that you are an important, respected, long-time
member of this Forum, to all of the members including a Newbie like me. Thanks for all you do/have done.

Now let's have a discussion about your views/teachings/opinions about Die Polish when you have the time. Since you must (?) know how it is caused (?) and what it looks like (As a result of your post, I'm having a problem here) on a struck coin (as plenty of the posters must know) lets skip ahead to the reasons you don't believe 99% of the lines on the 1926 Albania 5 Fr are Mint made.

And please...This is not an attack. I'm interested in learning everyone's grade on the Albanian coin and am surprise that only one member took a stab at it besides me. Perhaps the opinions of the members here would be good enough indication of a TPGS.