Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

Tuberider, If you are referring to Doug and I; he has always been an opinionated gentleman to me...Short and sweet. I have NEVER taken anything he has said in anything but a positive way. I'm an old Sticks 'n Stones educated guy as I think he must be. My nicknames and the "give back" that went on back then is unprintible. The closest thing any young PC kid has heard to compare "our times" with would be the Yo Mamma...jokes

If I am the offender, I'll apologize right now.

Now Tubrider, I took a lot of time out of my busy day to post a photo of the high point of an English 5 Guineas coin that had EVERYTHING to do with the Cabinet Friction/wear, Stacking thread we were a part of. You asked me to drink more coffee and post photos. No please get Yo SLA over to the keyboard and post your comments on that coin as it will give us all one more thing to discuss this weekend!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One more thing (as usual) to add. At a coin show in TN, Larry Briggs of SEGS was speaking to a TPG from another company (I was sitting at his table at the time Larry handed the grader a copy of the posts) about someone on some Internet chat room who argued with him about die polish lines and how Mint made die polish should look. I read an article in Numismaticon this very conversation an the posters disagreement with Larry a while back. I sincerely hope that fellow is not here spewing his "rubbish!"

 

And another thing I just remembered from the article I read. The fellow arguing with Briggs claimed that the raised lines on a coin caused from polishing the dies COULD NOT CROSS because the Mint used a round lap to polish the dies. OMG!.

 

Open mouth insert foot, twice or more? I just looked up Die polish thread. Now I understand Doug's comments to me. So before I write anymore; I'm going to read the entire thread.

Lucy, someone on here has lot's of 'splanin to do!

 

No, really, weak strikes can easily be differentiated from wear, Dave. To be certain, it doesn't hurt to have the coin in hand. Throw in, oh, a 10X loupe (it's such a nice round number, lol). But, really, weak strikes are differentiated from wear when the lower spots are smoothed out before the higher spots. Or, that's just one sign you might find. To be really sure, the coin has to really be looked over. The idea is, you don't penalize the coin, if an incomplete or weak strike was the best condition it was in. Still, though, that's controversial, as some insist you should penalize it. Yes, that's probably hard to believe, I never get any respect, lol.

 

You're struggling with that one. Keep swinging, lol. Really, you're differentiating the source of the wear, to determine whether the coin was in circulation, while I'm looking at the condition of the coin, without regard to the source of the wear, or whether the coin was in circulation. I see you as going down the rabbit hole, like Alice, where wear isn't always wear. Really, good luck with that.

 

Nah, I'm having a hard time finding anything to disagree with here. An underlying point is, the more practice you have, the more this incredibly subjective thing becomes closer to science than art. It's the only way. I sometimes how that's going to play as society becomes ever more instant-gratification oriented for information due to the Web.

 

These other conditions you describe as wear are not wear at all but are wear-like contact marks. My point all along has been that damage is damage. It seems unjustified to slightly deduct (if at all) for one kind of contact mark but another kind relegates the coin to AU, when many times the evidence is there on the coin that it is not wear you are seeing. Read again this excerpt from SuperDave's post, because it speaks to the very heart of my argument:

It's easy to do this for a series/date where you know weak strike occurs, because you are expecting it. Everyone can tell a weak strike on a walker. But look at an unfamiliar series of world coin or obscure die varieties for coins that don't typically have weak strikes and it's not so easy anymore. I've seen the TPGs get weak strikes wrong, especially when there is circulation wear on top of a weak strike. My point here is that a weak strike can look like wear and it's something you need to carefully scrutinize the coin for to determine if it is wear or not, because it is important to know if the coin has actual wear or does not. The same goes for contact marks that may look like wear.

 

I don't know if any of us disagree on any of this. Give me - or Doug, or anyone who's handled a coin or two in their time - any random issue from any country and a 10x loupe and I bet we can tell if it's circulated or not with near-100% accuracy. The TPG's are the way they are because they don't take the time to discern the difference for each individual coin. They could if they wanted to.

The only question is, do we also hew to that lack of sophistication as graders? I don't, that's for sure. Any decent collector is as good in their specialties as any TPG, and far more attentive. There are people right here at CT I'd trust over any TPG.

 

You had me until: Actually, any truly knowledgeable professional TPG/dealer/collector CAN (using magnification & the proper light source) tell the difference between wear/strike weakness on any coin type, from any country, of any metal, from any era (that includes Ancients) with 99.99% accuracy. As long as the item (coin/medal/token) has an original surface. This determination becomes harder when the surface is impaired for what the reason - slight wear is the example you give. Furthermore, a Contact Mark can NEVER look like wear. That is NEVER unless someone wishes to change the definition of a contact mark. And let's agree not to come up with some "nit" to refute this such as: I'll SCRAPE (contact mark) this coin's high point, then abrade it, and chemically etch it so it looks like a large amount of wear from circulation.

TPG's are human and certainly do not spend the same amount of time or use the same amount of magnification (most of the time NONE) that we do. We will not always agree with them. Even further, they may judge a coin has actual wear - ignore it because it is "market acceptable" - and hide under the terms "cabinet friction" or "weak strike."

And: What about all of us dealers who sell AU coins using the same reasons to grade it Unc $$$$?

Finally: From my personal experience (much less than the posters on this thread for sure), more than 90% of everyone (collectors/dealers) can't tell actual wear on anything - including Walker's!

 

I don't understand. Perhaps this statement may be backwards. On an original coin, a weak strike presents as a loss of detail on the high points of the design. Thus, the weak area should STILL be the first part of the coin to show actual wear. Unless, the weakly struck area is in the field (let's not bring in the cause just to keep this simple) which will be as you stated LOWER.

I do understand and can think of many of the "signs" which are characteristic of a weak strike.

 

I respect you! Eddiespin has just admitted to being a technical grader and I agree. Don't penalize the coin from leaving the press in this "as-made" condition. HOWEVER, and it is a big however; this is not controversial ANYMORE as markets evolve. No commercial market works that way for anything anymore. Some diamonds have more flaws, some stamps are better centered, and some coins are better struck. Perfection adds $$$.

 

SuperDave...You da man. I'm becoming convinced you own, work, consult for a TPGS. Or perhaps own, work for, consult for major dealers/auction houses. Write books teach?
If you care to say: How long have you been a numismatist, have you ever taught advanced grading classes?

 

Derkerlagand...LOL! You guys are clowns. I knew something was up as soon as I saw 147 Alerts. Without opening it up I ran and told my wife how the system worked and that the most alerts I ever saw was 3. Then I returned to the computer room and saw 187 likes. Again, without opening it up I ran to the TV room to inform her that somebody really stirred things up and I theorized that it might be me. She said I deserved to be banned

You have tilted a playing field ment to be fun! Say do you have time to do more "damage" I have a lonl, long way to reach Steve and John Henry.

Is there a way I can go back to 47 likes?

 

Heck, man, I put my foot in my mouth as often as I persuade it to utter wisdom.

But teaching? Teaching is a calling, insider, something you're born/stuck with and you don't get to decide whether you want to do it, only whether you do it.

I've only been obsessive about numismatics (as only OCD can be obsessive - you want to know how many fluorescent tubes were lit in my local Home Depot tonight?) for about 11 years.

 

You're a teacher.........

 

Not currently, although I was a technical-school instructor for a while.

 

That nails it...... You continue to instruct me........