Anyone else see this article in the Numismatist? A short little article, and I had mixed emotions on it. Its great to see an article on grading ancients in a general coin magazine, but I felt he got some key things wrong. Under grading, he named the grades and acted like AU and BU were accepted grades for ancients, (well he is the grader for NGC and they insist on using US grades for ancients), but then said it was a beginner mistake to confuse wear for weak strikes or worn dies. Now, I started in ancient because they graded the details on the coin, and didn't go down this destructive, delusional path of trying to differentiate between WHY detail was not on a coin, just that it was missing. Do others here think his article was fair and I am just the odd man out? How do you feel about the US grading idea of grading BU a softly struck from a defective die ancient coin? To me, if 30% of the detail is missing, it should be a vf at best, even the day it left the mint. Chris
do you have a link? or is it print only? as far as weak strike... i believe if the detail isn't there (ancient or modern) for whatever reason, it's not ms. it has to be (for me personally) full strike to get ms or unc.
I dont have access to that magazine either but from whats mentioned in the thread, I do think a coin that was hammered & not fully struck, then the grade should be affected. I also dont think U.S. grading should be on ancients, its ridicules.
I wish I could link guys, but its members only link. I do believe I represented the article fairly though. I was just wondering if I was the only one who felt that way.
Wish I could comment, but I tend to ignore most grades lol more so with what is used on modern coins but I agree you you.
David Vagi's grading system applies two numbers to the end of the standard US grade letters. One is for strike and one for surface. By doing this he is able to describe a coin by the wear using the letters and by the strike using the number. Lets look at a coin I feel might prove enlightening: Do you see wear or a bad strike? If the problem is strike you might call this coin a VF 13 (assuming surface quality 3) but if it is wear the coin can be no better than F due to the lack of laurel wreath detail. Notice how there is a lot of hair detail on the head up to a point where it all of a sudden becomes flat and lacking in all detail. To me this poorly struck coin can be no better than F but it looks rather different than a coin worn to fine like the one below: I'd call this one F 44 by his system but I can not bring myself to allow that first coin to be over F even though it may have no more wear than an EF. I don't care how or where the detail left but high grade coins need to have high grade details and inventing a system to allow uglier coins to be called VF serve no good purpose. I maintain that ancient coins need to be graded with a phrase or a paragraph depending on how odd the situation might be. US grading is for US coins that were all considered equal when struck (which we know is a lie since MS61 and MS69 vary 1000% in price). I always wondered why they failed to distinguish a very well struck EF from one that never was well struck. After all when does a Jefferson nickel with full steps get enough wear that you can no longer see the steps? Immediately at AU or later??? Years ago I proposed a two added value system but, unlike Mr. Vagi, I did not rate strike and surface. Instead I preferred to rate Conditions of Manufacture and Conditions of Preservation. The first rates how a coin looked the day it dropped from the dies (strike, centering etc.) while the second addressed things that happened later (patina, corrosion, damage). I never saw great value in a number system since that would require me to assign a value to various competing factors like a great patina over underlying abrasions or well struck but off center so I still need a few words to describe a coin after the VF. The factors I found worth noting were on my pages linked from this one: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html On several occasions I wanted to develop and propose a number system to evaluate degrees of desirability (a 91 would have been a perfect coin when made but suffered every possible indignity since while a 19 was a mess the day it was made and never got any worse???). I never found one I could support fairly across the board so I always dropped back to using a word add on to an overall impression grade based on how attractive a coin might be. This is a minor disagreement with Mr. Vagi compared to the one I have about his putting ancients in slabs. I did not read the article. My ANA membership lapsed about 48 years ago when I stopped collecting US.
Personally I would grade your top coin a gF due to the good detail in lower relief, versus F for the second coin. I understand what you are saying, but prefer to bypass all of the slippery slope arguments and simply net grade a coin based upon preserved details. To me it prevents all of the con men trying to claim weak strike, worn die, etc to newer collectors. Percent of detail remaining is an observable, quasi measurable fact, and sidesteps many possible manipulations and I believe gives a truer picture of desirability to a buyer. In US coins, if you buy an EF coin you truly do not know what you have, since there could be terrific detail remaining, or the coin could look like a F because of "soft strike". I simply prefer cutting through the BS and if a coin looks like a F grade it a F regardless of causation. Hammered coins are not expected to have perfection in striking like machine struck, this is why errors on ancient coins are LESS valuable than perfect strikes, and is further cause to value a good strike more highly. Sorry, stepping off the soapbox. Chris
I will dissent here. I think hammered coins (that have usually been buried in the ground for a longtime) deserve a different assessment method from modern milled coins. I think he is correct in dividing the coin assessment into two values: strike and surface. Strike reflects the coin at the time of mint: "centering, strength and uniformity of strike, cacks, and die condition." I think many collectors of modern coins expect some consistancy in these aspects with modern milled coins. Ancient coins are so fascinating because of the great variability in hand-cut dies, hand-produced planchets, and hand-struck coins. Surface reflects what happens to the coin after being stuck. Defects at the time of striking can impair surface quality, but a lot of factors occur while in circulation. This includes such things as "test cuts, bankers' marks, clipping, countermarks, and graffitto." For me, therefore, both strike and surface can be interesting and are important. They should also be separated when assessing Ancient coins. I'm not so sure that Ancients lend themselves to the nuances of grading, however. Fortunately, I don't think Vagi does the grading of Ancients as vigorously as one would with modern coinage. Grading and slabbing of Ancients is not important for most collectors of Ancients. Fortunately, Ancient collectors aren't obsessed with such childish things as "registry sets." (Ancients are truly the case where one should "buy the coin and not the plastic.') That said, I think Vagi has brought a useful framework and systematic approach in assessing Ancient coins. BTW, the article in the same magazine "Numismatics on the Brain" was pretty interesting. The discussion on the neurobiology of collecting was very educational. I guess one doesn't have to be insane to collect. guy
Guy, I do not disagree with his differentiation of strike versus surface. I disagree on how he opens the door for a coin such as Doug's #1 coin to be graded XF due to a weak strike, and not a gF that it is. It is this slippery slope, grading coins much higher than they appear because of "weak strike" or "worn dies" that I object to, along with his using AU and BU grades, along with the American 1-70 system. Myself I do designate if a coin has less than expected surfaces in a grade, giving some of my coins a aVF porous, or gF encrustations grades. I think that 80% of his proposals sound fine, its just the aspects that I outlined above I believe are very dangerous, ill thought, and frankly insulting trying to impose US grading parameters to a hobby that has existed long before this country started shooting turkeys. Chris
Chris: To his credit, David vagi doesn't use the strict 1-70 system. He just gives general grades. He does grade surface and strike x/5: guy
Fair enough sir. I was mistaken NGC uses 1-70 numbers. Can I ask when was the last time you saw an ancient price guide or European auction with AU or BU ancients for sale? FDC yes, but rare.
