Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."

From the Coin Term Glossary:
Condition: The physical state of a coin.
Grade: Rating which indicates how much a coin has worn from circulation.
I have yet to go to a coin show, large or small, and show a coin and have the dealer or Learned Numismatist say the coin is in MS-60 CONDITION. They say I would GRADE the coin MS-60. Or it looks like it would GRADE Uncirculated, not it looks like it would CONDITION Uncirculated. Let us say You can have an MS-65 coin with a hole drilled into it and it would Details GRADE MS-65 and it's CONDITION would be holed. Buy the coin, not the holder. Hmmm, Buy a GRADING Guide Book. Who sells a CONDITION Guide Book?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's not that hard, folks.

TPGs do NOT "GRADE" a coin. They give you their opinion of its value. They grade a nice AU higher than a beat up UNC because it's worth more money, not because it is uncirculated.

It is most definitely possible for a coin to have wear and still, because of it's excellent surfaces and color and so forth, to be worth more than a baggy or scratched coin that has never circulated.

We go down the rabbit hole when we believe that TPGs are telling us a coin's grade.

 

AU-58 net MS-65.

 

This was my point earlier. The market wants to see a steady flow a number that equals value. To them it doesn't matter that an AU coin is not AU. They see it as a number. They want that coin that is worth X amount to have an MS grade, BUT Grading actual surfaces doesn't work that way. This isn't any different than the same contrast between EF and AU there is only a slight hiding of original surfaces left next to the relief of the devices. It goes down the line. Should we get into the grades involving graffiti?
Problem Is that they have a hard enough time grading 11 MS grades.
They don't have the ability to focus on what should be considered AU. To many man hours to actually break it down.
I'm sure that the risk could easily bankrupt a company. But I thought they were there to actually grade a coin.

 

Only if we can really make it fun and make it about luster on proofs

 

I’ve been avoiding graded, slabbed, coins recently and pursuing coins that look good to me. Most coins that I collect will be stored by me, taken out and viewed by me for my pleasure. The slab only distracts from the coin in any case.

At a coin show, today, I talked with a dealer about ICCS grading of Canadian silver dollars. His opinion was that the big U.S. TPGs grade more on eye appeal, the ICCS grading is more technical. I prefer eye appeal.

People who collect glass marbles use the term As-Made to describe an unused marble that has flaws from the “minting” process and/or contact marks. Depending on who made the marble and what machinery was used, As-Made marbles can carry a lot of bumps and bruises. These MS-60s of the marble world are valued less and priced lower than used but more attractive glass.

Why are coins different from marbles? Why is the intrinsic beauty of the coin not the measure of its value? Is a coin’s beauty in it’s holder and no longer in the eye of it’s beholder? I believe CONDITION and GRADE aren’t the same. I value CONDITION more than GRADE.

 

I think some people are getting really hung up in this thread by the world "circulated."

You have to realize that the word means different things depending on what you're talking about.

In economics, circulated means the money changes hands.

In numismatics, circulated means the coin has wear. It doesn't matter where it came from, how it got there, what story the dealer told you, or what cabinet it may or may not have sat in. Wear is wear. It doesn't even matter if the coin "circulated" or not.

Certain words mean certain things in certain applications - and the same word can have different meanings depending on what community is using it.

Circulated does not mean circulated in the economic sense. A coin can be fully Uncirculated (in the numismatic sense) while still having circulated (in the economic sense), as long as it shows no signs of wear. A coin can be circulated (in the numismatic sense, showing signs of wear) while still being technically uncirculated in the economic sense (not having been traded or used in a transaction).

Is this the best choice of words? Maybe not. There may be better words we can use. But, these are the words that have been widely accepted by the hobby, like it or not.

 

@physics-fan3.14 posted a "Best Answer" for "circulated." His post should be very easy for all of us to understand. IMO, anyone who refutes his post is not worth replying to. Unfortunately, I cannot post what I actually think of them.

TypeCoin971793, posted: "...But my actions would then have altered the coin so that it is no longer in the same state as it left the mint in. That’s my point."

P L E A S E, please STOP The only thing your actions are altering is MY MOOD!

When you blow on a coin you change the coin and the entire Universe plus the future of mankind on earth for the rest of time! It is not complicated. Things happen to coins that we don't even know about.


Pickin and Grinin, posted: "I agree with half that statement. Crossing a line that was made to keep an AU coin from being seen as MS. Will be a constant. Wear is wear it doesn't matter if it happened in Commerce a Collectors Cabinet Drawer or for that matter packaged in a Mint Set. It still should be an AU at best. Fudging this line causes all the confusion, not the know it all's.
The so called Know it all's will do there best to keep the less studious folks from falling into the trap that "is" what Market grading is.
And, for most part those that disagree with the standards that are aloud today by the TPG's, lets not forget those in this to only make a profit. Will stick to what is the correct grade and definition for each grade there is."

While I agree with you, the TPGS control the market. If someone chooses not to play the game, they will be off on their own. That's both a good and a bad situation.

NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION:

Bob Evancho, posted: "From the Coin Term Glossary:

Condition: The physical state of a coin.
Grade: Rating which indicates how much a coin has worn from circulation. [WHICH IS DETERMINED BY ITS PHYSICAL STATE - ITS CONDITION!]

See what happens when a bunch of numismatic geniuses (not you) end up trying to split hairs to appear intelligent? All they do is show they have not thought things out! Furthermore, they introduce confusion into what should be an extremely simple concept to understand. YN graduates from Grading 101 don't have this "problem."


Bob continues: "I have yet to go to a coin show, large or small, and show a coin and have the dealer or Learned Numismatist say the coin is in MS-60 CONDITION. They say I would GRADE the coin MS-60. Or it looks like it would GRADE Uncirculated, not it looks like it would CONDITION Uncirculated. Let us say You can have an MS-65 coin with a hole drilled into it and it would Details GRADE MS-65 and it's CONDITION would be holed. Buy the coin, not the holder. Hmmm, Buy a GRADING Guide Book. Who sells a CONDITION Guide Book?"

IMO, this comment also needs to be addressed. Since grade and condition mean the same SIMPLE THING, what you say is true. There is no "Condition Guide Book" However the last part of your post shows a complete misunderstanding between the old technical grading system and modern "details" grading. Using a perfect MS-70 coin with a hole in it, works like this:

Technical grade: Gem Uncirculated, hole 12 O'clock. There was no higher grade than 65 at the time and that signified a "Choice Unc" coin. Now 65 = "Gem."

TPGS grade" Uncirculated Details, hole. MS range numbers are NOT assigned to a "detailed" coin.

baseball21, posted: "Only if we can really make it fun and make it about luster on proofs."

By the time I die, every knowledgeable numismatist will understand what "Luster" is by definition, that Proofs have luster, and that when applied to coins there is a difference between MS luster and mirror-like PR luster! It is another simple concept.

 

PGCS was started by a bunch of very influential coin dealers who did not like the way coins were being strictly graded by the prevailing standard: NO TRACE OF WEAR.

As ANYONE with a brain can determine from what has been pointed out previously in this thread is they (PCGS) don't even pretend to follow their own definitions of Mint State.

It is a crying shame that your post (GDJMSP) and my comment is not allowed on CU.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, as I said before words do have different meanings and some terms actually fit better than others.

The one thing this hobby hates more than anything is change.

We could and can come up with better terms for some of these things that fit actual word definitions better but there is to much get off my lawn stubbornness in this hobby.

We could and should be able to do better with some of these terms. So much of the grading confusion by people happens because of some of these terms getting hung up on words where their numismatic meaning isn't necessarily what the meaning should really be.

They're not my precious anything. They're the TPG with the best optical slab who in many ways is the leader, nothing more. I just don't have the bias against them that so many here do where they are the constant target for things that the other TPGs do.

 

Just quoting this to lock it in

 

Propose some terms and define their meanings. We can discuss and see if we like it better.

 

They could be and this could happen (it won't) but it would really shake things up and two generations of collectors/dealers would need to be re-educated.

 

I think the hard line between AU58 and MS60 should be kept. Instead of grading superb AU coins MS6x, the grading scale and price guides should be adapted. An average MS62 should not be considered “better” or more valuable than a great looking AU55, just to give an example. Additional fields for strike/luster/eye-appeal could be added, similar to the way NGC grades ancient coins. Well there’s already the “star” attribution, but they could take it to the next level and add a secondary rating.

 

But lookie here! Also taken right off of PCGS’s website. Inconsistency much?

 

I can get behind this

 

I defend them against the bias that many people have as they are the consistent target from quite a few posters despite the fact that NGC and the others do the same things.

I defend the concept in general as it is certainly much better than the old trust the sellers days.

And yes they do know more than a lot of posters and grade better in hand with raw coins than people do from pictures especially ones that have been out of coins for a long long time.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1006334/why-is-icg-in-the-second-tier-with-anacs/p3

If that's the case would love to see your comments on that NGC 65* that went to an ICG 67+