This might have been discussed before but I couldn't find a thread. Why does the grading of coins focus mainly on the obverse? Probably 50% (a number I made up) of all coins have obverse and reverse grading details that differ by 5-15 (more numbers I made up) points. It could have an EF+ Obverse and a F Reverse, or the other way around, but will "officially" grade by whatever the Obverse is. Should there be dual grades or doesn't anyone care what the Reverse looks like? On a similar point, some coins are known to be weakly struck to the point where many details are missing and, compared to a sharply struck example of the same series, would otherwise grade VF or EF, but actually grade BU if in its mint state. In this case are we grading actual condition, or what we think it should or could have been?
Weak strike will limit the grade, but will not preclude a coin from being MS. If it has not circulated, it is uncirculated. Seems like an oversimplified answer, but look at large cents for example. It's not too unusual to see a coin that has the detail of an XF coin graded uncirculated. On your other point, coins were once graded per side, but the market decided that only one grade was necessary. If you notice, "cabinet wear" is usually more evident on the reverse of classic coins. Coins are graded now on the lesser grade of the two sides for better or worse.
Also the coin is graded on it's weakest side . If the obverse is a 67 and reverse a 65 the coin will grade 65 . At least that's what PCGS states in their grading manual . I still say more weight is given to the obverse to about 60/40 . But I'm sure if you asked 10 people you might get 10 different answers . And I agree with Kirkuleez that a coin must show wear to grade lower than MS . A weakly struck coin can only go so high on the MS scale even with no wear or hits though , say 64 or under .
I've always wondered what the limiting grade could be based on strike but have never really found a definitive answer. Most would say somewhere between 64 and 66, but I assume this is based on the overall eye appeal of the coin and is not necessarily limited. Is there an actual standard that would limit the grade?
With foreign coins I hardly ever see weakly struck coins above 64, even with all other factors at PQ levels.
In the PCGS Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection , on page 48 it says poorly struck coins usually grade no higher than 62 to 63 . But then continues to say if minor it usually doesn't affect the grade . It also mentions that only in the highest grades will it limit the grade , say 68 . Since I've seen weakly struck coins grade 65 I guess they have a wide latitude to determine how weakly a coin is struck .
Under ANA standards no weakly struck coin can grade higher than 64. And the obverse carries no more weight in determining grade than the reverse does since all coins are graded according to their worst side.
Flip a coin, ask someone to call it, most of the time they say, "Obverse!" I mean, "Heads!" But that's all I think that is. People have a bias for that side. That's the display side, too, and, in most cases, the date side. When you fill your coin book, that's what's facing up. No rhyme or reason to it beyond that. In my opinion. Strike isn't a criteria in the condition grade. Get out a Red Book from 50 years ago and you'll see ANA saying as much, although, indirectly. They'll say it something like this, they'll show the grades columns and the prices underneath in a series, and at the bottom there will be an asterisk and notation, to the effect, "Strongly struck specimens command higher prices than the prices listed." In other words, they don't raise grades, they command higher prices at the grades. In market grading, the prices are synthesized with the grades, and, thus, strike is a market grading criteria. Or, if it's not, it should be, in my opinion. Bottom-line, from a condition standpoint, strength of strike is a non-issue.
Any idea what NGCs grade limit is ? Also I'm willing to bet you've seen weakly struck coins grade 65 and even 66 .
So why MS67 if MS64 is top grade for weak strike? Does rarity make a difference? http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/7356
Since just about all are weakly struck , they market grade them to the way the coins are known for that date and MM . Though some of the rarer coins do get a bump in the grade .
Yes, but then PCGS does not use ANA standards, neither does NGC or any other TPG. It is the norm to find weakly struck coins that have been graded 65 to 68 by the TPGs. But if ANA standards are used, you will not find any above 64. This has always been the case, even long before the TPGs, or market grading, even existed. In fact, by the earliest ANA Grading standards (1977) which were based on technical grading, a weakly struck coin could even be graded as MS70. Of course back then there were only 3 uncirculated grades, MS60, MS65, and MS70. No other MS grades even existed. The fact of quality of strike having nothing to do with the grade assigned a coin was one of the things done away with when the ANA created market grading. With market grading quality of strike matters, as it should. That said, even with market grading (ANA standards) when an entire issue (a given date/mint combination) is known for having been weakly struck, then adjustments are made pertaining only to that specific issue. In other words that specific issue cannot be judged by or compared to other issues of the same series, but instead all by itself.
So , do they do the opposite on say a 1917-P SLQ where just about all the coins are well struck and have full heads and shields ?
For such a large heavy coin it's really quite clean , especially the fields . The only major hit would be on the eye in a prime focal area . I'd of went 66 .
What I'm getting from all of this is that precise grading, except for as absolutely perfect MS70, is a sham. It's all subjective and any two persons or graders will often not see exactly the same thing. That's why many collectors will shop around to try and get the highest grade possible. Whether it's MS63 vs MS66, or VF35 vs XF40, or obverse vs reverse, there will always be disagreements. Although computer grading was never successful, I think that newer techniques could be developed that would overcome the shortcomings of the past, and would remove all subjectivity from the process. Something like dividing the image of the coin into a 225 square 25x25 grid (or larger or smaller, depending on the coin's size) and comparing it, square by square, to the design's perfect image. This could be done several times, with different lighting types and multiple lighting directions. That would pick up any weaknesses and flaws and develop an overall score as a percentage of deviation from the norm. The key is removing subjectivity from the process. I realize that computer grading isn't yet a polished art but it's day will come. If computers can read differences in fingerprints, they should be able to detect differences in the details of coins. For what it's worth, here's how PCGS does it's grading now Two and three person grading reduces the subjectivity factor. And here was their method of computer grading http://www.google.com/patents/US5224176
