GTG(s) a study in strike vs wear?

But WHY. You and @TypeCoin971793 keep repeating something, this huge "difference" between circulated and non-circulated. You act like this was passed down from God that a slight wear from use fundamentally changes a coin. Its doesn't. All coins could have been perfect. However, a weak strike, worn die, bag Mark's, or wear can lower it from perfect. Why are the first three treated differently than the fourth? GRADE is supposed to be a measure of desirability. Now you say a 58 is normal to be more desired than a 61. That is a preposterous use of a grading system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My points are not silly at all, it is you who cannot get it out of your head your US coin grading indoctrination.

What is a "grade"? It is a measure of desirability. To say "market prices" should "adjust" is a cop out. Absent unusual things like toning, (personal preference), a 64 should always be more desired than a 62, a 61 should be preferred over a 58. It was NOT because of a flaw in the grading system. A touch of wear is NOT worst than a big ding or a weak strike.

The TPGs are moving towards my point. I wish they would just drop the description altogether and just grade numerically 1-70, because old 58s deserve to be 62, and some 61s deserve to be 53s at best. I have ancient coins that are what you would call uncirculated, (same as they left the mint),, but I grade them VF, and that is ok. Some coins leave the mint today a 55, and that is ok.The mint screws up and can make junk.

 

It wasn’t passed down from god, but defined in a grading system. And yes, in the grading system, traces of wear change the coin from UNC to AU. It doesn’t automatically make it less valuable or desirable. That’s the flaw in your argumentation.

 

Only when I very first started developing an interest in older circulated coins did I think that grade was a measure of desirability. I learned pretty quickly that it is only one factor, and often not even a very important factor compared to other characteristics. As I said, I often dislike the look of MS grade coins, especially in old gold. Often too shiny, often with little or no character. Sometimes with lots of bag marks. When you find a really nice one, that's cool, but they aren't all that common (nice MS coins that is). Not to me anyway.

 

This is where you are wrong and deluding yourself. It is a measure of the coin’s state of preservation. Nothing more, and nothing less. The TPGs are bending the rules a little bit to adjust the coin’s grade to be commensurate with the “value” they think it should have.

Is it though? A fully-stuck and well-centered Athens tet will always sell for more than a weakly-stuck example that is halfway off the flan, even if they are both Mint State. It isn’t a fool’s notion. It’s how the market has always been.

I’m sure exceptions can be made for those who pursue numbers, but it is safe to assume that they have no idea what they are doing and thus don’t count.

Sounds like you are the one that can’t get the market’s indoctrination out of your head. There is no reason that a lower grade can’t be worth more than a higher grade. Coins graded AU-58+ routinely sell for MS-61/62 money.

That’s why I am a proponent of a 60-70 system for coins with circulation wear/cabinet friction. So you can have an amazing coin with a touch of wear that grades AU-65, and it will be worth more than the “UNCs” graded MS-60 to 62. Mindsets are already shifting this way.

This is so incorrect that it is laughable.

 

Its a flaw in the designation of the grading system. The US grading system made an artificial contrivance to split coins into two groups, Uncirculated and circulated. This is the fundamental error. Granted, it works perfectly well for 99% of the coins, a XF is inferior to 99.9% of coins that have not seen circulation wear given machine minting. However, it fails when you have coins without wear but other negative things like bag marks. Why is a "bag mark" not graded like wear marks?

Nearly every collectible field I know of start with what the "thing" would be like in perfect condition, then deduct points from there. WHY are US coins different? Go to a car show, and if a fender was painted poorly or if it has a nick from a rock or if it rubbed off with wind it DOES NOT MATTER. Points will be deducted REGARDLESS OF REASON.

I agree really with @TypeCoin971793 suggestion of a AU65 system, which is EXACTLY what I am advocating. Do away with MS or AU altogether, just grade a number, and call a coin a 65 or a 55 on its merits. I still believe poorly struck pieces should be less than 60 at times, or bag marked coins.

Btw @TypeCoin971793 "laughable"? Are you an expert in ancient coin grading? My hobby has developed and been grading coins for centuries before the US was a country. I do not believe DEMEANING another area of numismatics is productive do you? You want to get into a discussion of why we grade why we grade, we can, but please try to remain civil if its possible for you. Your Athenian tet example would ONLY every be labeled "mint state" by a US slabber, NEVER by us. Your example NGC, (who won't even guarantee authenticity btw), might call "mint state" we might grade VF, and we would be RIGHT.

 

I’m being very civil. Your arguments are simply ludicrous, especially when you are trying to demand that that they are applicable to modern coin.

Indicating that you are wrong with logical reasoning and many examples is hardly demeaning another area of numismatics. You are doing that all on your own.

I never used NGC as an example. You did. I do like your arrogance in how your beliefs are infallibly right even though Grading simply is not practiced the way you describe.

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. They made that policy when far-less-competent people were working there. @Barry Murphy may be able to discuss why the policy hasn’t been reversed.

 

According to auction cataloguers, these are all VF and equivalent in grade, and thus value.



These two were graded EF by the auction cataloguers (equivalent to modern AU/MS), and should be leaps and bounds better than all of the examples above.



Maybe before you go about telling everyone how grading should be done, you should try making your own system more consistent and accurate to the coin’s actual state of preservation.

 

Sure, hold us accountable to how dealers grade. That makes sense. THe same never happened in US coins before TPG ever either, right? Dealers NEVER misrepresented or overgraded coins. I will admit TONS of overgrading is happening right now, some due to dealer using US grading standards for ancients, others just good old fashioned sales puffery.

You want me to grade them?

aVF
gF
gF
gVF
gF
Vf
aXF
VF
XF
gXF

Different firms, different catalogers. Ancients have a lot more variables to handle than machine struck coins, so much harder than to grade a lincoln cent.

 

I would select the better strike over the UNC

 

Sell one keep the other. I'll take the one you keep Paddy okay...

 

Here’s the crux of it all. This is implicitly understood. This is also why so little emphasis is placed on the grades of ancients, because it doesn’t matter until you get into FDC territory. A general grade is given to give a prospective buyer an idea of the quality of the coin they will receive. At least, this was the case before pictures in catalogues and the internet. Now putting a grade is just a formality which carries very little meaning unless it is a very high grade.

I guess because moderns collectors are obsessed with rarity, and coins without circulation damage (wear) are far more rare than those with it. Coins were meant to be used in commerce, and most were. Thus they place a particular emphasis on the presence of wear.

Other damage, like bag marks or hairlines, occur on almost every single coin. Those without them are exceptionally rare and priced at the top of the scale, as they should be. Those with an excessive number of bag marks or hairlines from rubbing other coins should be priced lower than those with just the slightest hint of circulation wear. The market is slowly shifting that way. The adoption of AU-60 to 70 would cement that to be the case.

Let’s go back to the MS-62 nickel with the details of a F/VF coin. A normal F/VF coin has extensive damage (wear), while the weakly struck coin has only bag mark damage. Then why should the weakly-struck coin be punished equally as the damaged coin? Answer: it shouldn’t.

 

I do not like slabs much, with my US coins all being unslabbed, (bought them years ago when good coins still survived "in the wild"), but I agree with this TBH. The TPGs are basically "fixing" the issue you and I have been discussing here. A coin should be graded based upon details left/damage on it, regardless of source. Circulation wear is simply a source amongst others. Of course luster is important, and a baggy poorly struck coin will still look better because of luster than most coins with circulation wear, but not all.

I think you and I agree more than we think. Your AU60-70 is my "circulation wear should not be judged more harshly than poor strike or bag marks" comment. Maybe I am just grumpier than average from my neck so I am not communicating this very well. Drop the grade name past XF 45 and I think we think the same, except maybe you do not think a poorly struck coin should ever be lower than 60 I am guessing. I say let a poor quality coin leave the mint as a 50.

 

Guys, are you aware we’re in the US coins section? Not sure why you’re derailing this thread and discussing ancients now?

@fiddlehead let us know what you think.

 

Haha, well I find the discussion interesting - at least when the respondents refrain from comments that I would call more personal than necessary - e.g., comments that depart from the issues and attach some sort of motivation or level of demeanor to others (such as, but not limited to terms like "arrogant" or anything else that is assigning characteristics to other respondents as opposed to responding directly to the comment/issue raised). That said, I think the content regarding strike vs wear as it relates to grading is helpful and I learned a lot more about ancients, which I do find fascinating. So I don't think the post was/is highjacked as long as the discussion continues to be about strike vs wear and also includes at least the relational difference between grading of ancients vs US coins.