Guess The Grade $10 Libs

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by LostDutchman, Jun 20, 2014.

Page 3 of 6
  1. jwitten

    jwitten Well-Known Member

    to me, poorly struck should not affect the grade at all.. why would it? It has nothing to do with circulation.
     
    jwitten, Jun 23, 2014
    #41 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    In US grading you are correct. For other coins a weak strike is irrelevant, the grade is simply a function of what percentage of the design remains, for whatever reason.
     
    medoraman, Jun 23, 2014
    #42 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    ANA grading standards most definitely define quality of strike as a grading criteria. And for that matter so does the PCGS grading book. As does any other grading book that has ever been written.

    In all there are 9 different grading criteria, and that's part of the problem with the way the TPGs and many individuals grade coins today. For they have either - never knew it to begin with, forgotten it, or ignore them. And instead only use 4 grading criteria when it comes to the actual grading of coins.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 24, 2014
    #43 + Quote Reply
  5. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    I agree for the lesser MS grades , but for gem and higher it should be well struck for the date and mint .
     
    rzage, Jun 24, 2014
    #44 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    And the grading standards say that.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 24, 2014
    #45 + Quote Reply
  7. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I have noticed this in the ANA guide, and as a general rule I personally think this is how it should be. However...if one is holding strict to the ANA standards (not the TPGs), is strike quality a series wide standard or an individual date/MM standard. For example, is fully struck the same thing for an 1880-S Morgan as it is for an 1892-O Morgan in the eyes of the ANA? Or, is the 1880-S and the 1892-O held to difference standards according to what "normal" is?
     
    CamaroDMD, Jun 25, 2014
    #46 + Quote Reply
  8. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    Good question , I'll try to find it in my ANA Grading Standards book .
     
    rzage, Jun 25, 2014
    #47 + Quote Reply
  9. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I looked in mine and it didn't seem to specify. But, I didn't spend a lot of time looking tonight.
     
    CamaroDMD, Jun 25, 2014
    #48 + Quote Reply
  10. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    The ANA book doesn't specifically address that issue. What it does say is that there are certain date/mint combinations that are known for being weakly struck among various denominations and types.

    The issue of grading specific coins where a given date/mint is known to have been weakly struck, or the opposite of that, is usually only addressed in specialty books, books dedicated to that series or type only. The practice of making allowances for known weakly struck issues, or being more strict with known especially well struck issues, is one that has been accepted by the numismatic community as a whole since long before the TPGs, or even the first ANA grading book, existed.

    Regarding the issue of quality of strike, the ANA book specifically states several times that no coin should be graded higher than MS64 unless that coin is well struck. Not necessarily fully struck, but well struck.

    It further states and acknowledges that recently (and the book was published in 2005 - 6th edition) the TPGs had changed this practice and begun grading coins that were not well struck 65 and higher. But the ANA standards had not changed.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #49 + Quote Reply
    rzage likes this.
  11. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I was reading it last night...trying to understand this better and I saw this. But, like you said...it doesn't really address whither it means well struck for the given date/MM or well struck for the design. I have always personally graded coins (such as the 1892-O Morgan) on the merit of it's date/MM...meaning that a "well struck" example might still be on the "weaker side" (when compared to better struck dates) because this date is typically SO poorly struck. I think this is what the ANA means, and based on what I have read in a couple different books...it seems correct. I'm just not 100% sure.
     
    CamaroDMD, Jun 26, 2014
    #50 + Quote Reply
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Richie if you want Proof all you have to do is look at the coins. Regardless of what you or anyone can find in any book or article the coins themselves are always, always, always, the best evidence.

    But for anyone to be able to believe anything, they first have to be willing to believe what the evidence tells them. Even if they don't want to believe it. I myself and 100 others can all tell you the same thing, but if you aren't willing to believe what you are being told, then you won't. It really is just that simple.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #51 + Quote Reply
  13. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    Doug, I am not trying to argue with you. You seem to always think I am...but I am not, in fact with the exception of about 2 times in my 8 years here I never have. I'm just trying to fully understand this topic.

    My experience has been that the TPGs tend to grade a coin based on the merits of it's date/MM (with some influence based on popularity...ex: the CC bump). I have always felt that ANA is somewhat the "official" authority on these kinds of things. The published ANA guide doesn't go into great detail on this subject...but the ANA guide also covers all coins and it doesn't have the space. Like you say...that is a topic for specialty books.

    However, since the ANA is viewed as the authority on this topic...they must have an opinion. Do they subscribe to the same age old "practice of making allowances for known weakly struck issues, or being more strict with known especially well struck issues, that has been accepted by the numismatic community as a whole" or do they have a different policy?

    One can't learn these things by looking at graded coins unless one buys into the views of the person grading them. Since you so often tend to disagree with the TPGs (who are the only authority actively grading coins) and site the ANA statutes as your evidence...I'd like to know what the ANA view is on this topic.
     
    CamaroDMD, Jun 26, 2014
    #52 + Quote Reply
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  14. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Nah, what we already talked about in the St.Gaudens thread. Exact same situation--bag marks/friction but not circulation wear.
     
    Morgandude11, Jun 26, 2014
    #53 + Quote Reply
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Richie I didn't think you were trying to argue with me. All I was doing was pointing out a universal truth. What I said applies to anybody and everybody, not just you. But the problem is way too many people aren't even aware of it. The purpose of my comments were to make you, and everybody else who reads them - to think. That's all.

    But yes, the ANA does adhere to the practice in the question. I have told you that and it is the truth. But you're not going to find them saying so in their book because it isn't in their book. Ninety percent, or more, of the ANA grading book was written by Q. David Bowers. So if you want some kind of Proof that what I say is true, and not because you are arguing the point but just because you want proof, then send an email to Bowers and ask him. He'll tell you. Would that be proof enough ?
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #54 + Quote Reply
  16. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Doug, it isn't a universal truth just because you say it. Don't you gather that a lot of people don't agree with your enhanced severity of grading? This isn't just a couple of malcontents--while you have people who definitely do agree with you (and a lot of it may be your role and longevity here), you're not by any means universally agreed with in terms of grading. Your across-the-boards condemnation, and "two to three grades lower" method of denigrating the TPGs isn't a "universal truth."
     
    Morgandude11, Jun 26, 2014
    #55 + Quote Reply
    torontokuba likes this.
  17. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    And you can prove this exactly how ? Is there some difference between the wear caused by a coin being used in actual circulation and the wear caused by other forms of friction ? Can you, or anybody, definitively identify one cause of wear from another ?

    No, you can't, because there is no way to identify one from another, none. All wear or a given degree looks exactly the same. So all you can do is "claim" that the wear on this coin or that coin was caused by roll friction, or album friction or whatever - just so you can claim the coin is MS instead of not MS. And that claim is based on absolutely nothing more than your (or the TPGs) desire to do so.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #56 + Quote Reply
  18. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Dave, the universal truth that I was talking about is that before anybody can believe anything, they first have to be willing to believe it, even if they don't want to.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #57 + Quote Reply
  19. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    And you can likewise prove that this didn't happen? You're offering semantics against a very established grading standard, that is followed by people with MORE expertise and more experience than you have, Doug.
     
    Morgandude11, Jun 26, 2014
    #58 + Quote Reply
    torontokuba likes this.
  20. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title]

    I might email Bowers...just to see what he says. I hadn't considered that. But, you have answered my question on this topic. Thanks!

    While I personally tend to agree that Doug is overly harsh with his grading...I think on the particular point we were discussion, he is accurate.
     
    CamaroDMD, Jun 26, 2014
    #59 + Quote Reply
  21. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    No Dave I can't prove it, no more than you or anybody else can. The point is that is just plain wrong to claim that wear from this cause or that cause is acceptable and that wear from this other cause is not acceptable - when the different causes of wear cannot be distinguished from one another.

    And that is not semantics.
     
    GDJMSP, Jun 26, 2014
    #60 + Quote Reply
44 more messages...
Page 3 of 6
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page