Guess The Grade $10 Libs

It ISN'T wear--it is no different when two Morgan Dollars make contact with each other in a mint bag and leave marks. Sorry, but I see no difference (and, in the case of gold, it is a very soft metal, so two coins hitting each other in a mint bag would leave marks). Simple and straightforward, Doug--contact, but not circulation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wait. So now its acceptable to say that as long as something is possible, anything at all, (which is convenient since logically you cannot disprove a negative), we have to accept it? What if the TPG slabbed a series of coins as "having been owned by PT Barnum". They do not have to prove they WERE owned, and since we cannot prove they WEREN'T own by him, we have to just accept it? That is what you are saying here, that the TPG is claiming something unprovable, that the CLEAR AND PROVABLE WEAR is caused by "cabinet friction" and therefor the coin is BU?

What a huge load of hooey. Maybe I am just grouchy, but I actually judge a coin by the coin. I see what I see with my own eyes, and unless someone has some kind of proof, I assume wear is caused by circulation, as 99.9% of all wear is caused by. When I hear hoofbeats, I think of horses not spotted zebras.

 

No, storage contact has been documented. When the Morgans were moved from their storage closets, they did clink together. That has been reported, especially by the GSA when the CC horde was discovered. Contact between coins in a mint bag has been seen and heard (the sound is unmistakeable) , and is observable.

 

Really? On the 1882? That coin has definitive wear where Doug mentioned. I have never seen anyone claim THAT much wear as "cabinet friction" or whatever. If it is, there must have been some 9 year old opening and closing that cabinet hundreds and hundreds of times over for giggles somewhere along the line. Because it is a CC I could see a TPG giving it a 53 and not have too much heartburn with that, but MS? Good gosh, if that coin is judged MS then stop even trying to grade coins, (meaning to the TPG not you Morgandude).

 

Yes sir you are correct. That is why they are dings and scratches, not smooth wear patterns. I spent a time in this hobby with my binocular microscope, and looking at my BU morgans with contact marks versus AU morgans. I had some BU morgans that some spots at first glance looked like wear, but under the microscope had microscopic scratches. The AU coins were worn smooth, high points polished smooth from wear, instead. Yes, it would be possible sir for a BU coin to coincidentally have a couple of high points look like wear without examining the coin under a microscope, but to have this many, classic high point wear points, all showing the same amounts of wear? Pretty unlikely IMHO.

 

So, uh......Were the coins ever sent out?

 

It seems like this issue is most commonly argued when it comes to St. Gaudens Double Eagles as it seems that basically none exist without high point wear. Since supposedly these coins spent their entire lives in bank vaults...I can only see 3 possible reasons for this "not wear" wear on the high points:

1. The coins didn't actually spend that much time in bags (so they were circulated)
2. The coins acquired this "not wear" wear while in the bags
3. They were manufactured like that

I know particular topic was hotly debated recently in another thread...but I'm still at a loss for a convincing explanation. If coin-coin contact didn't cause it...then what did?

 

Excellent point , one I was going to make . (not about the microscope but the one about bag marks vs. wear marks ). I mean how much do these coins in a bag actually move about ? I'd say the majority very little . The ones near the top might have some minute wear , but when moved and thrown to the floor they will get bag marks .

 

Richie don't forget that most large gold coins had to be held by banks to back their currency . These had to be counted every time they had to balance their books , I believe this is where most of the light high spot wear came from .

 

I hadn't considered that, in fact this is the first time I have ever heard this explanation. But, it does make sense. If that's the case...then IMHO, this should be considered circulation type wear as they became worn through physical handling...not from coin-coin contact.

 

It's a darn good explanation in my opinion . Wish I had thought of it .

 

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on gold coin wear, but let's take this back to morgans. You have seen bag marked morgans. Do those marks line up perfectly with high point wear or are they mainly scattered? For a typical AU/EF morgan, where does this coin wear at? Now, think about your two answers and please tell me again which caused the wear on the first coin.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe gold wears completely different than silver and copper coins I have studied. I don't know why it would, but maybe.

 

I hope so. then in a while we can bring this back and settle things. of course then we can argue over the grading results. lol

 

I guess that makes sense. I was thinking more about "bag mark" dings rather than wear. When the edge of a coin fits the flat surface on the other and makes a ding or gouge. However, if they are rubbing against each other (in a flat-flat orientation) you would get traditional high point wear.

I do agree with you...there shouldn't be a difference. But, for whatever reason the world we live in today has accepted this is not wear. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me...but that's how it is.

 

It all goes back to the wrong decision in the early days of US coin collecting. Back then, they decided for some unknown reason wear is the worst damage a coin can have. That is the only explanation why uncirculated can be a beat to hell coin yet will grade higher than a clean, attractive AU coin. That is the error, to say wear by definition is a more serious fault than a ding from two coins hitting each other. That is the foundational error that was made, and the foundational error we live with. It it simply not true in other areas of collecting like ancient coins. There, to be the equivalent of our highest grade, a coin needs all details. It does not matter WHY the detail is not there, be it dings, wear, weak strike, etc. We do not care WHY, only the fact of is it there or not?

In a way, the TPG's in my view ARE trying to correct this error. I would actually be cheering them for their actions IF they would be honest about it. They should simply announce, "the idea that wear is worst than dings is ludicrus, so we are dropping all descriptive grades and grading on a 1-70 scale based upon overall condition of the coin regardless of reason". I would LOVE that. Some coins that technically have never circulated should be a 45 at best, they are so dinged up. Other coins that might have circulated a little should be 64's since they are very attractive and the only damage is a touch of high point wear. So, in reality, I DO agree with where they are going with it, but strongly object what they are doing because they are not being honest about it. They are coming up with lies to justify why they are grading slightly worn coins as BU. They should just admit they are "fixing" the greatest error in grading scales this country has made.

Maybe next they can get rid of the whole "weak strike, worn dies, etc" crap. Are the details there or not? Shouldn't that all we as collectors care about?

 

So I think eye appeal is the most important point in grading a coin, not wear or marks....I would pay more for a nice AU 58 Saint Gaudens than for a heavily bagmarked piece in MS 61.
Buy the coin not the slab or given grade.
Thanks to medoraman for his explanation.

 

Great post @medoraman.
AU58 is my favorite grade, best eye-appeal.... but why do people still pay more for MS60/61 coins...? I am puzzled.