Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 490760, member: 112&quot;]That&#039;s sort of what I figured eddie, bit of a problem with it though - that text that you linked to is nothing but 1 man&#039;s definition of techincal grading. The man who wrote it is a collector, just like you, He&#039;s a member of the NGC forum, used to be, may still be, a member of the PCGS forum. In other words, he&#039;s an ordinary guy who placed his thoughts on the subject on his personal web site. Now there&#039;s nothing wrong with that, but how accurate is it ?</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, he says - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>He also says - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now remember what I asked above - how accurate is this definition of technical grading ? Well, if you go back to the source and actually look it up you find that it is not accurate at all. What source am I using ? The First Edition of the ANA Grading Standards, with the narrative text and introduction written by Q. David Bowers. I think we can consider him to be an authority.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s examine what Bowers has to say about each of the 4 criteria that James (the author of the article you reference) says define technical grading.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Wear</b> - </p><p><br /></p><p>James says, what percent of the coin&#039;s original detail has been worn away?</p><p><br /></p><p>Bowers says, the term uncirculated, which is interchangeable with Mint State is a piece that has no wear of any kind.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think we can agree that the two are basically in agreement on this count. And obviously, contact marks fall under this category as well.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Luster</b> - </p><p><br /></p><p>James says, how pronounced is the surface reflectivity of the coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>Bowers says, the quality of luster is an essential element of correctly grading the piece. Unattractive luster will normally lower the grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>They agree on this as well.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Strike</b> - </p><p><br /></p><p>James says, what percent of the intended detail was present immediately after striking?</p><p><br /></p><p>Bowers says, if an uncirculated coin exhibits weakness due to striking or die wear, or unusual (for the variety) die wear, this coin must be adjectivally mentioned in addition to the grade. Examples are: MS60, lightly struck; Choice Uncirculated (MS65), lightly struck; MS70, lightly struck.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now it is quite obvious that the two do not agree on this count. Quality of strike has no bearing on the assigned grade whatsoever. Otherwise how could you possibly have a coin grade MS70 when it is weakly struck ?</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Color</b> - </p><p><br /></p><p>James says, what percent of the original pristine surfaces remains unreacted with the environment? .... though color is important in that the closer to original color, the higher the coin&#039;s grade will be.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bowers says, a lightly toned nickel or silver coin may be described as MS70, toned or Perfect Toned Uncirculated. Or, in the case of particularly attractive or unusual toning, additional adjectives may be in order.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bowers does continue to say that with copper coins, to qualify as MS70 a bronze or copper coin must have its full luster and natural surface color and may not be toned brown, olive or any other color. </p><p><br /></p><p>So on the point of color, they only agree in regard to copper coins. They obviously disagree on nickel and silver coins where color does not affect the grade at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is eddie, that what most people think of as techincal grading, is not technical grading. Quality of strike has no bearing on the grade at all. Color has no bearing on the grade at all. </p><p><br /></p><p>Technical grading really only counts two things, and only two things - wear/contact marks and the amount of luster on the coin. That&#039;s it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in