Guess The Grade 1924 St. Gaudens

I am perfectly happy being able to post such a coin that causes such an educational discussion. I know that most of us are here to learn and this is a great example to analyze and discuss. Right or wrong... the best certification service says that this is a market acceptable MS67.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Any thoughts about the inconsistency in color?

 

This coin exhibits some very light toning... gold doesn't tone easily so the fact that this guy has some toning tells me that it is 100% original.

 

I know what cabinet friction is and I am aware that nobody uses cabinets anymore for there coins. Whenever I hear the term "cabinet friction" on the internet the intention of the writer is to simply convey that the coin shows wear from not from circulation.

But hey, if you can differentiate between cabinet friction and roll friction, why not do so photographically so that we can all learn the differences.

 

I think it's a beautiful coin. I personally thought the ding visible on the breast area is too much to give this coin a MS67...but based on the beautiful toning and the incredible luster (which based on Matt's comments leads me to believe the luster is not fully displayed in the photos)...I can see how they gave this coin a 67.

This is how I have always interpreted it too...and to me, who cares. My thought is wear is wear...not matter if it is from circulation or any other cause.

 

So, exactly how does anyone prove this wear is not from circulation? How is it proven this wear is from a cabinet and not from someone's pants pocket? Better yet, like Camaro, WHY does that point matter?

Cabinet friction is simply a device used to allow people to give a coin a pass, if they wish to. Its a 19th century "white lie" used in the 21st century to give out much higher grades than a coin deserves, because cabinet friction is physically impossible to distinguish from circulation wear.

Btw Paul, I am horrible at coin photography so I cannot honor your request. My description would be roll friction, (from what i have observed from opening up original rolls of WL halves, Morgan rolls from the 50's, and the like, is that roll friction is high point rub that metal contact marks can be observed from. So the high points you can see were rubbed against another metal object due to metal contact marks, and is usually at 90 degree angles to the coin surface, (does not blend down into fields). Wear, (or cabinet friction), does not leave metal contact marks and does tend to blend down into fields. The difference is best observed in hand, (at least for me, with a loupe). So, maybe Matt's coins does have roll friction, and if so I have no issue with a MS grade. But, "cabinet friction" is simply wear that the TPG refuses to call wear. You physically cannot prove its not, and to me if I cannot PROVE its not wear, its wear.

 

That coin was never considered circulated or worn in any way. Gold is a soft metal, and shows every single imperfection, especially $20 gold, due to its size. There is a point where good sense takes over from no sense at all--any collector could look at that coin and see it as a high grade MS if they have even the slightest bit of discernment. Seeing that as anything else is lacking in what I would call "collector's eye" wisdom.

 

Well, first I asked Doug where he was seeing it, so I never claimed the coin was AU at all. However, I do nto believe saying people have "no sense", lacking "the slightest bit of discernment", or possessing a "collector's eye", really helps the discussion. We are all working from a photograph, not the actual coin, so maybe some interpretation of what they are seeing is in order, eh?

You make some good points about gold and its wear pattens and showing marks, but to me they are overshadowed by such unneeded inflammatory remarks.

 

Sorry, nothing personal against anybody. I think some coins are so obvious so as to take away the grading debate. This is one of them, and I made my comments not to be inflammatory, but to point out that it is sometimes very obvious that certain coins are high grade, and that this status is really not open for debate, when it is a clear-cut, high level gem coin. No insult intended--a "collector's eye" is what we are all hoping to develop, I would think.

 

Well for myself I do not see what Doug saw, excpet the few darker feathers on the eagles breast. This very well is probably from the angle of the photograph, but its is POSSIBLY enough for something to think there could be wear there. So, just throwing that out there as a possible reason why it would be a fiar question, but one easily answered with another photograph. That is where I was coming from Morgandude, the photo of that area allows for the idea its possible. I still do not see it, and do not see the other spots he pointed to, but just allowing for honest disagreements. Again, just from a photograph. In hand, I am sure I would easily see the luster and the beauty of this coin and also quickly dismiss any thoughts it was circulated.

 

Unless your grading skills are spot on 100% of the time, I think it is wise to err to the side of caution.

 

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, take sides, or anything like that...I just wanted to state my personal belief. That is, to me, it doesn't matter how the coin came to have it's current condition...all that matters is it's current condition.

As much as I respect the TPGs and I think they are a quite useful service in this hobby...this is another example why one must still learn to evaluate the coins for themselves. I don't want an MS graded coin in my collection that has "cabinet wear"...because to me, that coins is not MS. I'd pass on a "cabinet wear coin" and find a different example.

But, that's my personal choice. I know the market has dictated otherwise...but the great thing about this hobby is we can pick and choose what we want in our collections.

 

Almost every Saint has high point wear. Do you want every Saint to be graded AU?

 

If you read the thread that I linked in one of my previous posts above, it will clearly describe why it matters.

Furthermore, you seem stuck on this point. People use the term cabinet friction and roll friction interchangeably. If it makes you feel better replace the word "cabinet" with "roll" in every instance in this thread. The end result is that the TPG's did not grade this coin AU because they deemed that the high point wear was not the result of circulation wear.

 

I think we need to decide what our guidelines are and stick to them. So, I guess yes...if they have high point wear then they should be graded that way. However, this is not what the market does and most people don't want that. I could want a Camaro Hovercraft and my very own unicorn...it doesn't mean I'm going to get them. I think that since the market is the way it is, we should educate ourselves in it.

 

Go through and try to pick out, in a seven page thread, what you think are the important points? No thanks. If you actually copied or linked the point you wish to convey I would read it.

Btw, "the end result is the TPG graded is as such"? I simply do not care that they made a mistake, (not saying this coin, just in general). TPG have graded coins MS65 that are at best a 63 for a couple decades now. Everyone has seen massive errors in slabs. To me, any coin with wear, unless its proven to be roll friction, (metal on metal scraping), should be AU at best. Anything else is simply an error in grading, whether intentional grade inflation or not.

 

There is no way this coin even comes close to AU. Some of you are crazy. This is nearly pristine

 

It's not that often that we agree...but I think you are completely correct here. I think the main reason we have terms such as "cabinet friction" is because people want to grade their coins MS. Many will blame the TPGs for this...and I know the TPGs have been around longer than I have been a collector, but I have read enough to know that "cabinet friction" existed long before they did.

This whole issue has been created by the collector wanting their coins to be higher grade. Many will try and pin the blame on the TPGs, but the bottom line is they are a for profit company that caters to the desires of their clients. If their clients (the collectors) want something, then the TPGs will comply to make more money.

 

But is it "for the collectors"? Or is it for the main cleints of the TPG, mainly dealers? It is not the collectors who BUY a MS65 that is really an AU coin who profit, but the person who sent in the AU coin who makes a one time windfall from it being called and sold as a 65.

Btw, just to clarify once again, I am not talking about Matt's coin at all, just a theoretical coin.