Guess The Grade 1924 St. Gaudens

It is absolutely true and PCGS even says as much in their book:

After that thread, I asked a friend of mine (SaintGuru on the CU forum) who is a long time avid collector of Saints and he also agreed that virtually every Saint he has ever seen displays minor high point friction. I will choose to believe PCGS and Saintguru over you all day long.

Furthermore, it is not an excuse. In the other thread, you consistently refused to answer my questions. It is obvious to everyone who reads that thread that there are obvious differences in quality between a truly AU Saint and a gem grade Saint with high point friction. But your methodology would have all of them grade exactly the same simply so that you can adhere to your short sided principle that "wear is wear!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is sheer laziness, just read the thread dude!

The TPG didn't make a mistake when they graded this coin. That is how they grade Saints. The fact that you disagree with their grading practices doesn't make it a mistake. Furthermore, how do you prove that the wear is "roll friction?"

 

Worse than that, they are 100% convinced that they are correct and nothing you can write will change their mind.

 

It's all a trickle-down...if the collector didn't accept them, the TPGs wouldn't make money. This isn't a case of "big bad business" vs "the little guy."

 

I have better things to do than read 7 pages of a thread HOPING to get what you wish for me from it. No, its not laziness on my part, but laziness on your part of letting me know what the heck your point is.

Regarding this coin. I was pretty dang clear I was not talking about this coin. I said it a couple of times at least in my posts.

Btw, I did tell you how I distinguish roll friction from wear, look at the contact points under a loupe. If there are scratch marks, metal tear marks, etc that is what roll friction looks like. It looks just like you think it would look if two coins rubbed metal together at a 90 degree angle. Wear looks rounded, and going into the fields, where roll friction, (at least from real rolls), are high point marks only and not going into lower fields.

So:

1. If you wish to make a point, please make it and not ask me to randomly read a 7 page thread
2. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MATT's COIN!
3. Roll friction is real, I have seen it numerous times, but many things people call "roll friction" today is wear. Roll friction is not cabinet friction.

Btw, I would not doubt many/most St Gauden's exhibit high point wear. Most of these were in bags in Europe or South America until recently, and not treated gently. I will admit I have never seen roll friction on gold, and maybe it does look very much like wear. I am not pretending to know very much about gold coins, only starting to buy them fairly recently. Look back at THIS thread Paul, I was not the one suggesting Matt's coin was AU, or anything like that. I am simply agreeing that there is a lot of worn coins being certified as MS nowadays, with the excuse being "cabinet friction", when this is unprovable.

 

1) Your latest post is evidence that you really don't have anything better to do! You want an answer, I already wrote it years ago in that other thread, all you have to do is read it.

2) Isn't Matt's coin an example of what you are talking about?

3) I don't care what people call "roll friction", I care what the TPGs deem as roll friction. And obviously, they thought that the high point friction on Matt's coin was roll friction if they graded the coin MS67.

Furthermore, are you seriously ever going to let this "cabinet friction" thing go? How many times do I need to tell you that people use the terms roll friction and cabinet friction interchangeably? Maybe they don't know the difference, but we do. We get it bro! Now for the love of God, stop telling us the difference.

 

Btw, you are the one who first mentioned "cabinet friction" in this thread. It was my assumption at the time that you were one of the people who uses the terms "cabinet friction" and "roll friction" interchangeably. Obviously, I will never make that mistake again, lest you have me drawn and quartered.

 

Sorry, it was a joke. Doug and I have somewhat similar opinions of tpgs at times.

 

The reality is most $20 gold as well as most silver dollars are large heavy coins that were most often in mint or bank bags they almost all have some high point friction from contact with each other as well as bag marks they never entered circulation yet were rubbed and contacted with other like coins this is equally true of Morgan dollars you won't hardly see any without a luster break on the highest points even a ms 66 or 67

 

I have to agree!!!
Sometimes I wonder if there eyes are even open.

Never the less Matt/Dutchman
Nice 1924 don't wish it was a 1924-D or S

 

Yes, that is true. However, when one sees a coin that is so obviously a gem--high grade example, and everybody else sees it that way, perhaps the one seeing wear is wrong??

 

I don't see wear on the coin, and a lot of others don't also. Once again, one man's grade is another's mistake. You are wrong, Doug--it is a MS coin. If you are right, then you're one man against the rest of the World. Why not accept that it is a gray area, and call it a day, instead of arguing an untenable point. PCGS mentions that there is "contact" with other coins just as there is in Morgan Dollars, and lots of other large coins--that doesn't mean that the St. G. is a circulated coin. Contact marks due to storage are common issues in the coin world, and that does NOT make it an AU (hence, circulated) coin. PCGS is correct on this, just as they are for Morgans, Peace Dollars, and other large coins that have this issue.

 

Talk about being argumentative for the sake of prolonging an argument. THE COIN IS NOT CIRCULATED--it has contact marks, much as a Morgan Dollar does. Are all Morgans with contact marks worn, and thus AU at best? By your standards, a coin would have to be MS 70 in order to be MS--it would need to be devoid of any contact that occurred due to storage with other coins. Talk about being inflexible--the whole idea is to establish a standard, and then use common sense within it. You are NOT using common sense, Doug.

Gold is a soft metal, and shows all contact quite obviously. This coin that has been depicted is so obviously uncirculated---it defines a gem gold coin. Were it to be totally free of any kind of mark, it would be MS 70, and nobody even suggests that. There are some minor contact marks that are acceptable to PCGS (based on the aforementioned standard), and they're a lot more knowledgeable than you are, Doug. No offense, but you're a former collector, being absolutely hard-line for the sake of proving that you can do so. Is that realistic, or beneficial for the less experienced collectors who might buy this line of illogic? No it isn't and it shows in the "guess the grade" contests across the board. You may call it "market grading" or mistakes from TPGs, or whatever, but this is the established standard, and given the established standard, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Amen brother, haha

 

tl;dr nice coin

 

Its not an "established standard", because TPGs refuse to grade according to "established standards". Its how PCGS grades it. Nothing more or less. Now, if PCGS and NGC wish to actually grade according to ANA standards, then we coul have a better discussion. As it is, there is no standards at all, its all what the TPG feels like calling it that day, who sends the coin in, how much demand for a coin there is in the marketplace, etc.

Please do not call this the established standard because I have not accepted, nor has the ANA accepted, nor has any official body I know of that represents the hobby accepted, worn coins being called MS. A couple of private businesses, with their own profit goals in mind, and those profits of their large members, have changed this, on their own, in smoke filled backrooms. Please do not color this as commonly accepted and agreed upon grading standards.

 

Maybe you don't accept it, but it is a widely accepted standard. Sorry if you don't subscribe to the fact that TPGs do set grading standards, but it is the reality of today's market. One or two dissenters don't a revolution make--the TPG grading process is definitely a market standard--if you don't like it, don't buy or sell coins according to that established practice, but denying its existence is being purposefully evasive of the truth.