Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Hockey puck freed!
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 7741850, member: 19463"]I do not pretend to be an NGC grader and have no idea where they would draw the lines between grades. I regret that I do not have a weakly struck Ptolemaic bronze to illustrate the point but perhaps my Hadrian sestertius will serve the point. This coin was weakly or flatly struck. I do not know whether it would get a 2/5 or what from NGC but more than that would be generous. In the old day, a coin like this could not be graded above fine because it has no laurel wreath detail but the coin really shows very little wear. There is a rather sharp line between the area with detail and the area lacking detail. In hand, the area without detail is <u>rather flat topped rather than rounded over</u> as seen on the recently freed mini-puck. This sestertius fell from the dies in Fine by old standards and Mint State using current slab style grading. It may have picked up some wear along the way but I'd consider a 'wear only' grade of VF-EF appropriate. 'Puck' on the other hand fell from the dies as a real gem MS and 5/5 for strike. Over repeated spend/handle sequences it slowly became Fine but the strike does not change after the hammer stops ringing in the mint. The guys at NGC are very adept at telling the difference and people pay them for their opinions on the matter. My opinions are free and worth every cent of what you paid. Seriously, I am a firm believer in the idea that the hobby would be better off if we all would stop grading coins beyond the 'I like it' and 'It stinks' level. Before every coin in the universe had been photographed, we needed a way of transmitting information on what a coin looked like using two letters or less. We don't now. There will be many different opinions of what makes a coin more or less desirable. I am in the camp that favors nice surfaces and tend to disagree with many NGC surface ratings. I would prefer the 'puck' here with 5/5 surfaces even if it were not as solidly struck. I certainly would not want the coin if it were rough enough to get a 3/5 for surface roughness but might tolerate better a coin that had a graffito/scratch that would be NGC 2/5 for surfaces. We each will have our preferences. That is the name of the game when 'grading' ancients. Modern coin grading assumes 'normalcy' in many ways and 'body bags' coins that do not meet the 'normal' definition. Almost all ancients are body baggable. Many collectors of modern coins will drop in here in the ancient section only long enough to discover that we don't know anything about the subject they worship. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1325455[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Below is another sestertius (this one Commodus) lacking details on the high points. My early coin education called a coin like this 'brick cleaned' on the theory that the coin lost that high detail to being rubbed on a brick by some archaeologist intent on reading the coin. I believe this coin was struck better than the Hadrian but lost its high detail after it left the mint (whether to some stupid PhD candidate with a brick or some coin dealer/collector with a Dremel makes no difference). This means, I believe, NGC would down grade the surfaces number rather than the strike number. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1325482[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>In 1997, I posted my grading page for ancient coins but used the terms "Conditions of Manufacture" and "Conditions of Preservation" rather than "Strike" and "Surfaces". I then toyed with a way of assigning a numerical value to those two areas of concern but decided I was not willing to fight tradition. About that same time, I became aware of a suggestion (who remembers? - was it by Paul Rynearson???) that did assign relative value numbers to some things but I never was comfortable with trying to say <u>this</u> amount of legend loss is equivalent to <u>that</u> amount of surface deposits. I am happy that NGC has not tried to tell us that a coin VF 4/5, 3/5 is comparable to a VF 2/5, 5/5 or anything of the like. I do know that some people prefer AU 2/5 2/5 compared to F 5/5 5/5. I don't.</p><p><br /></p><p>For the record, I do like the 'puck' and several other coins shown in this thread. If I post my coin, will we have a repeat of the previous 'fat wars' here when we discovered that my coin was not even in the top ten pucks or have all of those people moved along and no longer post here? </p><p>Ptolemy II AE46 - When I first weighed this, I got 90.0g but buying a digital scale to replace my old mechanical one with tiny weights reduced it to 89.9g unless you paid attention to that elusive hundredths digit that change according to factors like where the scale was located and whether the air conditioning was on. I suggest Arcane76 put puck on a high carb diet so it can someday play with the big coins.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1325514[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 7741850, member: 19463"]I do not pretend to be an NGC grader and have no idea where they would draw the lines between grades. I regret that I do not have a weakly struck Ptolemaic bronze to illustrate the point but perhaps my Hadrian sestertius will serve the point. This coin was weakly or flatly struck. I do not know whether it would get a 2/5 or what from NGC but more than that would be generous. In the old day, a coin like this could not be graded above fine because it has no laurel wreath detail but the coin really shows very little wear. There is a rather sharp line between the area with detail and the area lacking detail. In hand, the area without detail is [U]rather flat topped rather than rounded over[/U] as seen on the recently freed mini-puck. This sestertius fell from the dies in Fine by old standards and Mint State using current slab style grading. It may have picked up some wear along the way but I'd consider a 'wear only' grade of VF-EF appropriate. 'Puck' on the other hand fell from the dies as a real gem MS and 5/5 for strike. Over repeated spend/handle sequences it slowly became Fine but the strike does not change after the hammer stops ringing in the mint. The guys at NGC are very adept at telling the difference and people pay them for their opinions on the matter. My opinions are free and worth every cent of what you paid. Seriously, I am a firm believer in the idea that the hobby would be better off if we all would stop grading coins beyond the 'I like it' and 'It stinks' level. Before every coin in the universe had been photographed, we needed a way of transmitting information on what a coin looked like using two letters or less. We don't now. There will be many different opinions of what makes a coin more or less desirable. I am in the camp that favors nice surfaces and tend to disagree with many NGC surface ratings. I would prefer the 'puck' here with 5/5 surfaces even if it were not as solidly struck. I certainly would not want the coin if it were rough enough to get a 3/5 for surface roughness but might tolerate better a coin that had a graffito/scratch that would be NGC 2/5 for surfaces. We each will have our preferences. That is the name of the game when 'grading' ancients. Modern coin grading assumes 'normalcy' in many ways and 'body bags' coins that do not meet the 'normal' definition. Almost all ancients are body baggable. Many collectors of modern coins will drop in here in the ancient section only long enough to discover that we don't know anything about the subject they worship. [ATTACH=full]1325455[/ATTACH] Below is another sestertius (this one Commodus) lacking details on the high points. My early coin education called a coin like this 'brick cleaned' on the theory that the coin lost that high detail to being rubbed on a brick by some archaeologist intent on reading the coin. I believe this coin was struck better than the Hadrian but lost its high detail after it left the mint (whether to some stupid PhD candidate with a brick or some coin dealer/collector with a Dremel makes no difference). This means, I believe, NGC would down grade the surfaces number rather than the strike number. [ATTACH=full]1325482[/ATTACH] In 1997, I posted my grading page for ancient coins but used the terms "Conditions of Manufacture" and "Conditions of Preservation" rather than "Strike" and "Surfaces". I then toyed with a way of assigning a numerical value to those two areas of concern but decided I was not willing to fight tradition. About that same time, I became aware of a suggestion (who remembers? - was it by Paul Rynearson???) that did assign relative value numbers to some things but I never was comfortable with trying to say [U]this[/U] amount of legend loss is equivalent to [U]that[/U] amount of surface deposits. I am happy that NGC has not tried to tell us that a coin VF 4/5, 3/5 is comparable to a VF 2/5, 5/5 or anything of the like. I do know that some people prefer AU 2/5 2/5 compared to F 5/5 5/5. I don't. For the record, I do like the 'puck' and several other coins shown in this thread. If I post my coin, will we have a repeat of the previous 'fat wars' here when we discovered that my coin was not even in the top ten pucks or have all of those people moved along and no longer post here? Ptolemy II AE46 - When I first weighed this, I got 90.0g but buying a digital scale to replace my old mechanical one with tiny weights reduced it to 89.9g unless you paid attention to that elusive hundredths digit that change according to factors like where the scale was located and whether the air conditioning was on. I suggest Arcane76 put puck on a high carb diet so it can someday play with the big coins. [ATTACH=full]1325514[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Hockey puck freed!
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...