Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Let's start a discussion for the weekend : What is a scratch?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Insider, post: 8069906, member: 24314"]I THINK WE ARE VERY CLOSE but not finished. Thanks to all for expanding my original thoughts. Now for some comments to refine our thinking even more.</p><p><br /></p><p>GDJMSP, posted: "And therein lies the problem. Of course you knew that which is why you did this. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>That said I can't blame ya for doing it because I write about the same kind of thing all the time. <span style="color: #b30000">Definitions - it seems everybody has their own.</span> [<i><span style="color: #0000b3">Yes, big problem and IMO, both TPGS definitions in this thread are EXTREMELY POOR - especially this little ignorant fart: </span><span style="color: #663300">'A detracting line that is more severe than a hairline.'</span><span style="color: #0000b3"> from the <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie30" alt=":bucktooth:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie33" alt=":cigar:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie26" alt=":bookworm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> numismatic scholars at PCGS. The CT members posting have demonstrated much more knowledge! I guess those guys have a different definition for roller marks and adjustment marks. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie15" alt=":arghh:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />] </span></i>And it doesn't really matter what the word or subject is, that still holds true as evidenced by what has been posted so far in this thread. Another example would this, The PCGS definition, taken direct from their website - <a href="https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/s" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/s" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/s</a></p><p><br /></p><p><i>scratch</i></p><p><i>A detracting line that is more severe than a hairline. The size of a coin determines the point at which a line ceases to be viewed as a hairline and instead is regarded a scratch; the larger the coin, the greater the tolerance.</i></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660000">The first short sentence of that is the definition</span>, the rest are merely qualifiers. And as I'm reasonably certain you will, I too find it lacking.<span style="color: #0000b3"> [Yes lacking, except I <i>prefer an IGNORANT <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie91" alt=":stinkyfeet:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </i></span><i><span style="color: #0000b3">DISSERVICE to all of numismatics. And I sincerely hope my comment makes it on to their coin forum so that they can improve it with just a few seconds of thought]</span></i><span style="color: #000066"> </span>Now I'm not saying that I disagree with your qualifiers for a definition, to the contrary, I do agree. But I said it is a problem because of the limitations such qualifiers inflict on the task at hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>Given all of that, using bits and pieces what has been said so far and combining them I do think we can arrive at suitable definition. But - there is one crucial point, that I believe must be included in the definition that no one has yet mentioned and rather than state it, I want to see if anyone else can come up with what that point is."</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>GDJMSP, continued: "Well, the crucial point I was thinking of has been mentioned a couple of times now on page 2, (haven't gotten to page 3 yet). The term I was thinking of is "post strike", in my opinion, that has to be in there somewhere. Why? <i><span style="color: #0000b3">[The word '<b>COIN</b>' in the numismatic definition covers this] </span></i>A couple of reasons, one of which would be because it defines the <b>time frame. </b>[<i><span style="color: #0000b3">When, where, and how are not important for the definition. They describe the scratch just as its degree of severity.</span></i>] In other words it can occur can any point in the coin's life after it leaves the dies. And reason 2 would be because it eliminates planchet scratches which are fairly common even though only a few are visible post strike. But some are so it needs to be included."</p><p><br /></p><p>ksparrow, posted: "I like ToughCoins definition, but would add "<span style="color: #b30000">well defined</span>" and "<span style="color: #b30000">visible to the naked eye</span>". These two suggestion do not a definition make. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Jaelus, posted: "We all seem to agree that a hairline <i>is</i> a type of scratch, so then hairlines should be included in the definition. [<i><span style="color: #0000b3">Nope, the severity of the scratch does not define it</span></i>] <span style="color: #b30000">It is a completely separate point to define how the severity of a scratch (including hairlines) affects or does not affect the <b><font size="6">grade </font></b>when evaluating a coin. </span><span style="color: #000000">[</span><i><span style="color: #0000b3">absolutely true and grade, location, severity, how made, when made DO NOT belong in this discussion. It will derail my search for a precise definition. How we consider these things will make an excellent discussion later.]</span></i></p><p><br /></p><p>For example, certainly there are some lower grade coins that would grade with a minor scratch, depending on the severity, location, originality, etc. Also hairlines aren't evaluated the same way depending on the coin's finish. You don't adjust the definition of scratch to exclude these types of occurrences, that is a separate point.</p><p><br /></p><p>In other words a scratch doesn't magically transform into something else for those instances where it doesn't render a coin details. It's just being handled via the grading process. <span style="color: #b30000">Hairlines are [</span><i><span style="color: #0000b3">ONE TYPE</span></i><span style="color: #b30000">] scratches. </span><span style="color: #000000">Period. Don't overthink it."</span></p><p><br /></p><p>"Publius2, posted: "That is why I was working toward a dimensionless geometric definition with L/D ratio calculations. Not that that is intended to be the end-all of the conversation since this is very interesting.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>BTW, I don't think [USER=24314]@Insider[/USER] asked anything about the grading aspect when he posed the question. I think talking about grading distracts from his original intention.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>I have two quibbles with this definition: First, I don't think high pressure is a requirement [<b><i><span style="color: #0000b3">TRUE</span></i></b>] (think staple scratch) and cannot be determined after the fact in any event. Secondly, while raised edges are a typical characteristic of a scratch, they are not universally in evidence. So, any criteria that does not exist at all times cannot be a fundamental characteristic of the phenomenon." <i><span style="color: #0000b3"><b>TRUE, </b>and we can toss out raised up edges in our definition specifically because of hairlines! We don't examine coins at 200X where a virtually invisible hairline looks like a furrow in a plowed cornfield.<b> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></b></span></i></p><p><br /></p><p>ToughCOINS, posted "Staple scratches typically are produced by low forces on a minuscule surface area, resulting in an exceedingly high pressure, compared to rubbing a coin as hard as one can between thumb and forefinger, for example.</p><p>Even microscopic hairlines exhibit the raised edges I described."</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000b3">See above.</span></i></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000b3">So far, does both curvilinear and linear need to be in the definition? I think "Mechanically" does. A "Sliding" motion seems to be universal with scratches. Yes? No? "Surface" covers everything and adding "coin" will apply our definition to numismatics. However, forget coins and let's define a "scratch."</span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #0000b3"> </span></i>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Insider, post: 8069906, member: 24314"]I THINK WE ARE VERY CLOSE but not finished. Thanks to all for expanding my original thoughts. Now for some comments to refine our thinking even more. GDJMSP, posted: "And therein lies the problem. Of course you knew that which is why you did this. :) That said I can't blame ya for doing it because I write about the same kind of thing all the time. [COLOR=#b30000]Definitions - it seems everybody has their own.[/COLOR] [[I][COLOR=#0000b3]Yes, big problem and IMO, both TPGS definitions in this thread are EXTREMELY POOR - especially this little ignorant fart: [/COLOR][COLOR=#663300]'A detracting line that is more severe than a hairline.'[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000b3] from the :bucktooth::cigar::bookworm: numismatic scholars at PCGS. The CT members posting have demonstrated much more knowledge! I guess those guys have a different definition for roller marks and adjustment marks. :arghh::facepalm:] [/COLOR][/I]And it doesn't really matter what the word or subject is, that still holds true as evidenced by what has been posted so far in this thread. Another example would this, The PCGS definition, taken direct from their website - [URL]https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/s[/URL] [I]scratch A detracting line that is more severe than a hairline. The size of a coin determines the point at which a line ceases to be viewed as a hairline and instead is regarded a scratch; the larger the coin, the greater the tolerance.[/I] [COLOR=#660000]The first short sentence of that is the definition[/COLOR], the rest are merely qualifiers. And as I'm reasonably certain you will, I too find it lacking.[COLOR=#0000b3] [Yes lacking, except I [I]prefer an IGNORANT :stinkyfeet: [/I][/COLOR][I][COLOR=#0000b3]DISSERVICE to all of numismatics. And I sincerely hope my comment makes it on to their coin forum so that they can improve it with just a few seconds of thought][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=#000066] [/COLOR]Now I'm not saying that I disagree with your qualifiers for a definition, to the contrary, I do agree. But I said it is a problem because of the limitations such qualifiers inflict on the task at hand. Given all of that, using bits and pieces what has been said so far and combining them I do think we can arrive at suitable definition. But - there is one crucial point, that I believe must be included in the definition that no one has yet mentioned and rather than state it, I want to see if anyone else can come up with what that point is." GDJMSP, continued: "Well, the crucial point I was thinking of has been mentioned a couple of times now on page 2, (haven't gotten to page 3 yet). The term I was thinking of is "post strike", in my opinion, that has to be in there somewhere. Why? [I][COLOR=#0000b3][The word '[B]COIN[/B]' in the numismatic definition covers this] [/COLOR][/I]A couple of reasons, one of which would be because it defines the [B]time frame. [/B][[I][COLOR=#0000b3]When, where, and how are not important for the definition. They describe the scratch just as its degree of severity.[/COLOR][/I]] In other words it can occur can any point in the coin's life after it leaves the dies. And reason 2 would be because it eliminates planchet scratches which are fairly common even though only a few are visible post strike. But some are so it needs to be included." ksparrow, posted: "I like ToughCoins definition, but would add "[COLOR=#b30000]well defined[/COLOR]" and "[COLOR=#b30000]visible to the naked eye[/COLOR]". These two suggestion do not a definition make. ;) Jaelus, posted: "We all seem to agree that a hairline [I]is[/I] a type of scratch, so then hairlines should be included in the definition. [[I][COLOR=#0000b3]Nope, the severity of the scratch does not define it[/COLOR][/I]] [COLOR=#b30000]It is a completely separate point to define how the severity of a scratch (including hairlines) affects or does not affect the [B][SIZE=6]grade [/SIZE][/B]when evaluating a coin. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][[/COLOR][I][COLOR=#0000b3]absolutely true and grade, location, severity, how made, when made DO NOT belong in this discussion. It will derail my search for a precise definition. How we consider these things will make an excellent discussion later.][/COLOR][/I] For example, certainly there are some lower grade coins that would grade with a minor scratch, depending on the severity, location, originality, etc. Also hairlines aren't evaluated the same way depending on the coin's finish. You don't adjust the definition of scratch to exclude these types of occurrences, that is a separate point. In other words a scratch doesn't magically transform into something else for those instances where it doesn't render a coin details. It's just being handled via the grading process. [COLOR=#b30000]Hairlines are [[/COLOR][I][COLOR=#0000b3]ONE TYPE[/COLOR][/I][COLOR=#b30000]] scratches. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]Period. Don't overthink it."[/COLOR] "Publius2, posted: "That is why I was working toward a dimensionless geometric definition with L/D ratio calculations. Not that that is intended to be the end-all of the conversation since this is very interesting. [B] BTW, I don't think [USER=24314]@Insider[/USER] asked anything about the grading aspect when he posed the question. I think talking about grading distracts from his original intention.[/B] I have two quibbles with this definition: First, I don't think high pressure is a requirement [[B][I][COLOR=#0000b3]TRUE[/COLOR][/I][/B]] (think staple scratch) and cannot be determined after the fact in any event. Secondly, while raised edges are a typical characteristic of a scratch, they are not universally in evidence. So, any criteria that does not exist at all times cannot be a fundamental characteristic of the phenomenon." [I][COLOR=#0000b3][B]TRUE, [/B]and we can toss out raised up edges in our definition specifically because of hairlines! We don't examine coins at 200X where a virtually invisible hairline looks like a furrow in a plowed cornfield.[B] :D[/B][/COLOR][/I] ToughCOINS, posted "Staple scratches typically are produced by low forces on a minuscule surface area, resulting in an exceedingly high pressure, compared to rubbing a coin as hard as one can between thumb and forefinger, for example. Even microscopic hairlines exhibit the raised edges I described." [I][COLOR=#0000b3]See above.[/COLOR][/I] [I][COLOR=#0000b3]So far, does both curvilinear and linear need to be in the definition? I think "Mechanically" does. A "Sliding" motion seems to be universal with scratches. Yes? No? "Surface" covers everything and adding "coin" will apply our definition to numismatics. However, forget coins and let's define a "scratch." [/COLOR][/I][/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
>
US Coins Forum
>
Let's start a discussion for the weekend : What is a scratch?
>
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...
