Perfect or Numismatically Perfect?

There is a difference between 'magnification' and resolution, Magnify a pinpoint at 10X to 1000X and you do not see more details, just the limits @ 10X (very very slight blur ) to 1000X ( that very slight blur is now 100X more blurry) But if the 1000X lens are optimized for that, the resolution is much better and more details will be seen accurately. Same as using a 10g x.01 balance and a 10g X .0001 balance.

Also the lowest resolving component in the chain of magnification using the human eye is - The human eye . It is just a single simple flexible mass of cells. At yours and my age, photography is the only way to be very accurate. The brain's visual mechanisms are also not 100% in perception. In my class I use 'Photoshop(tm)' as a comparison, the brain makes things appear as we wish it . We wish our own better than others~ naturally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

OK, teach me what is correct. If a zoom scope is operating properly, I can go from 5X to 80X (using light pipe) and the image of the coin's surface will be sharp (resolution?) only magnified 80 times. The depth of field may get problematic at 80X (the blur?). The same thing (?) happens on an SEM. Extremely sharp image (resolution & extreme magnification) with no blur.

That's why I posted that once I cannot find any problems on a coin at 10X it rarely changes at higher powers and IMO, anything over 10X (with good light and two eyes) is plenty of power when looking for "perfection."

 

So what! Since both of them do their own thing, wouldn't it seem prudent for the collector to learn guidelines that are intended for everyone?

Chris

 

I couldn't agree more, Chris.

I have long professed that people learn to grade for themselves and only buy coins that have met their own personal grading standard, regardless of what the TPG says.

 

But when viewing a coin that has fewer defects than a given 70 graded coin, what does that make the better coin? More perfect??? Semantics are important, and as a hobby, we need to be able to communicate and pass on concepts that are understandable if we want to educate the numismatists of the future.

 

To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often.....

Winston Churchill


Was there ever an '70 grade back in the late eighties. I don't think so, but if I'm wrong, you folks can correct me. What have the Big Two done since their respective foundings in the eighties? Changed their standards, and, changed them often. Ones personal view of perfection lies purely in their individual nature. Perfection is something we all might not agree upon but it's (personal) achievement is something many of us strive for........

 

Actually, Ken, there was (a 70 grade back then). Doug was telling us in another thread (https://www.cointalk.com/threads/anacs-rp-proof-70-but-not.288259/page-2#post-2599676) that MS grades used to be as follows: MS-60, MS-65, MS-70, and that's it. So if a coin graded better than a 65, it was technically graded 70.

 

Are there any '70 holders from that era Mike?

 

70* would make sense to me: it's a 70 with exceptional eye appeal (likely due to toning). 70+ though...

I seem to remember the grading scale effectively stopping at 65, so you'd have 60, 63, 65. Maybe it was 67? I dunno. Point is, I never saw any coin graded MS-70, and my take on the description in the ANA book was that such a thing effectively couldn't exist.

 

no, there were no TPGs, but the standards of the time dictated a grade of MS-70 at a specific standard. That means it existed. I was just trying to be complete.

 

70+, 70* = MORE perfect...LOL

 

No, it just means the coin graded 70 with the defects is not a 70 and was assigned that grade by mistake because something was overlooked OR the coin looked like a market acceptable 70 by the TPGS standards. In any case, IT NEVER WAS PERFECT to begin with!

At 5X, if a SE has a tiny nick (PMD) hidden in the flag, IT IS NOT perfect. If a SE has a tiny mint made struck through hidden in the flag, IT IS NOT perfect. However, a mint made "hidden" mark like this is often either unseen or ignored by the TPGS. Either way, collectors can decide for themselves if the coin is perfect. Once a coin is actually perfect, that's the end of it... - except if it gets beautifully toned. Then we can argue if oxidation is good or bad.

Just now, I'm reminded of my little nephew. He always has another question or way to twist his simple original question in an attempt to get me to come up with a different answer. It's fun and a lot of giggles for us both.

 

All systems with lens ( either glass/quartz/synthetic diamond or magnetic ( electron microscopes ) will have limitations. Light was the first and still most common medium used, then UV light with a shorter wavelength ( thus higher resolution) was used, but since humans can not see UV, it was only for photos or fluorescent screens, then electron beams ( shorter wavelengths the higher the resolution).
http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/basics/resolution.html

Zoom scopes change the lens spacings, and thus the magnification, but the resolution decrease as the magnification increases. Last week a store advertised a telescope with 635X, but the objective size and the focal length limited it to much lower magnification, if you wanted to see even middle size craters on the moon.

In the case of SEM or even TEM, the wavelength of the beam still determines resolution. Since humans have to use a screen , photography, or electronic detectors, and in the case of SEM, an electronic beam scanning system, they also use computer type circuitry to maximize image and reduce noise of the image they present to you. When the imaged area is small ( low power) there are more true data points than when higher power is used ( similar number of data points) so interpolation ( non true data points are used), so resolution decreases.

Zoom scopes which have different lens for each level ( 7-10, 10-15, 15-30) are actually more accurate, but of course more expense for the level of the scope. You might ask if the beam strength of the SEM could be raised for higher resolution, and it can in theory, until it starts causing damage to the specimen. I incinerated many specimens ( live insects) with a SEM , dead or non-organics do quite well.

 

Totally understand. I just wanted to highlight that there were no 70's graded , and housed in holders, from that era. Correct?

 

All 70s are not equal/perfect because all TPGs are not equal/perfect in their standards and because all graders are not equal/perfect in their judgments. IMO, all a 70 means is that at some specific point in time, a grader (or perhaps a consensus of graders) determined that this coin was a numismatically perfect 70. Crack it out and send it to a different TPG and you might get a different answer. You might even get a different answer from the original TPG.

 

Correctamundo!

 

CAC won't do moderns. If classic coins were deserving of the MS/PF70 grade then CAC would review the coin and sticker it if appropriate.

 

Given that there is no universally-accepted definition for a 70, it's easy to agree that all that's required to designate one is the particular standard the grader holds to. That, though, also means that one doesn't have to hold to the same standard as the grader did....

Let us stipulate that "perfection" in a coin isn't possible, because the designer never specified what constitutes it and the Mint cannot produce it anyway. The former *might* be arguable in the sense that any deviation from the lines in the designer's final execution of the product constitute "imperfection," but it's a given that the designer would factor production realities into the design and plan for some deviation. Meaning, he/she didn't specify "perfection."

And those production realities inevitably include some slight variation between dies, even if that only means the microscopic amount of wear added to the hub from the previous die press, or some slight difference in pressure when the die is hubbed. One must further factor the inevitable die lines deep in the recesses of the design, some of which are major players in the attribution of the Morgans I love. Is their presence a disqualification for a 70?

So, when I personally contemplate a 70 I'm holding to the strictest-possible definition of the term, well aware that sheer perfection isn't happening since it isn't defined. Which, in my case, means anything leaving doubt in my mind whether it was a deliberate design feature - or an absolutely inevitable artifact of the die creation process - doesn't count. You can find anything if you look hard enough.

So in truth, Mike, I think we're closer to agreement than not.

 

All that I can add to this discussion is if you are looking to find a perfect coin, go to an Estate, but be sure and leave all your coins at home because lots of them get lost there.
It's true, I saw it on eBay.

 

Grading for me is usually for authentication purposes. If I buy graded, I usually crack the coin out. I think some TPGs are biased in grading, and hand out way too many 70s. And in my experience, when going to sell a 70, most dealers around my area could care less, and don't take it into consideration when selling. They always have some excuse to low ball .I've owned very few 70s.