Prove me wrong: Market Acceptable does NOT mean problem free.

AND because a G-4 can get hairlines from being used that have nothing to do with cleaning

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

AAAAAAAAND I said NOTHING about it being from cleaning. The presence of any hairlines on a gem UNC coin, regardless of source, will instantly relegate it to a significantly lower grade (like MS-65 to MS-61). Hairlines on a G-4 have no effect unless it was scrubbed with a harsh abrasive.

 

Why weren't you more through though? You have been blasting a single page cliff notes version of PCGS grading for not mentioning everything possible yet you did the same?

I had to add that to make sure it was clear since you did not state it....

 

Which of these, if any, are problem-free?

Also, how do you determine if a raw coin is problem-free? By your definition, all raw coins are “problem” coins because they aren’t in a “problem-free slab.”

 

#3 looks market acceptable to me. Nothing really intentional, based on the pics.

 

Is the presence of a hairline on a mint state coin evidence of abrasive cleaning?

 

If you are talking sight unseen, then absolutely, every raw coin has the POTENTIAL to be a problem coin. Arguing that they ARE problem coins because the haven't been graded yet is ridiculous.

 

No. One hairline on a MS coin is definitely not a positive indicator of cleaning.

Coins in low grades with hairlines and no other signs of cleaning often have not been cleaned - rather, the hairlines are from circulation. I have a number of low grade Barber coins with hairlines from circulation, yet with original dark toning and circulation cameo.

 

No. I explicitly said otherwise. It could be from rubbing other coins, abrading against a mint bag, etc.

Okay, then what is the criteria for a raw coin to be problem-free?

 

What about a proof coin, they don’t touch other coins or mint bags?

It’s the same as graded coins. Is the damage on the coin market acceptable or not. Again, this all relates to the severity of the damage.

The real difference is that just like with numerical grades, we don’t afford sellers of raw coins the same weight of their opinion that the coin is problem free. And for good reason, they usually don’t have the same grading experience and even if they do, they are biased by their own self interest to profit from the sale of the coin.

 

So the coins themselves don’t matter and can’t stand on their own merit. Got it.

Improper storage in a coin tray or cloth.

 

You can say the exact same thing about the numerical grade.

For cheap coins, it doesn’t matter, when you talk about rare coins, no they can’t stand on their own merit.

Here’s my guess. When you were a coin flipper/dealer over the last few years, one of your business models was to use your knowledge of early American coinage to buy raw coins at discounted prices (1-2 grades lower than the actual grade), and then send them for grading to make a tidy profit. Did you ask why the raw coin couldn’t stand on its own merit, or did you simply exploit the fact that it couldn’t?

How would a proof coin that obtained hairlines from improper storage be differentiated from a proof coin that was wiped with a cloth?

 

What I exploited was the fact that people could not read sub-par eBay pictures well, as well as poor listing titles, poor auction timing, and incorrect category listing. Raw coins with good pictures actually sold fairly decently. I sold most of my coins raw because most were not worth the effort of sending them in, and the ones I did send in no one wanted raw for anywhere near their value. This was because they wanted to flip the coins themselves, or because they only buy slabbed material.

My BIN listings on eBay usually did just as good raw as slabbed for some reason. Must be my pictures.

I did, and the answer I came to was that 1) people are cheap and use a coin’s raw state to justify a cheap offer, 2) most collectors don’t trust themselves enough to assign a grade, so they’d prefer to minimize their risk as much as possible, and 3) the introduction of the TPGs has turned the focus away from the coins and onto the holders.

 

Yes, it is a combination of those three factors. People don't trust the seller's assigned grade and they don't have the confidence in their own grading skills to pay the price of the grade they think the coin is, rather they are willing to pay the price of the grade beneath what they think the coin is in order to minimize financial loss. The TPGs have leveled the playing field where the buyer feels confident in paying full price for the assigned grade but it has also led many collectors to become lazy and dependent upon TPG grades rather than the ability to grade for themselves and use the TPG grade as affirmation.

Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact that raw coins only stand on their own merit when people with the experience to grade for themselves without assistance from the TPGs are involved. I submit that is a very rare occurrence even in many dealer to dealer transactions.

 

You didn't answer my question in your latest reply so I will ask it again.

How would a proof coin that obtained hairlines from improper storage be differentiated from a proof coin that was wiped with a cloth?

 

If the hairlines are long, concentrated (like a in a patch), and deliberate-looking, then it has been improperly cleaned. Scattered hairlines that do not have all of these characteristics are likely not from a cleaning.

 

So now you are saying that you can determine the source of hairlines on proof coins?

This is the first proof coin I happened to look at. What caused the hairlines?



He's not really gonna do it, is he?

 

You asked about a specific case, and I told you what it would look like. Hairline patterns for an improper cleaning are distinctive.

The one you posted does not appear cleaned. And most of the significant “hairlines” appear to be on the holder.

 

And I'm telling you that there is absolutely no way you can definitively determine the source of hairlines on proof coins. The hairlines on liberty's cheek could just as easily be from storage or a single swipe of a cloth to clean dust from the coin. Furthermore, a swipe from a cloth is considered cleaning.

Listen, we get it. Everyone here understands that you are a legend in you own mind. You obviously think you are the Bobby Fischer of coin grading. The level of hubris you display without hesitation is staggering. In all the years I have collected coins, NOBODY has ever told me that they can discern the source of hairlines on proof coins.

Putting your arrogance to the side for a moment, let's get to the real point of this exercise. Fact: Proof coins have hairlines. Fact: Wiping a proof coin with a cloth will impart hairlines on the coin. Fact: Wiping a proof coin with a cloth is a method of cleaning the coin. Fact: Hairlines decrease the grade of proof coins, but they do not automatically relegate the coins to "problem coins." Fact: Cleaning proof coins by wiping them is acceptable as long as the damage is not too SEVERE!

You have spent pages of this thread making the claim than any coin that shows signs of abrasive cleaning is a problem coin. I have just demonstrated that your statement is false by showing that cleaned proof coins with hairlines are not automatically considered problem coins.

 

While we're on the subject of hairlines, here is a a quick little diagram that I just made. The top left is the hairlines one would expect on a problem-free AU coin, while the top right is the hairlines one would expect on a problem-free heavily-circulated coin. The key here is that the hairlines are purely random and, for the most part, short.

The middle left example has a patch of hairlines where a small portion was cleaned, like with a cloth or a Q-Tip. Note how the hairlines are long and have a deliberate pattern to them. Also note how the hairlines spread onto the devices (die polish lines do not do that). The middle right example has a larger patch.

The bottom left example has had the entire surface cleaned. For this example, a cloth/brush/etc was used in a circular motion over the entire surface. Again, notice the length and deliberate pattern. The right bottom example has had a lateral wiping/brushing, so the hairlines cover the coin in only one direction.