Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1053232, member: 112&quot;]On this point he is 100% correct - they are very inconsistent. PCGS more so than any other.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Scratches are not wear in any way, shape or form. Scratches are just that - scratches. But - as Jim pointed out scratches can prevent a coin from being slabbed as MS, if the scratches are severe enough. </p><p><br /></p><p>Where some people get confused with scratches is that scratches can occur to a coin while that coin is in circulation. But they can also occur to a coin that has never, ever been in circulation. Example - a coin fresh from the mint gets scratched by a staple in a 2x2 cardboard holder.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>True, but what you describe signifies significant wear. Minor wear will not lessen the thickness at all. Instead it will only create a break in the luster, but it is wear all the same.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Rub is nothing more than a euphemism for very light or minor wear. The term was coined so that collectors, dealers, TPGs, could all have a way to describe a coin that had never been in circulation but yet the coin still had obvious light wear or breaks in the luster. In other words using the word &quot;rub&quot; is a way of making an excuse for a coin so that it can still be called MS when it really isn&#039;t. <i>(this is why the TPGs say right in their grading standards that a coin with &quot;rub&quot; or light wear can be graded as high as MS67).</i> Use of the word rub presumes that the rub <i>(light wear)</i> was caused by roll friction <i>(coins rubbing against one another in while in a roll and thus creating breaks in the luster)</i> or by cabinet friction <i>(coins rubbing against the velvet liner of a coin cabinet)</i>. </p><p><br /></p><p>But the term rub is not used when talking about Proofs, generally the term is reserved for talking about business strike coins because Proofs are not supposed to see circulation to begin with, although it does sometimes happen. And not all Proofs have frost either. Only Cameo Proofs have frost, brilliant Proofs do not. And - some business strike coins also have frost, like Morgan dollars. So when the frost of a Cameo Proof or the the frost of a Morgan is partially missing or damaged those marks are called frost breaks. Frost breaks are an entirely different thing than rub and can have multiple causes. For instance, frost breaks can occur from coins rubbing against one another, but they can also occur during the minting process. If for example the coin is struck with worn dies then the frost may not be imparted to all of the areas of the coin that are supposed to have the frost.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is why some Proof coins are designated as Cameo and some are designated as Deep Cameo, and also why some do not get the Cameo designation at all. Measuring the frost on a Proof coin is a matter of degree, and that degree is what determines the designation.</p><p><br /></p><p>It should also be noted that no excuses or allowances are made for Proof coins having rub when it comes to grading. For if a Proof coin has even the slightest amount of wear (which is what rub is) then it must be graded as an impaired Proof and the grade will be under 60. That is but another reason that rub is not used when talking about proof coins.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Using the word gouge to describe a scratch is not a good idea either. A gouge is much more serious than a scratch and will almost always result in the coin getting the damaged designation thus making the coin ungradeable. I suppose the best to think about it would be to consider a gouge as being a much wider, and sometimes deeper, mark than a scratch. Scrathes are typically very thin marks on a coin made by something small, pointed and sharp like the corner of a staple or a pin. They can of course vary in depth. And again, it is a matter of degree. For if a scratch is long enough, and/or deep enough, then the coin must be considered damaged and thus ungradeable. </p><p><br /></p><p>But there are no rules set forth to determine this. It is always left up to the opinion of the person doing the grading. And for that reason it is by definition inconsistent.</p><p><br /></p><p>Think of it this way when trying to accurately describe a coin&#039;s marks. A hairline is a very fine line on the surface of a coin. Sometimes so fine that they can only be seen from a certain angle when the light is just right. Hairlines are at the bottom of the scale.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then you would have lines caused by harsh cleaning. These lines are deeper and more readily visible than hairlines, but yet not as deep, wide or as visible as a scratch would be.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then you have a scratch, typically caused by something small, sharp and pointed that leaves a mark of varying length in the surface of a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then you have a gouge, this is typically a heavy and deep mark that is wider than a scratch would be. Gouges can be caused by many things, tools, rocks, sharp corners on objects - almost anything. And they can vary greatly in depth, length and width. Gouges are inflicted with more force, more pressure if you will than scratches, cleaning marks or hairlines. Gouges are at the top of the scale opposite hairlines.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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