Featured Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?

I have often been a strong believer that marks in that marks in the prime focal area of a coin are essentially grade limiting marks. After all, how many times have we seen a gem coin with one distraction that prevents the coin from achieving gem status. Here is a good example of what I am talking about. This 1880-S Morgan Dollar was graded MS64* by NGC because of the significant mark found on lady Liberty's cheek.



If we remove this mark from the coin, the effect is pronounced and there is very little doubt that the coin is an MS65.



Even PCGS supports this grading practice as evidenced by this quote from THE PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION (pg 5).

This leads me to my question. Should a single significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade from a TPG? Even if the other elements of the grade from a holistic approach would normally merit a gem or even premium gem grade, should the grade be limited by the mark? For the purposes of this discussion, a significant mark is one that can't go unnoticed even upon casual inspection of the coin.

Here is an example of the kind of coin I am talking about (photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions). This is a 1964 Jefferson Nickel with a major mark right on Jefferson's jaw line. The 1964 was an issue that was produced over 1 billion nickels. Quantity not quality was the goal of the mint that year and the majority of the coins bear marks and poor overall strikes. This example has an unusually strong strike and in fact bears full steps. The surfaces are those of a gem state coin with the exception of the mark on the face.



Without the mark, this coin would have a shot at MS66 even though the two significant marks in the reverse fields could hold the coin at MS65. The overall appearance of the coin is impressive for a 1964 Jefferson Nickel. Without the mark, the coin has the appearance of a premium gem as seen from the healed photo below.



Now we know that the TPG's employ a system of market grading coins. We have all seen how rainbow toning in combination with luster can create eye appeal that will cause a coin to receive a grade bump due to the resultant eye appeal. It appears obvious that PCGS has also market graded this Jefferson due to the otherwise excellent surfaces and the superior strike for the date/mm. What I want to know is should they have? Does market grading coins like this one hurt the integrity of the gem grade?

Please vote in the attached poll and share your comments regarding this topic!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't like the concept of market grading......never have and never will. Either the coin is or it isn't, and the example you've posted, i.e., Morgan vs. Jefferson, is a perfect example why I don't like it.

Chris

 

I believe it should. It's very hard to look at that morgan without my attention being gathered towards the cheek mark. Thus, if such distracting marks exist on the coin, I don't see how it could be considered a gem. It takes a lot away from the appearance of the coin and really hurts the overall beauty.

Eric

 

Who is gonna vote no?
Of course a significant mark should prevent a gem grade. Is anybody going to argue the fact that the Morgan you posted needs to be in a 65 holder right away. I doubt it.
As a grader you have to pay attention to all details of the coin, you can't just forget about one to make it a gem.

 

The term "significant" is at least somewhat ambiguous and subjective, and I would have different answers depending upon the coins in question. In this case, based on the images provided, I would not automatically dismiss an MS65 grade for the Morgan Dollar.

Finally, a coin can be accurately graded, but a good many people not like it, due to a distraction (such as a mark in the prime focal area).

 

So in this case Mark, what are you saying.
What would you grade this coin MS64 or 65?
Going back to what you said, even if this coin was a MS65, not a whole lot of people that know how to grade, what necessarily agree with the grade.
With the marks on the coin, including the dominant one, I say the grade of the dollar is and should remain MS64

 

I think it is time to take a look at some examples and see if everyone is right. The first coin is an 1899-O Morgan Dollar with gorgeous obverse toning and superb obverse surfaces save the significant mark on the cheek.





BTW Mark, I defined the term "significant" in the OP. For the purposes of this discussion, a significant mark is one that can't go unnoticed even upon casual inspection of the coin.

​

 

I voted "No". The reason for this is because I grade coins by looking at the entirety of the coin, which includes marks, strike, eye appeal, surface quality, likely original strike details and remaining detail. Therefore, each component is a bit fluid for me.

 

It depends on what is being graded not only the coin type and but the years in the same set. Like that first one you posted is a common date and has very high quality for the type. There for a mark that you speak of is more important. But in a lesser minted year it would not be as important.
With that said I guess I'm saying "NO" as you should grade differently for different types and years.

 

I believe this to be the right answer. All hard and fast rules that we create will eventually lead to the exception to that rule. By not creating firm rules, we allow ourselves the flexibility to come to the right conclusion for every situation. Precisely because each situation can vary so greatly, flexibility in grading becomes an absolute necessity.

Mark was basically saying the same thing but in a much more political way. Personally, I feel that every coin that I have shown in this thread is properly graded, but then again, that is my opinion.

 

Paul, that second coin, I would grade MS65. That particular mark could be holding it back from a 66 though. I wouldn't necessarily grade that coin at 66 without the mark, but thats not to say somebody won't.
Yes, I do think all cases need to be examined carefully, but all marks should be consider, and a big ole' scratch on a prime focal point should still affect the grade IMO.

 

Absolutely!

 

So if a dealer is selling it's "PQ" "UNDERGRADED" If the dearlear is buying- That's WAY Overgraded see that mark those graders are blind! I'll give you 20% off GS @ MS63

 

I disagree - there is ambiguity. Part of the above makes reference to marks (as in plural) in the prime focal areas. But what if there is just one obvious mark, as opposed to a number of minor ones? That isn't even specifically addressed. And on a practical basis, many grading intricacies can't be addressed in written standards, because there are so many variables from coin to coin.

And, on a different matter, while you didn't include written standards for one grade compared to another, I have read them. And, as written, they make it essentially impossible to distinguish one grade from the next one up or down. That is due to subjectivity and ambiguity, which are inherent in grading.

 

The PCGS guidelines you quoted state, in part: "Gem Uncirculated There may be some scattered marks, hairlines, or other minor defects. If the flaws are in a main focal area, they must be minor and few."

To me, that does not necessarily address the situation where there is a single mark. "Scattered" certainly means means more than one, and ditto for "flaws". The ANA guidelines also refer to "marks", not a single mark.

In many, if not most cases, the ANA standards to which you refer are general and ambiguous enough such that they do not allow one to distinguish one grade from the next. And that is not a complaint, as I don't think written standards are capable of doing that.

​

 

IMO the two morgans you show differ more in the minor marks than the significant ones. The one significant mark or the cheek of the 64 added with the small marks all over the obverse fields and liberty's neck merit this grade. Where as I personally think the eye appeal of the 65 with the extremely clean fields make the one significant mark a little less distracting. Although I might consider a 66 for this coin if the mark weren't there. JMO. For what it is worth I am putting together a Pcgs certified morgan set and look at a lot of 64pcgs morgan and the 64 is pretty much right on par with most of them.

 

I voted no. Like a few others have said, I grade the coin as a whole. Now this may be considered improper grading by some standards/guidelines but personally I find it the best way. I do believe significant marks in prime focal areas should knock the grade down, but I don't think it should automatically limit a coin to an MS64.

Here's an example from Northeast Numismatics: An 1882-S Morgan graded MS67 by PCGS (Northeast Numismatic)




http://www.northeastcoin.com/popupcontainer.jsp?include=/popup/viewimage.jsp&itemkey=zi14_15220660

The main hit on this coin is the 2 clear reed marks on Liberty's chin. Imo you can't argue that isn't a significant mark in a prime focal area. Now look at the coin as a whole, anyone who's familiar with Morgan dollars has to recognize this coin is higher than a MS64.

PCGS called it a 67, imo, because of the hit on the cheek I would call it a technical 66, but because of the superb luster and eye appeal it got bumped to a 67. (Yes, 67s should have great luster, but my guess is this one in hand has serious eye appeal).

Now to anyone who calls this a 64 because they limit the coin because of the significant mark in a prime focal area isn't wrong, and I'm not right for calling it a 67. The problem is different grading standards, and I think it's up to each collector to choose for themselves what kind of standards they want to use.