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

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we don't disagree as broadly as I had thought..... unless, that is, you disagree with Paul's post above yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree. Markets should affect PRICING, not grade. Differences in grade availability in different years should affect price, and not the grader.

I have an 1837 Large Cent in near MS, but which was always struck weakly on the reverse. Now the price should reflect that fact, not the grade. I would therefore expect to find larger quantities of lower MS available at a price premium and none in the higher states because of poor strike.

Now that brings up a different question. Since MS has 11 grades for MS, that means they must be distinguished by condition, rather than wear. All other grades are determined by wear and condition concerns are netted down to a grade below it's level of wear. Shouldn't an AU in great condition (mine) bring more than a MS in poor condition?

Should all coins be graded for wear and condition independently? I know I've started using a detail/net system, but a wear/condition would do nicely as well.

 

delete

 

I would agree that one mark should not alter the grade that significantly, with one caveat--that would be if the mark were extremely obvious, and distracting in terms of the coin's eye appeal, and overall surface preservation state. The coin you originally depicted seemed to be clearly a MS 65, and got the negatives exaggerated. However, I think that the reasonable approach would be to take the overall grading of a coin like that---a beautiful, clean coin with one distraction on a case-by-case basis. First, how bad is the mark? Is it distracting from the overall appearance of the coin, or is it an isolated flaw? Does the mark, or does the overall surface of the coin define the coin's appearance? This is a judgement call, and I feel it is an individual basis thing, as opposed to a general policy. There are grading standards to begin with, and judgement is implicit in them. Second, what is the overall presentation of the coin? Does it still look like a MS 65, for example, or does the mark render it a 64 when one looks at the whole coin? Definitely a case for sound judgement, and overall evaluation IMHO.

 

Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. I've learned a lot from it. I think some others who tend to argue on this site would benefit from reading this post and how to, with civility, discuss, debate, even disagree, but with respect AND keep things on-topic. Thanks again to the posters.

 

Wow, blast from the past.

My comment on this thread: It is impossible to objectively describe something that is subjective. You can try but you will always fall short.

I miss Mark posting here. He and I see eye to eye on so many things, it's kind of scary.

 

I definitely think that Yes, such a mark should not hold it back but just grade what it would grade wo/the toning. Especially with a mark like that on the cheek, it's a 64 all day no matter what toning it has.


oh yeah

<------- 1000th POST YAYYY Contest coming soon!!

 

yes

 

I think the single mark in the prime focal area, such as the example of the Morgan given here, should affect the grade and keep it from the 65. Just as football is a game of inches, I believe coin grading is a game of minute details and eye appeal. If those were two separate Morgans side by side, both given a 65 grade, the one without the mark on the cheek would be more desirable, fully earning the 65. It's a fair argument though.

 

yep

 

In this case the answer is yes, but this cannot be a blanket statement about all Morgans. The coin in question is an 80-S (albeit a VERY attractive one- love the toning). It's a common date that comes nice...thus a mark such as the one seen here would carry more weight than it would on, say, a Carson City issue of the same year, which is notorious for being heavily bagmarked... so all other things being equal, if this were the CC version it would be an easy 5 and shot 6.

Similar situation with the 1964 nickel. It's a widget date, and though you make the argument that they are normally weak, the strike isn't the issue here. Frankly you're looking at a smaller piece composed of a comparatively tough metal...thus it's harder to impart a significant mark like that. I think the 65FS label is accurate there, if not a tad generous IMO.

 

The date shouldnt matter. A grade should be universal. If a date/mm doesnt come in 65 then so be it. Otherwise why stop there? Why not take the best example of every date and call that an ms70?

 

Grading on a curve?

 

First you say a grade should be universal, then you acknowledge that certain dates don't come nice. Different issues from different mints or even the same mint were simply not consistently struck every year. 1880-S Morgans are some of the nicest pieces in the series; they have a high percentage of 65 and up grades with lots of PL and DMPL pieces. Show me an 1880- CC or 80-O that looks just like OP's coin as far as absence of marks, strike, etc. and I'll guarantee you it will get graded higher because it would be a rare exception rather than one of many.

 

Yes, a coin should NOT get a gem grade if there is a prominent distracting mark in a focal area. However, the market price of the coin may deserve a much higher price than another coin of the same grade. Thus, the coin could still sell at the 65 price even though the grade is 64.

 

Yes, it happens all the time. A prominent ding or scratch can drop a grade significantly, even if the coin has great eye appeal.

 

yes

 

absolutly

 

While I'm not a dealer and I probably make many mistakes with grading, I'd avoid coins such as your 80-S Morgan dollar, because of the cheek mark. When I collected US, I loved seated dollars and a mark on the arm getting a net grade of 64 wouldn't be a killer for me. Likewise I'd prefer a few scuffs in the field rather than a mark on the cheek.