Sure signs an unciculated coin has been cleaned

I think these replies are indicative of the US obsession with grading and cleaning, relative to the world I think. I think the TPGs do a good job pointing out those coins that are obviously cleaned and therefore damaged, but the ones that have more subtle cleaning and light cleaning perhaps should be graded overall instead of details graded. I've heard in England they r not so obsessed and in some cases it's probably better that way. I'm guess I'm ambiguous because if I had to choose I'd choose the US system, so to speak. But sometimes the obsession with an MS 65 vs an 66 or innocuous cleaning gets to me sometimes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is there a TPG in Europe?

 

Well it looks pretty good to me....wonder if it could be restored?

 

http://www.pcgseurope.com/Article/PCGS-Expands-Europe-Services?l=en

 

If I am not mistaken (which I often am) restoration is for environmental damage, not for damage caused by harsh cleaning.

 

I think for modern coins it's not so much of a problem since there are so many problem-free examples. For classic coins though, there is already some leeway. TPGs will slab coins as problem-free that have very minor problems if the coin is old enough. Where to draw that line is subjective.

If you think about it, anything that harms the condition of an uncirculated coin is a "problem", as in something that lessens the value and appeal of the coin. This includes normal wear. For example the problem with a coin in a lower grade is that it has excessive wear. This problem is reflected in the relative price of a coin versus one that is uncirculated. This is much like how other problems (cleaning, damage, etc.) are reflected in the price of a coin.

The only difference between damage from wear and damage from other problems is that the progression of damage from wear is well understood, allowing it to be described with relative consistency. The Sheldon scale's weakness is that it only describes the problem of wear on a coin (excepting for market grading). As other problems tend to be unique in appearance, this makes them very difficult to describe and to price.

There are plenty of higher grade details coins out there that have good eye appeal and are certainly more valuable than lower grade "problem-free" coins. I think the move from body bagging to details grading was a good move on behalf of the TPGs, but I don't think it has gone far enough. I don't agree with PCGS and NGC not listing the numeric grade on details coins, i.e. listing AU Details instead of AU 53 Details, etc. I think ANACS does it the right way in that regard.

Ideally, I'd like to see the top TPGs move away from this arbitrary problem/problem-free distinction, and simply list a grade according to wear, along with a manifest of non-wear conditions if there are any. For example take a classic coin that has an old innocuous cleaning that has toned over and has good eye appeal. Sometimes this coin will grade clean and sometimes it will details grade. Holdering it in a graded slab is problematic as the coin has been cleaned, but holdering it in a details slab is also problematic as it would hurt the marketability of the coin more than is warranted. If they simply listed the technical grade to describe the wear along with "old light cleaning" the coin is much more accurately described.

As always, buy the coin and not the holder. The distinction between problem-free and problem coins is arbitrary, as the only problem-free coins are MS 70s. There are really only attractive coins and unattractive coins, and that is subjective. Just buy the coins you like at what you think is a fair price.

 

You r spot on. However, I think the problem details graded coins should be given a regular, lower grade. That way you can easily assign a fair price with not much haggling. Currently, there's no agreement at all with details graded coins. One person thinks all should be half the price for a coin with problems at an au or xf grade, whereas someone else might say most of these coins r not much more than bullion. It really depends on the problem I think. I'm sure the TPGs can think of a formula that assigns these problem coins the right lower grade. Eg, a coin with an obvious obverse scratch might jump from an xf to a Vf, or maybe a vg is it's hideous. Maybe the back of slab can display a point system showing negative points for the problem scratch, 1 being low, 3 being a higher or worse problem. I'm just sick of seeing overpriced problem coins or buyers disregarding them all even when problems are minor. This all conveys arrogance or something like that I think

 

And yet coin grading has evolved considerably since its inception. Modern coin grading and grading services are still in their infancy compared to the age of the hobby. This is something that is going to continue to be debated and will continue to evolve as improvements to the grading system arise that allow for larger populations of coins to be described accurately.

You can determine and describe the condition of any coin, regardless of problems. I can send an AU 55 coin and an AU 55 coin with a scratch to ANACS and they will send them both back slabbed; one as "AU 55" and the other as "AU 55 Details Scratched". The coins' conditions have been accurately described, and as such they have both been graded.

Aside from MS70s, all coins have problems. Wear on a coin is a type of damage and any damage is a problem. Why grade exclusively based on the amount of damage from wear but not based on other damage? That distinction is arbitrary. The only difference between these types of damage is that we can describe wear using the Sheldon scale, whereas other types of damage are going to be unique to the coin. So to are positive conditions unique to a coin.

I don't like of the idea of assigning coins with negative conditions a lower grade to reflect their market value, or the idea of assigning coins with positive conditions a higher grade to reflect their market value either. I don't see why some problem coins make it into problem-free slabs now because they look "good enough". That is a deceptive practice arising from the pressure to grade coins clean.

What's wrong with TPGs simply listing a number to describe the level of damage from wear, and then a listing of conditions (if there are any) so that the coin is accurately described?

The pristine AU 55 from my example above would still grade AU 55 problem free. The scratched one would grade AU 55 Scratched. An MS 61 with an old light cleaning that may have made MS 61 problem free would be MS 61 Light Cleaning. An MS 65 with pleasing toning that may have made MS 66 would get MS 65 Positive Toning. Less subjective grading, more accurate descriptions. Better information to let the buyer make an informed choice.

 

Absolutely. Always buy the coin and not the holder.

Having said that, when they started slabbing coins there were no internet auctions. You can't always tell the true condition of a coin online, even a slabbed one. The prevalence of online sales makes it a lot more important for the info on the slab to be accurate for a buyer to make an informed purchase. Having slabs with more detailed information and a system that encourages more people to submit problem coins for grading can only help the hobby.

 

I took these photos a few years ago...

Too shiny, hairlines...


Old cleaning, toned over older hairlines...


Cleaned, hairlines...


Cleaned, hairlines...


Plus this topic...

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1943-walker-surface-whats-wrong.244109/#post-1883192

 

U have a point. But I mostly want to raise the issue because there's no way to price these coins in a fair way to both buyer and seller. I don't think it's so bad to say all xf's with minor problems r worth a good grade, and all Uncs with minor problems r worth a vf grade. One can dream I guess. Or how about this: a separate grading system and price guide just for problem coins! That would really market them better. Sure it would be a little nuts, but it could be fun, and more importantly useful. Just thinking aloud. I don't think the hundred years you talk about factored in only non problem coins; I think they were always a part of the grading system and things have only tightened up and excluded more and more problems as time has gone by.

 

I agree it would be best to examine all purchases in hand, but I believe the hobby will change to mostly being through Internet sales just the same way everything is changing. Due to convenience. Even when someone buys a TV nowadays they go to the cheapest website to get it even if they never saw it in a store.

 

THird party graders have gotten more liberal since there inception around 30 years ago, and slightly I would argue. I don't think the adjectival system before that, which was what was mostly used before the Sheldon scale, singled out minor problem coins as consistently and regularly.