Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by TypeCoin971793, Apr 26, 2019.

  1. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast


    This conversation is basically just going around in a circle. There are a group of guys on this forum who are black and white players in a world of grey. The philosophy of "wear is wear" and that any coin showing high point friction therefore must be considered to be a circulated coin is about as black and white as it gets. It doesn't consider the fact that the high point friction is generated in the exact same way that contact marks are generated, by coin to coin contact. These same people readily accept that coins banging into each other while in bags, hoppers, coin counters etc. will have contact marks that were not there at the time the coin was minted, rather happened during transit or distribution after leaving the coining press. But when it comes to high point friction from coins sliding over top of each other, or from a contact in a roll, all of a sudden the resultant damage is as you have called it is "special" and the coin must suffer the punitive fate of being relegated to AU status even though it may have been freshly plucked from a sealed mint bag.

    The practice of allowing for roll friction is limited to a very few series and the areas in question where the friction appears is very well defined. It is the EXCEPTION to the rule that wear precludes a coin from being uncirculated. But rather than accepting the "exception" they drone on about how the TPGs ignore their own grading standards. It is, in a word, exhausting!

    To all the guys who say "wear is wear," why is this Morgan Dollar not graded AU, I clearly see wear above the ear?

    [​IMG]
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Yes. Exactly. You got my vote for best answer.
     
    Lehigh96 likes this.
  4. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    Might as well get rid of grades altogether because they would be completely arbitrary. Might as well just put “I value this coin $2000” on the holder. But you still gotta have the appearance of being legitimate, right?
     
  5. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    You might call me a hardline “wear is wear” traditionalist, but I accepted roll/bag friction as being okay years ago before I was arguing with you. I don’t consider it to be circulation wear, and it is easy enough to differentiate from circulation wear.

    However, these coins exemplify what this thread is actually about. Here is a coin from PCGS’s Photograde. I noticed this one had obvious wear 5 years ago, well before I got into these deep grading discussions. The wear is on both sides (so not cabinet friction), is not roll friction (these were not stored in rolls), and it has the very color change and dulling you brought up earlier in this thread. Yet it is the plate coin for MS-62.

    EF909956-C6CC-46F5-945C-EB10BDC44C9F.jpeg E889F521-C68C-4085-8732-206E5D08C420.jpeg

    And here is another example (different coin, but also graded MS-62):

    A7F12F5A-399B-4F44-B977-BBAF9AC69D3D.jpeg CC28B9C8-8681-465D-8D44-9CA1586619DC.jpeg

    Good old-fashioned overgrading/ignoring obvious circulation wear that is the subject of this thread. I will tag @charlottedude for his opinions.
     
  6. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    No you must have the grade to serve as an intermediary since values for a given grade change over time. The values for each grade are updated in a price guide externally. The grade, which doesn't change, lets you look up the current market value.
     
    baseball21 and Lehigh96 like this.
  7. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    This. This is the crux of the argument. Imstead of just putting the grade of the coin on the slab and have the market determine the value the TPGs try to put the gade that corresponds to the value on the day it is slabbed as a sort of snapshot "appraisal".
     
  8. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    Lol

    Then counter it by saying when it was “graded.”

    But then you have to deal with the issue of coins toning/spotting in their holders. The grade says it should be worth XXXX, but no one in their right mind would pay XXX. Or what if the toning fad dies out and toning is no longer seen as positive eye appeal (just as a thought experiment)? Then the grades up-valued for toning are then obsolete. I guess all such coins would have to be re-“graded”/valued.

    Paper money and comic books are all graded. And each one is unique, like coins. However, they both have well-defined and objective standards to which they are graded. So such grading systems do exist.

    https://www.pmgnotes.com/paper-money-grading/grading-scale/

    https://www.mycomicshop.com/help/grading
     
  9. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    I couldn't disagree more, because no two collectors will necessarily weight the various components of quality (strike quality, marks, wear, toning) the same way.

    Rank the components. I can look at more than one number at a time.
     
  10. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Lehigh96, posted: "This conversation is basically just going around in a circle. There are a group of guys on this forum who are black and white players in a world of grey. [That was turned the color gray to take advantage of and dupe folks who never learned to grade for themselves] The philosophy of "wear is wear" and that any coin showing high point friction therefore must be considered to be a circulated coin is about as black and white as it gets. It doesn't consider the fact that the high point friction is generated in the exact same way that contact marks are generated, by coin to coin contact. [Actually, this is nonsense. I've opened several original bags of Morgan dollars and I DON"T RECALL EVEN ONE BANGGED UP COIN THAT HAD ANY ABRASIVE FRICTION ON THEIR HIGH POINTS! NOT ONE!] These same people readily accept that coins banging into each other while in bags, hoppers, coin counters etc. will have contact marks that were not there at the time the coin was minted, rather happened during transit or distribution after leaving the coining press. But when it comes to high point friction from coins sliding over top of each other, or from a contact in a roll, all of a sudden the resultant damage is as you have called it is "special" and the coin must suffer the punitive fate of being relegated to AU status even though it may have been freshly plucked from a sealed mint bag.[Any knowledgeable numismatist can tell the difference between stacking/roll friction (OK) and slightly worn coins with "cabinet friction" as many refer to slider "Unc's"]

    The practice of allowing for roll friction is limited to a very few series and the areas in question where the friction appears is very well defined. It is the EXCEPTION to the rule that wear precludes a coin from being uncirculated. But rather than accepting the "exception" they drone on about how the TPGs ignore their own grading standards. It is, in a word, exhausting!

    To all the guys who say "wear is wear," why is this Morgan Dollar not graded AU, I clearly see wear above the ear?

    Easy, because it is graded commercially (value based) by a major TPGS. You was robbed too. That's a 64 in the image due to a weak strike. I guess it was "net graded" down to 63 because there is actual friction wear on it. In the 70's, a coin as this would have been graded MS-65,flat strike.

    [​IMG]



    Jaelus, posted: "You didn't answer my question. My question was not one asking you if you knew the difference between very light high point rub and a hit. My question is why is it important to YOU to distinguish between them."

    Because since 1972, I have been grading coins professionally at several TPGS's and learning every day. ;) For the first fifteen years of my career, the accepted :bookworm: definition of Uncirculated (Mint State): NO TRACE OF WEAR was accepted by the coin industry and so very important to ME and our customers.

    Jaelus continued: "I ask because I can plainly observe both of these detrimental surface conditions on a coin, and in many cases the high point rub aesthetically bothers me much less but it affects the grade so much more severely. I understand what the difference is between them, despite your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance. I understand how it is graded. I just happen to disagree."

    You know what they say about :bucktooth: people who assume things right? I'm not the grading expert and I don't EVER claim to be. I enjoy discussing grading in the abstract, ideal, and also in the real world. You and everyone reading this is free to disagree with anything I write. We (you, me, and the others) learn from disagreements. What's funny to me is that very often we all are saying the same things in different ways. :kiss::kiss:

    Jaelus believes: "Penalize coins based on the severity of their surface conditions, whatever they may be. Who cares if a coin is technically mint state or not if it is the observable quality of a 64? Just call it a 64. Keep it simple."

    It is simple. Coins below MS are mostly graded based on the amount of their design that is missing (unless you are one of those :confused::wacky::vomit: "net graders"). Coins above MS are graded based on other factors!


    Jaelus, posted: "Not only is the purpose of grading a collectible to determine market value, but determining value is the original intent of the Sheldon scale!"

    Yes, the Sheldon Scale tried to relate a coin's condition to its value. However, IMHO there is a difference that most folks never give a thought to:

    A. Given a Large cent, one could use the Sheldon Scale to SUGGEST A VALUE for that coin. This is clearly explained in his book.

    B. A TPGS determines that a rare 1804 dollar (graded as low as EF previously and still in the same worn condition) is worth $3,000,000 and therefore SHOULD BE VALUE GRADED AS MS-63! If the product of grading is a label with a list of features that require an expert to price, you might as well not submit the coin for grading at all. This sounds about as useful as slabbing a book with a label that has a summary of the content. Ideal grading should produce a single number representing a ranked market value and nothing more."


    Unfortunately :bigtears::bigtears: (fortunately for you all :p), I lost the rest of my comments as the computer was acting up. I'm going to leave it as is.


    PS Jaelus, you have made me think of a few new approaches to teaching - BIG THANK YOU!:D




     
    Pickin and Grinin and longshot like this.
  11. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Jaelus, posted: "No you must have the grade to serve as an intermediary since values for a given grade change over time. The values for each grade are updated in a price guide externally. The grade, which doesn't change, lets you look up the current market value."

    :rolleyes: Are you reading this thread! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: :stop: Do you understand THAT GRADES HAVE CHANGED IN THE PAST AND WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE? Connecting a coin's value to its grade GUARANTEES THIS! :oops:

    :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: I love CT and all the members, colors, and emojis.
     
    RonSanderson likes this.
  12. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    That you have to explain this to anyone on this forum is depressing. That people are challenging you is tragic.
     
    baseball21 likes this.
  13. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Wow.

    I'm talking about a literal grade on a physical slab.

    Last time I checked, gremlins don't sneak reprinted labels into your slabs with different grades on them.

    The grade on a slab doesn't change. It's fixed once it is graded. Get it?
     
  14. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    Not really. It is a ludicrous idea. The fact that your side of the argument is so deep in the TPG butt-kissing that you are willing to ignore all reason and let the TPGs incrementally take absolute control of the coin market is pathetic.
     
  15. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    The grading principle he is explaining predates the TPGs. If all you have left is to call me a TPG butt-kisser, than you have already lost the debate.
     
    Insider and baseball21 like this.
  16. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    Yes, and it was broken the day it was published. I thought you didn’t like broken systems? Oh wait, that would be inconvenient to your argument. And if all you’ve got is “this is what the grading companies are pushing for so it must be the best option,” then you don’t have a solid position to debate. And all you had to say about the countering side was that it was “depressing” and “tragic.” Not a very substantial argument I do say.

    Changing and publicly redefining the standards with saying that a touch of circulation wear on a pristine coin is commensurate with MS-63/64 chatter? Okay, it’s a misnomer but I could accept that, only if done publicly. Calling such coins AU-63/64? Okay, I can definitely support that. Standards evolve as they become redefined with new knowledge. [And Jaelus’ comment about not officially redefining standards due to rapid-fire new knowledge (however ridiculous the claim is) is not applicable here. You yourself said this is old knowledge (over 20 years old as you have pointed out), but the official TPG standards still have not been rewritten. I believe @GDJMSP ’s theory about shaking consumer confidence is right on the money.]

    But giving TPGs the absolute authority to value coins unbeholden to any standard? That is a ludicrous idea and is what I am arguing against. There would be nothing to hold them accountable, and the higher-end market would just be a crap shoot based on whether or not the grader “likes” the coin enough to assign a high value. Yes, supporting that if that is where they want to go is butt-kissing.
     
    BuffaloHunter likes this.
  17. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    Depends, there's far to many variables for one answer here. While I can think of one situation where if the biggest submitter walked away they might be in trouble I can also know that at least two of the companies could lose their biggest and be just fine.

    If we completely ignore company differences for this example such as a lower grade in A may still sell for more than a higher grade in B the real question becomes how common are those complaints. If the TPG is being absurdly tight and hearing that from customers all over the place of varying levels then yes it is time to take a look and reevaluate. If it's just one person upset or a small minority the problem likely isn't with the TPG and they would be better off in the long run holding their reputation than grading fast and loose to make one person happy.

    Depending on the TPGs in question in the scenario it isn't that easy for someone to necessarily just cut all ties with them anyway. if their customer base favors one over the other they will lose business making the switch. A lot of times those are empty threats unless there really is an insanely tight grading period in which case the critic is valid.

    Long winded response I know, but to answer the question in some cases it is no big deal, in others it's valid, and there are instances where yes it could potentially be an issue.
     
  18. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    The market holds them accountable
     
  19. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I'm reading this as you saying it's important to you because that's just the way it's been done in the past. Granted, that's a very American-centric style of grading, and oh yeah it also doesn't apply to ancients, but I'm sure it's the only way to do it, right?

    In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, local fire fighting brigades predated the municipal fire fighting services we take for granted. These brigades were contracted by fire insurers who would put markers on buildings that had paid in advance for coverage. The fire insurers would pay their contracted brigade to put out a fire when they got to the house. Of course, sometimes the first brigade on the scene was not one contracted with your fire insurer, and they would just sit there and wait for the homeowner to come out and pay them privately. If you had coverage, it would take time for them to verify that you were currently paid up. And of course, if you didn't have coverage, you were out of luck, but the brigades would wait and keep your neighbors' houses from catching fire from your blaze if they had coverage and you didn't.

    Of course this system was inefficient and did a disservice to public safety. It seems ridiculous to us now, but this system persisted for over a century. I'm sure there were many people who advocated for maintaining the fire brigade system and kept it going for over a hundred years because that's the system! It's how it's done and everyone had better learn and get their fire markers.

    Just as with the long established fire brigade system, the fact that this American-centric, non-ancients grading system is how it's been done for the last few decades is completely irrelevant. The coins exist with or without this system. I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of, here's a coin, how would I go about evaluating it in the simplest way that creates a useful grade for a collector. This means looking at it without the deeply-ingrained bias of wear is wear that many here seem to have. Your time in the industry has conditioned you to accept the existing system and not think outside the box. I get it. But municipal fire service really was a better idea.
     
  20. WashQuartJesse

    WashQuartJesse Member Supporter

    Given the choice, and all things equal, I would choose a non-“handled” example w/ an extra bag mark or two, any day of the week, regardless of the TPG grade. For me, any post-mint “handling” is a major turn-off. Why? I don’t know, and am admittedly, not as advanced a collector as many of you, here. My opinion could change over time, but I feel I’m pretty cemented at this point. I represent the opinion of an active buyer with hopefully, a long journey ahead. My anti-cabinet friction sentiment could be a result of what many of you would consider to be, some old archaic logic, but it’s a logic/standpoint I’ve embraced, and possibly one of the few (old fashioned, maybe) objective grading standards that seems to have resonated with many others, here. In today’s marketplace, with an increasingly subjective TPG grading standard (I would say), this is one of the few remaining standards, or battle lines, that allows me to maybe sleep better at night, and one I would and will defend.

    For those of you that do not know my collecting history, I pieced together a humble Proof and Business Strike Washington Quarter set, coin by coin, which took me over a decade. Although I’d accept an aesthetically speaking, “dog” of a coin, once or twice in this 212 coin “set,” I would never willingly accept one that was full of luster, with a great strike, and relatively free of bag marks, that had obvious “cabinet friction.” Heck No.

    I haven’t read all of the preceding posts closely enough to determine whether or not my standpoint “sides” with one argument or another, nor am I trying to choose one, but I will say this to non-advanced collectors…

    As everyday collectors, we often have many examples available. We should be patient, have determined our own standards prior to any purchase, and move forward accordingly. My interests have expanded and I buy stuff today I’d have never entertained for my WQ set, given choices/options. Nowadays, I buy these plastic entombed coins, many full of this cabinet wear, but they have that straight grade... With the WQ’s, I was cracking out 30’sgem proofs w/ the bean. No “friction” on those though… Be selective wherever possible. Learn how to identify and avoid this this friction, given the choice, and don’t let that slab grade determine your own.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  21. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    I don't have any issue with you collecting to your personal desires. That said though, it is very dangerous when you are actively trying to tell new collectors how to do it when you go against the grain of the market. A coin full of luster with a great strike and few hits with slight rub will appeal to many more people than a baggy coin just because theres no rub.

    By all means collect how you want, but don't advise people to prefer some old school belief over eye appeal as that will almost certainly hurt them in the long run
     
    Paul M. and Jaelus like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page