Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

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

  1. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    My proposed method would also work.

    Surface Preservation (40%): 58
    Strike (20%): 65
    Luster (20%): 65
    Eye Appeal (20%): 65
    Total: 62.2

    Resultant Slab Grade: MS62
    Included in fine print would be SP58-S65-L65-EA65
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    We very well could end up with more sections and numbers on the grades, to me that just seems like it would just give people more things to argue about.

    Not to mention most likely one of those four categories will end up being the preferred one for the strongest grade (likely eye appeal) making the sub-grade most important. If something was all 58s and then a 66 for eye appeal that almost certainly would sell for more and be more desired than something all 66 with a 58 for eye appeal.

    I'm not entirely opposed to more numbers, just I can see all the threads of concentrate on strike grades the rest don't matter etc that would come. I fully understand no matter what some people will be upset and some will think they always know the most or want things to match their taste and trash it otherwise, I'm just not sure we gain anything disclosing every number as opposed to just grading it that way and disclosing the single number.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  4. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Derp, derp, derp!

    AMEN!!!
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  5. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    When you have a coin with equal amounts of obvious wear on both sides, I am less inclined to believe that it just happened to occur in a coin cabinet.

    Yeah, not having enough MS coins is pretty inconvenient isn’t it? :rolleyes:

    Only if it is inconsistent with their standards or practices. There have only been 3 times when I complained about the grades I received. One of those times, I went back and found hairlining I missed and decided the grade was correct. Another I proved to be incorrect by resubmitting. The third was demonstrably inconsistent with their standards.

    My standard of grading is based on what is officially published, and deviations from that are incorrect. If they redefine and publish the standards they use, then I will adjust my standards accordingly. But they haven’t done so.

    (Also I admitted fault above because I am correct 100% of the time :rolleyes:)

    No, I want them beholden to A standard that is clearly defined and adhered to.

    See above.

    We’re talking about the standards and influence of a company, not the individual numismatists. Big difference.
     
  6. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    Hopefully the TPGS will bring you in so you can educate the finalizers on how to grade coins especially 1700 gold. After all seeing a picture means more than grading coins for decades in hand right?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
    Lehigh96 likes this.
  7. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    BuffaloHunter, posted: "I think a point that some people keep missing here is this: If the standard is not the same as it was before, then document it. Every major TPG references the Sheldon scale and has descriptions and even pictures proclaiming how they grade coins. Clearly their own references are not being followed, so what good are they? I am completely fine if the standards have changed, however, the biggest problem is that they are not acknowledging the change. I'm sorry, but if I were in charge of a multi-million dollar business and had instructions on my web pages of how I operate my business and were not even following them, what perception am I giving my audience?

    I have brought this up more than one time and, alas, my request remains unfulfilled: Please provide any links to press releases or documentation from any TPG stating that the standards for grading coins has changed.

    Intro to the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs.

    As for the actual TPGS's They weasel around it. Unfortunately, I don't have the published PCGS Grading Guide handy to quote.

    Lehigh96, posted: "It isn't nonsense, I was referring to bags of Saints."

    Please forgive my bold assumption but I'll bet you have not opened or even seen opened a mint sewn bag OF ANYTHING! Furthermore, I'll bet you have not opened an original bank wrapped roll of Saints either. Therefore, if that is indeed the case, your comment IS NONSENSE! BTW, I have opened a bank wrapped roll of 1928 Saints and each was gem+ with absolutely no friction.

    Lehigh96 states: "Really??? Doug has contended for years that nobody can tell the difference between roll friction and circulation wear. Is he wrong?"

    Yes. Even the most knowledgeable numismatists can misspeak when trying to keep things simple for the ignorant. Doug used an absolute: "nobody." If he would have said "very many" instead, I would agree with him 100%.

    Lehigh96 continued: "I want to thank you for being the only one with the courage to comment on this Morgan Dollar, but I think you missed my point. There is clearly what appears to be wear over the ear of that coin, but as you astutely pointed out, EVERYONE in the numismatic world accepts that New Orleans mint Morgan Dollars are prone to strike weakness and the flat area above the ear is in fact "incomplete strike" rather than circulation wear. My contention is that it is indistinguishable from circulation wear and that the only reason we accept the determination of "incomplete strike" is that it happens at exactly the same spot on every coin. [Your contention is 100% incorrect. Any IGNORANT professional numismatist or advanced collector who cannot tell the difference between loss of detail due to friction or strike weakness was not raised right.] This is exactly how the TPGs treat roll friction within certain series, specifically Saints and SLQs, yet many of the same collectors who would consider the Morgan Dollar show above as mint state, would argue that coins showing roll friction should be graded AU. Just a little numismatic hypocrisy to spice up the conversation.

    If your coin was graded AU-58, it has friction wear. Just because a TPGS chooses to IGNORE actual friction wear on a coin, and call it "roll rub" so it can be sold as MS does not change anything. Most graders and dealers I know (and respect) can look me in the eye, say the coin is AU and agree with me that it is a "commercial" MS coin.

    PS I suspect I know what an HTML tag is but I post they way I do to make sure my comment is understood. I use bold and color not to shout but to make sure something is seen. I use emojis because they express things in a way I cannot come right out and write :vomit: and still be allowed to post here!


    Lehigh96, posted: "What would happen to all the coins with AU surfaces that have been net graded to say MS61 or MS62, but under your revised standard would now grade AU63 or AU64? Keep in mind, I like your solution, but I'm just pointing out there would be some unintended consequences."

    :rolleyes: They would be AU-61 or AU-62. BTW, not MY solution, thought up by many before.

    Jaelus, posted: "Personally I don't see much point in slabbing coins struck before the mid 17th century or so. I'm trying to point out the indefensibility of a position that the grading system is absolutely correct to the exclusion of other ideas, when only a minority of numismatists worldwide even use it."

    It's nice to have diverse comments from advanced young collectors from across the ocean! Here is a thought from me....I don't see much use for trying to describe the condition of those crude, corroded ancient coins either. :p

    Jaelus, post: "Your comparison of change due to emergent technological advances (the automobile) is not valid. [It was a "slam" at the silly firefighter post you made which has NOTHING to do with this discussion.] There was no fundamentally missing technology when the fire brigades were in operation that would have prevented municipal fire fighting from being implemented, except a willingness to re-evaluate how things were done. That's a valid comparison. Regardless, you've clearly demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to consider that there are valid alternative ways to look at wear. There's no further point in me discussing it with you. [Good, it was taking up too much of my time. Hopefully, others here enjoyed your posts as much as I have. In which case, my time was not wasted on the blind.] ;)
     
  8. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Derp, derp, derp!

    Gonna need @Lehigh96 to parse Insider again. Unreadable.
     
    Lehigh96 and Jaelus like this.
  9. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Oh the irony.

    You know there is a published standard for replying to HTML messages on a forum. This standard exists to enforce uniformity between messages, to work with the tagging system so that people are properly informed when they are quoted, and to ensure readability. When you buck this standard and make your message unreadable to humans, it is also unreadable to the forum software.

    I suggest you take a class in HTML tagging, you might find it very informative.
     
  10. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Completely unreadable! And quite frankly, such an inability to develop a proficiency at something as easy as HTML tags calls into question his proficiency in other areas.
     
  11. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Derp, derp, derp!

    That's a bit harsh and a bit too hyperbolical.
     
    Pickin and Grinin likes this.
  12. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    It’s really not, he reminds me of a corporate Vice President who didn’t know how to send an email. It shows a fundamental inability to adapt and learn new things.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  13. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Derp, derp, derp!

    It's just laziness.
     
  14. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I agree. I don't agree with Insider on this topic, and he may be really stubborn, but he unquestionably knows his stuff.
     
  15. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    Come on, he’s great with coins... that’s what matters. I could read his post w/o problems.
     
  16. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    @Lehigh96
    @Jaelus

    As I explained to @CoinCorgi who was very helpful:

    Thanks for your reply and comments. It sounded like what I write was being changed to make it confusing.

    It is all about the English language. Quotes surround the original poster's comments. Italics in color without quotes belong to me. Brackets [ ] are edits in the original quote to keep my reply close to what I am answering. Bold is used to highlight something important or to link my comment to the poster.

    See if this makes sense NOW:

    BuffaloHunter, posted: "I think a point that some people keep missing here is this: If the standard is not the same as it was before, then document it. Every major TPG references the Sheldon scale and has descriptions and even pictures proclaiming how they grade coins. Clearly their own references are not being followed, so what good are they? I am completely fine if the standards have changed, however, the biggest problem is that they are not acknowledging the change. I'm sorry, but if I were in charge of a multi-million dollar business and had instructions on my web pages of how I operate my business and were not even following them, what perception am I giving my audience?

    I have brought this up more than one time and, alas, my request remains unfulfilled: Please provide any links to press releases or documentation from any TPG stating that the standards for grading coins has changed."

    Everything above is written by @BuffaloHuner. I put his question - the only thing I'm commenting on in BOLD.

    My reply not in quotes: Intro to the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs.

    As for the actual TPGS's They weasel around it. Unfortunately, I don't have the published PCGS Grading Guide handy to quote.


    _________________________________________________________________

    Unfortunately, I did not fully quote @Lehigh96 and just replied. That could cause confusion to many but I felt he is a very smart fellow and would figure it out:


    Lehigh96, posted: "It isn't nonsense, I was referring to bags of Saints."

    MY REPLY NOT IN QUOTES: Please forgive my bold assumption but I'll bet you have not opened or even seen opened a mint sewn bag OF ANYTHING! Furthermore, I'll bet you have not opened an original bank wrapped roll of Saints either. Therefore, if that is indeed the case, your comment IS NONSENSE! BTW, I have opened a bank wrapped roll of 1928 Saints and each was gem+ with absolutely no friction.

    Another part of his long post I wished to reply to followed and answered in color w/o quotes: Lehigh96 states: "Really??? Doug has contended for years that nobody can tell the difference between roll friction and circulation wear. Is he wrong?"

    Yes. Even the most knowledgeable numismatists can misspeak when trying to keep things simple for the ignorant. Doug used an absolute: "nobody." If he would have said "very many" instead, I would agree with him 100%.

    Still more but this time I inserted my reply into the text of his post:

    Lehigh96 continued: "I want to thank you for being the only one with the courage to comment on this Morgan Dollar, but I think you missed my point. There is clearly what appears to be wear over the ear of that coin, but as you astutely pointed out, EVERYONE in the numismatic world accepts that New Orleans mint Morgan Dollars are prone to strike weakness and the flat area above the ear is in fact "incomplete strike" rather than circulation wear. My contention is that it is indistinguishable from circulation wear and that the only reason we accept the determination of "incomplete strike" is that it happens at exactly the same spot on every coin. [Your contention is 100% incorrect. Any IGNORANT professional numismatist or advanced collector who cannot tell the difference between loss of detail due to friction or strike weakness was not raised right.] This is exactly how the TPGs treat roll friction within certain series, specifically Saints and SLQs, yet many of the same collectors who would consider the Morgan Dollar show above as mint state, would argue that coins showing roll friction should be graded AU. Just a little numismatic hypocrisy to spice up the conversation."

    Then I continued my reply:

    If your coin was graded AU-58, it has friction wear. Just because a TPGS chooses to IGNORE actual friction wear on a coin, and call it "roll rub" so it can be sold as MS does not change anything. Most graders and dealers I know (and respect) can look me in the eye, say the coin is AU and agree with me that it is a "commercial" MS coin.

    PS I suspect I know what an HTML tag is but I post they way I do to make sure my comment is understood. I use bold and color not to shout but to make sure something is seen. I use emojis because they express things in a way I cannot come right out and write :vomit: and still be allowed to post here!


    _______________________________________________________________

    Lehigh96, posted: "What would happen to all the coins with AU surfaces that have been net graded to say MS61 or MS62, but under your revised standard would now grade AU63 or AU64? Keep in mind, I like your solution, but I'm just pointing out there would be some unintended consequences."

    :rolleyes: They would be AU-61 or AU-62. BTW, not MY solution, thought up by many before.

    _________________________________________________________________
    SEE HOW EASY IT READS? Try it w/o my comments...

    Jaelus, posted: "Personally I don't see much point in slabbing coins struck before the mid 17th century or so. I'm trying to point out the indefensibility of a position that the grading system is absolutely correct to the exclusion of other ideas, when only a minority of numismatists worldwide even use it."

    It's nice to have diverse comments from advanced young collectors from across the ocean! Here is a thought from me....I don't see much use for trying to describe the condition of those crude, corroded ancient coins either. :p

    Jaelus, post: "Your comparison of change due to emergent technological advances (the automobile) is not valid. [It was a "slam" at the silly firefighter post you made which has NOTHING to do with this discussion.] There was no fundamentally missing technology when the fire brigades were in operation that would have prevented municipal fire fighting from being implemented, except a willingness to re-evaluate how things were done. That's a valid comparison. Regardless, you've clearly demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to consider that there are valid alternative ways to look at wear. There's no further point in me discussing it with you. [Good, it was taking up too much of my time. Hopefully, others here enjoyed your posts as much as I have. In which case, my time was not wasted on the blind.] ;)

    _________________________________________________________________

    Until next time,
    Best Regards and Goodbye.
    :(
     
  17. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast


    No, this doesn’t help, reading your posts is an absolute nightmare. It’s so bad that I need my computer to fix it and make sense of it all. Unfortunately, I’m out of town on weekends and it is too difficult to edit your posts with my phone. Therefore, I will be waiting till Monday to respond to your points.
     
  18. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Yeah I gotta agree. This is still impossible to read. The problem is that your system for formatting posts isn't the accepted standard.

    It's supposed to look like this:

    My reply.

    My reply to that.

    Anything else really is super confusing because your quotes of other people look exactly like the formatting of everyone else's replies.

    You'll notice the other nice things that formatting these correctly does is link the quotes to the original post you are quoting (the arrow next to the name), and also the forum knows you were quoted, and will notify you. We don't get those notifications because as far as the forum is concerned, you aren't actually quoting anyone.
     
    CoinCorgi, -jeffB and Lehigh96 like this.
  19. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    I can read it just fine.

    I’m sure Insider isn’t the only one here that is stubborn regarding posts. They are perfectly readable, even on a phone, but you have a specific format in mind and your brain won’t process anything different from that.
     
  20. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody...

    These are two major benefits to quoting as above @Insider . I find these feature quite useful, especially if it is not clear when the post was originally written (context) or if I miss a response to my post(s) when navigating through the thread (as I have done before).
     
  21. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    They are extremely difficult to read, and impossible to respond to unless I fix them. He’s making more work for me simply because he likes to be a goofball using silly fonts & colors. And yes, he’s the only one who does this!
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page