Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Insider, post: 3526865, member: 24314"]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?</p><p><br /></p><p>I have brought this up more than one time and, alas, my request remains unfulfilled: <b>Please provide any links to press releases or documentation from any TPG stating that the standards for grading coins has changed.</b></p><p><br /></p><p><b><i><span style="color: #b30000">Intro to the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs.</span></i> </b></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #660066">As for the actual TPGS's They weasel around it. Unfortunately, I don't have the published PCGS Grading Guide handy to quote.</span> </i></p><p><br /></p><p>Lehigh96, posted: "It isn't nonsense,<b> I was referring to bags of Saints."</b></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660066"><i>Please forgive my bold assumption but I'll bet you have not opened or even seen opened a mint sewn bag <b>OF ANYTHING</b>! 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.</i> </span></p><p><br /></p><p>Lehigh96 states: "Really??? Doug has contended for years that <b>nobody</b> can tell the difference between roll friction and circulation wear. <span style="color: #b30000">Is he wrong</span>?"</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #b30000">Yes</span>. <i><span style="color: #330066">Even the most knowledgeable numismatists can misspeak when trying to keep things simple for the ignorant. Doug used an absolute: "<b>nobody</b>." If he would have said "<b>very many" </b>instead, I would agree with him 100%</span></i>. </p><p><br /></p><p>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. <b>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. </b> [<i><span style="color: #b30000">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.</span></i>] 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.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #330066">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.</span></i> </p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #330066">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 <b>bold</b> and <b><span style="color: #ff0000"><span style="color: #b30000">c</span><span style="color: #ff8000">o</span></span><span style="color: #006633">lo</span><span style="color: #ff0080">r </span></b>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 <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie96" alt=":vomit:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> and still be allowed to post here!</span></i> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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." </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #330066"><i><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> They would be AU-61 or AU-62. BTW, not <b>MY </b>solution, thought up by many before.</i></span></p><p><br /></p><p>Jaelus, posted: "<b>Personally I don't see much point in slabbing coins struck before the mid 17th century or so. </b> 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." </p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #330066">It's nice to have diverse comments from advanced young collectors from across the ocean! Here is a thought from me....<b>I don't see much use for trying to describe the condition of those crude, corroded ancient coins either.</b></span></i> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie7" alt=":p" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Jaelus, post: "Your comparison of change due to emergent technological advances (the automobile) is not valid. [<i><span style="color: #330066">It was a "slam" at the silly firefighter post <b>you made</b> which has NOTHING to do with this discussion</span></i>.] 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. [<i><span style="color: #660066"><b>Good</b>, 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.]</span></i> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Insider, post: 3526865, member: 24314"]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: [B]Please provide any links to press releases or documentation from any TPG stating that the standards for grading coins has changed.[/B] [B][I][COLOR=#b30000]Intro to the first edition of Grading Coins by Photographs.[/COLOR][/I] [/B] [I][COLOR=#660066]As for the actual TPGS's They weasel around it. Unfortunately, I don't have the published PCGS Grading Guide handy to quote.[/COLOR] [/I] Lehigh96, posted: "It isn't nonsense,[B] I was referring to bags of Saints."[/B] [COLOR=#660066][I]Please forgive my bold assumption but I'll bet you have not opened or even seen opened a mint sewn bag [B]OF ANYTHING[/B]! 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.[/I] [/COLOR] Lehigh96 states: "Really??? Doug has contended for years that [B]nobody[/B] can tell the difference between roll friction and circulation wear. [COLOR=#b30000]Is he wrong[/COLOR]?" [COLOR=#b30000]Yes[/COLOR]. [I][COLOR=#330066]Even the most knowledgeable numismatists can misspeak when trying to keep things simple for the ignorant. Doug used an absolute: "[B]nobody[/B]." If he would have said "[B]very many" [/B]instead, I would agree with him 100%[/COLOR][/I]. 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. [B]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. [/B] [[I][COLOR=#b30000]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.[/COLOR][/I]] 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. [I][COLOR=#330066]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.[/COLOR][/I] [I][COLOR=#330066]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 [B]bold[/B] and [B][COLOR=#ff0000][COLOR=#b30000]c[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff8000]o[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#006633]lo[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0080]r [/COLOR][/B]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![/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=#000000]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." [/COLOR] [COLOR=#330066][I]:rolleyes: They would be AU-61 or AU-62. BTW, not [B]MY [/B]solution, thought up by many before.[/I][/COLOR] [I][COLOR=#330066][/COLOR][/I] Jaelus, posted: "[B]Personally I don't see much point in slabbing coins struck before the mid 17th century or so. [/B] 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." [I][COLOR=#330066]It's nice to have diverse comments from advanced young collectors from across the ocean! Here is a thought from me....[B]I don't see much use for trying to describe the condition of those crude, corroded ancient coins either.[/B][/COLOR][/I] :p Jaelus, post: "Your comparison of change due to emergent technological advances (the automobile) is not valid. [[I][COLOR=#330066]It was a "slam" at the silly firefighter post [B]you made[/B] which has NOTHING to do with this discussion[/COLOR][/I].] 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. [[I][COLOR=#660066][B]Good[/B], 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.][/COLOR][/I] ;)[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...