Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

You know....if we got a metallurgist to comment, I bet he can tell us how many microns of abrasion we are seeing when we see 'high point wear' and what amount of movement within a bag or contact with human hands or banging around a pocket with other coins, a pocket watch, maybe a knife or a comb....and then maybe jumping around a few cash registers....is necessary before we see the wears we are referencing.

Keep this in mind with $20 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles: they really weren't use that much for everyday commerce, a $20 gold coin wasn't practical for the masses. It was mostly used to settle inter-bank accounting and foreign bank gold demands.

Aside from wealthy areas like Manhattan or tony parts of Philly near the mint, I venture that Saints were used to make everday purchases about as often as a $100 bill. Maybe even a $1,000 bill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great illustration....I advise anybody still awake at this point in the thread to look at the rays of the sun on both coins....the leaves on the branches....the Capitol at 7 PM.....and the much much larger number of dings/scratches/marks/blemishes on the AU-58 which are the REASON why the shine/luster is gone.

To the layman, the 2nd coin is clearly 'shinier' and brighter.

 

Jaelus, freakin' brilliant post. 10 thumbs up !!

 

Not an expert on this coin and the series, but there is an upper limit to how high even a mis-graded coin can go.

The higher you go, the more likely you are to encounter ratings that are lower.

 

But how do we know this coin really isn't MS and never circulated, but took a beating in a bag ?

The left foot, another high area, looks untouched. If this coin circulated, I wouldn't expect it to look so good.

Also, if Saints were stacked the left foot would not get wear since it would be up against a concave area on the reverse. However, the upper-torso of Liberty runs smack into high points on the Eagle.

So....you would have a soft metal (gold) taking a beating in a bag even if they were carried only 1 time.....and if moved a few times, you multiply the damage....and if the coins are stacked for counting and less-movement reasons, then you have the friction/rub everyone is talking about with certain high-points getting more abuse than others (I'm assuming the Saints were lined up obverse-to-reverse).

Remember.....gold is soft.....nobody is using $20 Saints to make everyday purchases....the coin collectors of the day (The Rich) are paying guys like Izzy Switt to grab them straight from the press to preserve Proof or MS-70/69 quality...Saints are like $10,000 or $100,000 bills, they are being used to settle accounts between banks and/or global central banks. Nobody but a few dozen coin fanatics is obsessed with microscopically perfect coins (esp. once The Depression hits).

 

I have a degree in metallurgy, but I can't tell you much metal loss (in microns) is associated with roll friction or light wear.

 

Remember that these coins are made from a gold/copper alloy, specifically because it's harder and more wear-resistant than pure gold. (Same deal with coin silver vs. .999 silver.) Coin gold is still softer than other metals, but not by as much as you may think.

I looked around a bit for actual hardness numbers, but it may take an actual metallurgist to turn those up. I did find this entertaining piece, though:

http://www.silverseek.com/article/99-pure-silver-coins-are-junk-12322

The author tries to make the point that ASEs aren't "hard" money, because they're too "soft" to be used in circulation. The point he actually makes is that, no matter what topic you pick, you can find someone to rant about it.

 

That is obvious your not going to get a MS70 But your getting MS60-64 regraded at higher grades after sent in many times and most don't make the higher grade. They go into the Market place and for what ever reason get regraded now at a lower grade.
All faith is lost in the grading company and the money lost

 

The dead ringer for this not being a bag or cabinet beating is the fields. The devices on a Saint will almost always have some marks, as it is so large and the design has sufficient relief that contact is likely. Same goes for the Morgan dollar. However, the wear lines in the fields aren't from contact--they look like light scratches from mild circulation. To me, that is the critical difference between storage friction, and circulation--the fact that it isn't only the high spots that show the abrasion, but the low spots as well.

 

No, it is because an expert, with years of experience in coins, not bluster make the decision at the headquarters of a professional organization who functions as a third party evaluating coins. Has very little to do with making people happy--in fact, more folks complain about the fact that their precious coin is "under-graded" in their opinion, when it comes home in its precious little plastic holder.

 

I pulled out my PCGS grading guide. WRT the regular relief Saints, the guide states: "For AU-55/58 coins...friction is noted on the breast and leg of Miss Liberty. (on the eagle)"The wear is noted in... the breast and lower body and upper wing feathers of the eagle. When the coins are worn to AU-50/53, the fields now have obvious wear."
Mint State Examples: "There is almost always 'frost' disruption on the breast and knee, with only the modern counterfeits showing complete frost in these areas." The text also mentions that small patches of hairlines, caused by rubber wheels in counting machines used in bank to bank transfers, are common. Apparently these are allowed on MS coins.

So it seems clear that PCGS makes a distinction between high point frost breaks and actual wear (from handling), and this is explicitly state in their own grading guide. I have no problem with that as long as that standard is adhered to. Mistakes will be made from time to time however (ie the MS 63 coin I linked earlier).

 

Wrong, they want this coin graded AU58



and they want this coin graded MS66



You and Eddie can be slaves to antiquated definitions, leave the grading to the rest of us who can plainly see the difference in quality between the 2 coins shown above.

 

I'm a novice by my own humble standards but I think even I would not be fooled by a Saint or Morgan that was in an MS-66 holder and was really MS-63 or lower.

 

GD, did you and other veterans have a problem with all the MS ratings given out by the original ANACS ratings and then when the 2 TPGs came out in 1986-87 ?

Because unless there was a big stink back then -- and I did see the video from 1989 where some veteran coin collector did attack the grading standards, so I know not everybody was happy with what was happening -- I think the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of coin collectors were OK with the grading for the most part because they assumed it was in the 'spirit' of the grading guidelines.

However, I can appreciate a purist like you disagreeing.

 

You are right--the majority of collectors have no problem with this. Attacking grading standards is like complaining about the IRS when one has to pay taxes in April. It is the way it is, and if you don't like it--don't play the game. A few insist that the game is rigged, but I feel this is conspiracy theory nonsense. That MS 66 SG is a 66 IMHO, and I have no problem whatsoever with it being graded as such.

 

But GD, I don't think the original ANA standards or the TPGs ever clearly deliniated a fine line between the 'wear' of bag marks (a specific unique type that you can presumably only get once you are put in a bag off the mint) and CIRCULATION wear.

As someone hear said, we really have 2 grading systems: 1-58 for circulated coins, MS60-70 for uncirculated.

Wait -- if the 'wear' in the mint building happened in the mint bags, you just said it isn't wear even if it's in the mint bag and outside the mint building.

Well, you have a point here -- I see where you are coming from.

But I think the overwhelming majoriy of collectors and numsimatists in the 1980's when the TPGs came into prominence were comfortable with a flexible interpretation of how to grade.

Maybe it was right. Maybe it was wrong. I dunno.

All I can say is, as someone who has re-immersed himself in the hobby the last few years, while I am troubled by The Resubmission Game, and the Franklin Quarter Thread @ CU, and other extreme examples of inconsistencies, I repeat:

The far greater threat is counterfeit coins and counterfeit slabs and maybe the proliferation of new mint products which are also graded and mimic the proliferation of the 10-fold increase in baseball cards between 1986 and 1994 that effectively killed that hobby.

 

MD, don't you think that the fields can get hit if you put 1,000 coins into a bag and carry them around ?