Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 2092765, member: 15309&quot;]And that is my point, which are marks and which are planchet roughness?&nbsp; Areas of planchet roughness on Jefferson Nickels are usually confined to the cheekbone, jawbone, and coat collar below the ear.&nbsp; If we look at the nickel I posted again, we can see that roughness exists in all three of these areas.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels/JN%201947%20PCGS%20MS66%20Obversesmall_zpsui943ozc.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>It is safe to say that the disturbance low on the collar in the rainbow toned area is a mark since the edge is well defined and it falls out of the normal area for planchet roughness.&nbsp; Likewise, the road rash on the cheek and behind the mouth is almost certainly planchet roughness as it would be impossible to impart those tiny little marks with coin to coin contact.&nbsp; There is also a disturbance on the collar below the ear.&nbsp; I submit this is actually remnant planchet roughness due to the wavy nature of the imperfection.&nbsp; The real problem area on this coin is on the jaw bone.&nbsp; Significant planchet roughness remains, but there is also a well defined mark in the same area.&nbsp; While I agree with the grade of this particular coin, I have seen coins where marks in this area have been ignored and included as part of the planchet roughness on the coin.&nbsp; Furthermore, planchet roughness exists in the focal area of the Jefferson Nickel and does negatively impact the eye appeal of the coin.&nbsp; Additionally, coins exist in every date/mm that are free of planchet roughness.</p><p><br /></p><p>So when people argue that &quot;as struck&quot; flaws should be counted in the grading process, they certainly have a valid point.&nbsp; Once a die is broken, every coin minted thereafter will bear the evidence in the form of die cracks.&nbsp; However, with respect to roller marks and planchet roughness, there are plenty of coins that do not show these &quot;as struck&quot; flaws.&nbsp; After all, the existence of planchet roughness and roller marks is almost always in conjunction with a weakly struck coin.&nbsp; Even if the coin&#039;s grade is not affected based on eye appeal, perhaps the grade should be affected based on the strike of the coin which is also an element of grading.</p><p><br /></p><p>I find myself torn on the subject as I think that die cracks should be treated neutrally.&nbsp; I also have no problem with roller marks being treated neutrally given their rarity.&nbsp; But with respect to planchet roughness, I would prefer that it was not considered an &quot;as struck&quot; flaw.&nbsp; That said, I understand the TPGs policy and adjust accordingly.&nbsp; If a coin with planchet roughness does not meet my standards for the assigned grade, it will not reside in my collection.&nbsp; Rather than everyone get in a uproar over TPG grading policies, I don&#039;t understand why collectors can&#039;t apply their own standards to coins that reside in TPG plastic.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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