totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

Did I miss something along the way? How do you tell the difference in wear? - from two coins rubbing together, from cabinet friction to circulation wear? I mean I see where conder said wear is wear - which I can see. This is in general and no specific series.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks Paul.

As you know St. Gauden's aren't my cup of tea, but like most coins, grading them to +-1 point isn't really that difficult with some experience and careful observation. That said, even a 67 on the first coin would not surprise me if the luster's all there.

 

I don't think you can tell authoritatively. You can only guess a based on extant coins and their respective histories.

That said when I hear "cabinet friction" I think high point wear. When I hear "circulation wear" I think field luster wear. To the ANA, and some in this thread, they are the same. To the TPGs, and others, they are very different.

Now, when you consider the two coins Paul posted, the first one has high point wear but the field luster is complete -- thus that's a no-brainer MS coin as far as the TPGs are concerned. When you look at the second one, you can see some luster wear evident in the fields, thus it looks more like AU (or perhaps a 63) from the TPGs perspective -- what I would call "liner" coin....at least from the photos.

 

Thanks Mike. You answered my question nicely.

 

I hope we can agree to disagree. I just feel that specific coin shouldn't have special grading system because it's hard to find better condition in that denomination era. As comic books is my first collecting and I have over 22 years of experience in handle with them with grade. I haven't see anyone who profess in comic books industry or grading company gave any old comic books a special grade just because it's old. Old or new, all of comic books have same grading system. Based on St. Gaudens grading system is like someone trying to teach me that 2+2=5 while I am still see it as 2+2=4. Anyway, I did learned something new that St. Gaudens coins doesn't follow strict grading system.

 

If you expect to understand TPG grading of coins, you will have to set aside your preconceptions as to what's "RIGHT" and what's "WRONG", but rather observe and try and figure out what "IS" and "IS NOT" -- and forget about "consistency" across grading standards with different types of coins, because you will not find it across series in TPG graded coins. Heck, even within a series it's not applied consistency by the TPGs (for example, take a look at this recent thread: http://www.cointalk.com/t214263/ ).

And FWIW, St. Gaudens DO follow a strict grading system in practice, but it is subjective in nature, particularly within the bounds of TPG grading as it applies to MS/AU coins. As compared with ANA standards, TPGs are much more nuanced in nature -- which is related to the difference between technical (ANA) and market (TPG) grading -- and this nuanced nature is part of the argument for those who prefer a more objective view of grading (ANA).

Using your example, and with respect to TPGs, sometimes 2+2=4 and other times 2+2=5. The sooner you get past your aversion to this the sooner you will truly understand TPG grading and be able to predict it with some level of accuracy.

IMO and respectfully submitted...Mike

p.s. Mark, You are welcome.

 

No, but I will state that every single one should be in an circulated grade holder as they have wear, regardless of how the wear occurred.

You are absolutely, 100% correct on that. FYI, up until 1997, when PCGS wrote their own standards for grading, they subscribed to the ANA standards.

True again and the reason is because PCGS wanted, at the time they strayed from the ANA standards and wrote their own, to create the market for certified coins, even by writing standards that are so loosely applied as to slide circulated coins in MS grades.

Actually, they are inconsistent.

Prove it.

 

That's your opinion of what you think is right. Clearly others, to include the TPGs, disagree.

Again, your opinion. To me, they are consistent. I say that because I can (fairly well) predict what the TPGs will grade a coin. You might disagree, and that's fair -- but just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and remember any subjective analysis will have some inconsistency. It's the nature of the beast.

Who's right? We both are as we are providing a subjective analysis of a subjective opinion.

Prove what? I asked a question:

"If the ANA standards are so much better, why does practically nobody use them any more?"

Are you disputing that practically nobody uses them any more? If so, I suggest you go to a coin show and ask people to what standard they grade their coins. I submit you will find less than 1 in 10 use ANA standards (and I suspect it's far smaller than that). The rest will tend towards TPG standards (or EAC standards, if you happen to be talking to a copper guy).

To be a bit more blunt, practically nobody outside a small contingent on this forum still holds to ANA standards. I've never run into someone on the bourse that grades to the ANA standards -- but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough -- and I've never run into ANYONE who would suggest there's no such thing as a mint state St. Gaudens.

But perhaps you frequent different circles than I, so please do explain why you disagree, rather than challenging me with "prove it".

Take care...MIke

 

No, what I asked was how many coins have you seen in slabs, whether you own them or not, that have signs of wear but they were slid into the MS range anyway? My question covers all coins with no exception to material used to produce the coin.

Not blaming you at all. But realistically, do you honestly think that but for the fact that Jefferson is in a holder under a 67 grade, that you would be able to sell it for $600? How much do you think you could get for it realistically if it were in a 2x2?

But you should. That's the standard and always has been since long before the TPGs, and always should be.

But without the certainty, it shouldn't be acceptable.

I have. Just not to the level you like to take it to when you and he have an argument.

Yes I know. The point I was trying to make was, there's a reason for adding an alloy to the gold during smelting. If they didn't, and went to strike the gold planchet, it would be smashed lump of nothing, because the gold by itself is too soft to withstand that kind of pressure, which is exerted when striking a coin. Wouldn't surprise me if they would have to replace the die as the planchet would become part of at that point, were it not strengthened with an alloy.

 

That's what I ask you to prove.

Where do you get your facts from that 1 in 10 use ANA grading standards.

FYI, in my neck of the woods, every dealer/collector I know and do business with subscribes to the ANA standards. A lot more than 1 in 10.

 

Like you, I'm taking a guess with respect to those I interact with -- in my case it is at coin shows and on this and other forums and consists of collectors and dealers alike. I did not intentionally present anything as a fact, and I recognize our experiences and circles may differ.

The difference between us, if I may be so bold, is that you think your way is "right" and everyone else is "wrong" -- I'm not so sure we should even try and make that distinction....my leading question notwithstanding.

That said, if I may offer an answer to the question I posed, it would be "because market grading is a more precise predictor of value than technical grading".

As always, you are free to agree or disagree.

 

I don't think that way at all.

No, the market grading supports a higher retail than if the coin was raw in a 2x2 or flip. Paul has yet to answer the question I posed to him about a 64 Jefferson graded MS67 he's asking $600 for, if he thinks he could realistically sell that same coin for that price if it were raw. The answer is, no he could not. He knows that, as do I, and many others, and I'm sure you know that as well. But for the fact it's in a TPG holder, he would not be able to sell it for a triple digit price.

 

If you don't think that way, why do you use words like "should"?

As for your question about the 64 Jeff in MS 67, I haven't seen the coin and cannot answer your question, but it's no secret that slabbed coins sell for more than raw ones -- for many reasons. Personally, I try and stay away from paying for coins that have a large plastic premium (like many modern high mint state coins). But that's just me, I have not always felt that way, and I think there is a great deal of wisdom to look at a coin and ask yourself how much that coin would be if it were not in a slab.

 

My statement, "I don't think that way at all.", is in regards that I don't think I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

I use words like should, as in should be, in relation to TPGs assessing wear, from any source, for what it isl; wear, and grading the coin according to it having wear. AU, or less, certainly not MS.

That's a no brainer that even you could determine. He'd be hard pressed to even get a double digit price for that, raw.

 

I don't collect any of the series that are market graded in such a way so "in hand" my answer would be several.

In my experience, when faced with a conditional rarity, people will only pay the retail price of the grade lower when dealing with a raw coin. If the Jeff was not in MS67 plastic, it would probably sell for $40-$50, and then only to someone who felt confident in their ability to accurately grade Jefferson Nickels.

You need to recognize that the TPG's rule the market place and have for some time now. Holding on to the antiquated ANA standards leaves you in a numismatic minority.

 

I don't agree that anyone who using ANA standards are old school. It's still valid tools for us to understand grading system. If we allow TPG to change the rule just because they can, then what's point of keep invest premium on higher grade while we know it's not? If future grading system become flexible in grading system, then we will know old slabbed coins were from strict grading system and more valuable than newer stabbed coins.

 

But the TPGs, at least PCGS, still hold to those antiquated standards. If they didn't, then why would they bother to write some of those ANA standards into their own:

[TABLE="class: servicetable, width: 758"]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-60[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. May have many heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-61[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. Multiple heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-62[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. Slightly less marks/hairlines, strike may not be full[/TD]

[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]MS/PR-62+[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F1F6FA"]No wear. Still slightly above number of marks/hairlines, strike may not be full. Attractive eye appeal for grade.[/TD]
[/TABLE]


http://www.pcgs.com/grades.html

So how antiquated are they if PCGS is using them?

 

I will refer you to Mike's comment earlier in this thread:

The fact is that the ANA standards don't take things like roll friction into account and PCGS's standards do. But you have to read the whole book, not just the grading scales that they copied from the ANA.

 

Now how can PCGS take roll friction into any account when they can't distinguish the difference between roll friction, pocket friction, and Mike's cabinet friction, or any other type of friction, which is the sole cause of wear on a coin?

That's a contradiction Paul and IMO, a serious enough contradiction to to have a profound impact on their reliability as well as their reputation, and consistency in grading.

That chart I cut and pasted in my previous post, twice now for two people, says nothing about roll friction, or any friction for that matter. It does mention of marks, hairlines, and also mentions strike fullness.

Reading their standards for 60-70, no where does it mention anything about certain types of friction wear being excluded for any of the uncirculated grades.

NFN, though they may not be worded identically, but they are saying the same thing as the ANA standards, which PCGS used up until they wrote their own grading standards for their graders to adhere to.

It shows a lack of consistency in their grading to allow certain types of wear to slide into an MS grade, when there is no real distinction, or ability by anyone including the TPGs, to be able to distinguish the cause of the wear, which really is an insignificant point when you get right down to it.