totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But of course, and this is where it gets tricky. Bag marks are WEAR. They are caused by FRICTION, just like any other wear. When two coins strike, the friction either moves or displaces the metal. It is wear. it is just not wear caused by circulation. Just shake those bags of Morgans around for 1000 years or so and they will WEAR down to nothing. The other difference is bag marks are easily recognized. The reason for this is the characteristics of silver. Basically it is hard. When Morgans contact each other, they tend to scrape and slide.

Now gold is different, since it is much softer, the friction that is caused when two coins rub, more closely resembles wear that is caused by general circulation. It is the same process that caused the wear in the Morgans, but it looks different and more difficult to tell the difference between those contact marks and circulation friction. So the question would be, do the Saints get penalized from making it into an MS holder, just because the metal is softer, and contact marks show up differently?

 

Paul, try and keep up with me here.

If a coin has any signs of wear, regardless of the cause, it is a circulated coin. If coin comes from a bank bag, with signs of wear, it is circulated. Why is it circulated? Because no one, not even the Gods of the TPGs, can determine how the wear came to be present. It could have been any type of friction, which is the direct cause of wear on a coin.

FYI, I know you're a Jefferson guru, but with Morgans, there many millions of dollars worth that did make it into circulation. If you haven't read it, Bower's book on Morgans, it tells of this. How those dollars that made it into circulation wound up in bank bags, stored in the vaults at the Mint, and eventually the overflow into the Fed, is by the public exchanging them at banks for paper dollars.

But in the same post, Doug stated this, which you omitted:

That criteria he states, he mentioned in post #33 in the same thread:

That was in reply to mike's post:

Since we all know the inception of the TPGs was in the mid to late 80s, and the cut and paste I made from the PCGS's website from the article dated June 12, 1997, was a copy of the ANA's standards, which were before the TPGs inception, I don't see a collaborative effort between the two.

 

If the ANA grading standards say that minor high point wear from roll/cabinet friction does not make a coin a circulated coin, then what you just posted is wrong. Remember, this isn't the TPG standards, this is your precious ANA standards that I am talking about. How can you point to the ANA standards as your basis for the "wear is wear" philosophy when the ANA standards themselves don't agree with you.

Furthermore, are you claiming that Morgan Dollars from a sealed bag have been circulated?

The remainder of Doug's post and that thread is related to the TPG grading practices and how Doug classifies them as value grading rather than market grading. That is why I omitted it and none of that is relevant to our current conversation. All we are discussing is whether or not the ANA's grading standards allow for high point wear on MS coins under certain circumstances. That's it, nothing else! Stop trying to muddy the situation with irrelevant nonsense.

PCGS was founded in 1986 and NGC was founded in 1987. I don't care when your article is dated. Doug's post clearly shows that the market grading standards published by the ANA were done so in 1987 which coincides with the inception of PCGS and NGC. To say that it was not possible to be a collaborative effort is disingenuous to say the least. Furthermore, if the ANA grading standards are so different from that of the TPG's, why has the ANA endorsed NGC as the official grading service of the ANA since 1997?

 

Prove it.

Did I state that? What I said was, that there were millions of Morgans put into circulation each year they were minted. The majority of the public; however, did not except these at all because they were big, weighty, and unappealing, and exchanged them at banks for paper dollars. Those received back from banks, were bagged and returned to the Mint. Given the public's reception of the Morgans, banks eventually stopped ordering bags of Morgans. As such, and since there is really no way to distinguish those Morgans, from ones that simply were struck, bagged, and placed directly into the Mint's vaults, not to mention the Morgans that were circulated in the west, any Morgan which was bagged, and contains wear, is a circulated coin.

The last part of Doug's post, which you brought into the discussion, is completely relevant to our discussion. You omitted it simply because it continues what Doug was stating with regards to market grading, and what occurs these days, value grading, and how market grading isn't used anymore.

Don't you think it would have something to do with the sale of ANACS, which up until 1990, was the coin grading service of the ANA? If I remember correctly, it was the ANA Board of Governors who authorized the sale of ANACS to Amos Press.

FYI, NGC, does give high point wear recognition.

In their AU Details standard,

AU DETAILS (About Uncirculated)Traces of light wear are evident on the high points of the coin’s design.

MS, no traces of wear.

But I suppose you'll state that NGC doesn't follow their own standards, like PCGS doesn't.

 

Prove what? Doug is the one who said it, not me!

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t111316-3/#ixzz28B8lKROK

In that quote, he credits the ANA for creating market grading and says that market grading made allowances for roll friction. That means that the ANA allows for high point wear caused my roll friction on MS coins.

Why would the coins be returned to the mint? Seems much more likely that they would sit in unsealed bags in a vault somewhere. I still contend that Morgan Dollars from sealed bags are uncirculated.

No, it isn't relevant because we are not discussing the grading practices of the TPG's. Our conversation is solely about the "wear is wear" philosophy and the grading standards of the ANA. It has absolutely nothing to do with value grading.

If the ANA did not agree with the grading practices of NGC, then they shouldn't endorse them. There is no law that says they must endorse a grading company.

The grading practices of PCGS and NGC are virtually identical with respect to roll friction. NGC has graded over 900,000 Saints in the mint state grades. That should be proof enough that they give allowances for roll friction.

 

You didn't say this?

And he goes on to say in that same post, that market grading is not used anymore, that value grading is the current standard.

Like I said, if you haven't read Bower's book on Morgans, because in his book, he states the banks sent the bags of returned Morgans back to the Mint, who stored those bags in their own vaults. At on time the Mint in Philadelphia had so many bags of Morgans in their vault there was barely a foot path wide enough for workers to walk into the back of the vault when they did an annual audit on those bags. Eventually, the Mint had to get the Fed to store bags of the Morgans in their vaults because the Mint was filled to capacity and then some.

It has everything to do the grading standards as well as value grading. Did you lose your place in the discussion somewhere?

Yet PCGS mentions nothing in their standards for allowances for any kind of friction, but then again you already admitted that PCGS doesn't follow their own standards.

Which places NGC in the same boat as PCGS. Not following their own standards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, we could go on and on and on for days, months, and probably years going back and forth on this. Bottom line is this, we each have our own opinion, just as the TPGs sell their opinions. We can agree here and now that on this we disagree, and probably always will.

 

All I did was reiterate what Doug typed, nothing more.

We are not discussing value grading. It was never mentioned before the quote of Doug's from the other thread, and has only been mentioned here by you as a diversionary tactic in order to avoid the real issue.

I asked you a very simple question and would appreciate an answer. How can you point to the ANA standards as your basis for the "wear is wear" philosophy when the ANA standards themselves don't agree with you?

Fine, provide a quote from the book.

No spin doctor, it has nothing to do with "wear is wear" or the ANA standards

An outright lie. I have quoted the PCGS standards several times in this very thread.

NGC hasn't published their standards, so no it doesn't, just more spin!

We only are going back and forth because you refuse to answer my questions and are just posting diversionary spin tactics to avoid the inevitable, admitting that you are wrong. But considering your teacher, it does not surprise me. If you want it to end, answer the question.

How can you point to the ANA standards as your basis for the "wear is wear" philosophy when the ANA standards themselves don't agree with you.

 

By your definition, every coin that makes its way past the mint doors would be considered an AU or less. Obviously not every Saint has friction showing and those coins should be graded as MS. But others that are truly uncirculated but show friction should be considered "uncirculated" and not MS. I realize that no TPG makes this distinction, and really they simply could not do so with the current Sheldon grading scale. But in my opinion, the grading scale between the points of 50 and 59 should carry two different prefixes; AU an UN. This would be the only way to properly grade coins with these characteristics. Pipe dream maybe, but a true representation of what the coin is.

 

If you didn't realize it, that's not my fault.

I never said the ANA standards have the philosophy of wear is wear, only that their standards for MS grades does not allow for wear.

Chapter 6: Treasury Hoards and Other Quantities

Pages 45 and 46.

So how do you explain this?



Notice under AU Details, it says "traces of light wear on high points of the coin's design.

No, we're going back and forth because you refuse to accept my answers, given more than once to the same questions. The answers are there, go back and read them.

If you ever wonder why Doug bashes you, it's because of your attitude displayed above. You can't accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you and therefor you resort to making the discussion personal. You ever think that you might be taken more professionally if you kept it on a professional level, which it has been up until the above statement.

My answers to your questions are posted, more than once. Go back and read them. If my answers are not what you want to hear, I offer no apology as it is not my fault you can't see them.

 

Doug clearly stated in the other thread that the ANA standards DO allow for wear from roll friction in the MS grades. Are you calling him a liar?

So you consider one page of guidelines about how they treat problem coins as their grading standards? I do not! BTW, this whole thing about NGC's grading standards is evidence of the diversionary tactics that I was talking about. What does NGC's standards have do with our conversation?

When you stop being honest in a last ditch effort to avoid losing a debate, I will call it what it is all day long, SPIN! There is nothing unprofessional about calling you out for actions. My posts put you in a position similar to checkmate in chess, but rather than tip over your king and admit defeat, you threw a blanket over the chess board. One last time:

How can you point to the ANA standards as your basis for the "wear is wear" philosophy when the ANA standards themselves don't agree with you.

CHECKMATE!

 

What Doug said was the ANA's 3rd edition of grading standards came out in 1987 and market grading was born. He also went on to say that market grading allowed for high point wear on coins for uncirculated grading.

He's also said he doesn't agree with allowing any wear to slide the coin into an uncirculated grade.

No, nor did I state that. However, NGC can't say in their grading standards that certain wear is allowed for a coin to receive an MS grade, when their standards for a Details AU grade states the opposite. That is a contradiction in their standards. It's either worthy of a Details label with an AU, or it isn't. They can't have it both ways.

We are discussing grading standards as a whole, Paul. Have you not been paying attention. We've discussed PCGS's, ANA's, and now NGC's. After all, YOU'RE on the side of the TPG's allowing high point wear to not hold a coin back from an MS grade, and my opinion is it should.

For the last time, read my answer to that question asked and answered several times already.

 

You have been claiming that the reason you think all coins showing wear are AU is because you are following the ANA standards. Now you are admitting that the ANA standards allow for coins with roll friction to be considered MS. That means that you are not following any published grading standard and that both you and Doug simply have a personal opinion on the matter. You are entitled to that opinion, but you are not entitled to present it as part of the ANA grading standards, which it is not.

What really bothers me is that in the early part of this thread in post #62 I specifically asked how the ANA standards address roll friction. Nobody responded so I assumed based on the posts made by you and others that any wear would prevent an MS grade based on the ANA standards. This is evidenced in my post #99 which I incorrectly state that the ANA standards don't take roll friction into account. It wasn't until I found a two year old post made by Doug in a different thread that the truth came out. That means that one of the following scenarios occurred:

1) You knew that the ANA standards allowed for roll friction, but let me think otherwise because it bolstered your opinion.
2) You did not know that the ANA standards allowed for roll friction.

Since you follow the ANA grading standards, I will assume you have a copy. Can you please look up roll friction in the index and tell us what it says specifically.

You need to read the entire written grading standards. Picking out one page to proclaim it a contradiction is nothing more than contextomy.

We don't need to discuss NGC's, they are essentially identical to those of PCGS.

 

But bag marks are NOT considered wear, either as practiced by the TPGs or as listed in the official ANA grading book, right ?

 

If the TPGs and the ANA are on the same page because the TPGs determined the standards, is there necessarily something wrong for minor deviations or mid-course corrections?

You have codicils and footnotes to expand on certain points in legal or written items, maybe the TPGs are being flexible ?

 

I think I see what you are saying.

In theory, if a coin never left a mint bag from the U.S. mint but got banged around inside the bag...tons of bag marks...dents...scratches....and WEAR (high points showed significant rub from being moved weekly over many decades in some vault)....then you are saying when it comes out of that bag, it can't be considered MS.

This is the 'outlier' that is an extreme example, much like a coin could in theory circulate for a few days/weeks/months and yet remain MS.

In theory.

Of course, as Homer Simpson once said, "In theory, Marge, communism worked...in theory."