totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

They are not on the same page at all, not even close. If you read the ANA grading book, and read the PCGS grading book - they are entirely and completely different. What's worse, PCGS does not even grade coins based on the standards written in their own book.

Codicils and footnotes ? Huh ?

It's pretty simple, you can Google it, you look it up in any book you want (except the PCGS book) and the very definition of an MS coin is a coin that shows no wear. That's it, period.

There is no exception, there is no excuse, there is no anything, that ever says that the wear can be caused by this or caused by that and therefore that wear doesn't count and isn't really wear at all. The definition is simple, straightforward, and explicitly clear - it says than an MS coin, and uncirculated coin, is one that shows no wear. There are no quantifiers or qualifications - wear is wear, regardless of what causes it.

It is in the PCGS book, and ONLY in the PCGS book, where you will find that wear from this or that doesn't matter. And that the only wear that does matter is wear that is received from a coin being in actual circulation.

The problem with that, and it should be extremely obvious, is that there is no way, none, to tell what actually caused any wear on a coin. The only thing you can tell is that the wear is indeed there, or not there.

 

The thing about theories is, some of them are true. Yes, you can go to a grocery store and get a coin out of the cash drawer, send that coin into NGC or PCGS, and that coin can be graded as MS.

Now there is no doubt that coin was actually in circulation, you saw it as such with your own eyes. But yet that coin is still graded as MS by the TPG.

By the same token, there are coins that have most definitely never been in actual circulation, never saw the inside of any cash drawer, were never in any bank. But yet the coin is absolutely and without question worn. Want to see a picture of one ?




Technically that coin has never seen or been in circulation. But yet the wear is undeniable. Why ? Because I personally carried it around in my pocket every day, with a minimum of 4 quarters, and often other change besides, and a pocketknife - all in the same pocket - for a period of over 7 years.

And yet look at the coin. It is not covered with hits and dings, there are no scratches, there is just honest wear. And yes, it is a coin that is made of exactly the same metal alloy that other US gold coins, collectible coins, are made of. I even used to use that coin as my "coin flip" coin. In other words, if a choice was to be made and somebody said flip a coin, that was the coin that was pulled out and flipped. The slapped down the table, or even allowed to hit the floor. And yes, there are people who are members of this forum who were there to see that happen with own eyes. And yet look at the coin.

To use your words - an outlier - most definitely. But there it is. And as they say if there are no pictures it didn't happen. Well, you got the pictures.

Now does this prove anything ? Of course not, except for one thing. That coin was technically never in circulation - it was never used in commerce. But to say it therefore does not have any wear is utterly ridiculous of course. Just as the idea that PCGS puts forth that unless a coin is used in circulation then any wear on the coin is not wear at all is ridiculous.

 

How does PCGS define circulation Paul ? They define it as a coin being used in commerce. That coin was never used in commerce. And I did say "technically not in circulation", the same phrase that PCGS uses.

Of course the coin was in circulation ! Just like all the coins sitting in the banks were in circulation !

That IS the point.

 

Not at all. As I said -

So what would you grade that coin ? And if gold is "so soft" then why did it take 7 years, 7 days a week, of continuous wear, for it to get to that point ?

Yes gold is soft, but US gold coins were made with the alloy they were made with to make them hard and to resist wear. That's why it took 7 years to get that coin that way.

Ever see a guy in the movies bite a gold coin to see if it was genuine ? I think everybody has. Know why people would bite a gold coin ? Most think it was because the gold was soft therefore it would show teeth marks. Well that isn't the reason at all. They would bite gold coins to make sure they were hard. If the coin was genuine there would be no teeth marks. If there were teeth marks then the coin was a fake. So gold coins are not as soft as people seem to think.

But are they soft enough to show high point wear from just a little contact ? You bet they are. But so are copper and silver coins. And it doesn't have anything to do with the metal they are made of, it has to do with the fragility of luster on an MS coin. It takes very little to break the luster on an MS coin and create wear on that coin.

You know what's wrong with the PCGS "rule" regarding high point wear ? Here's a quote for ya direct from their book -

"Though a coin may have slight "friction" on its highest points, it may never have been in circulation, so technically speaking it is uncirculated."

"Coins of older types are allowed more friction than are modern types."

Know how they define AU58 ?

"There will be slight wear on the highest points of the coin.In some cases 5x magnification will be needed to notice this wear."

Hmmmm - sounds to me like MS and AU are the same thing. Oh wait, they are in their eyes

In another thread somebody wanted to know if this same discussion was me wanting to argue semantics. Well it sure seems to me that "semantics" is exactly what PCGS is using.

And yeah, I underlined "may" above for that is another point. In other words just that chance that the wear may be from from something other than the coin being used in commerce, then that wear doesn't count.

And yeah, to me, that is a ridiculous idea.

 

So now you know what my point is, even after I have defined it, better than I do ?

Gimme a break Paul, I never in any way claimed any such thing.

 

The thing that is an absolutely absurd example is PCGS saying "technically not in circulation".

 

Ahhh, forgive me, I worded the quote incorrectly, though what I said does convey the same meaning. As I said in post #147 what it should be is -

 

Oh, something simple Paul, it's called logic. Every single business strike coin released by the mint for use in circulation has been put into bags, so all of them are subject to high point friction from being on those bags. And since high point friction is nothing but a euphemism for high point wear, then all of them, all coins, are subject to this high point wear from being in bags - not just Saints.

And before you try and tell me that isn't so because Saints are gold and the metal is softer than silver and copper, what about all of other gold coins that are not Saints ? They are made of exactly the same gold alloy that Saints are, and they were all issued in bags, so how can this rule apply to just Saints and not to them ? Obviously it cannot.

But wait a minute, if you actually read the PCGS grading standards that rule does not apply to just Saints, it does apply to all coins. So what PCGS tries to get people to believe is that any coin with high point wear can still be graded as MS because at one time it was in a bag with other coins. So that wear might have been, may have been, caused by friction between the coins while they were in the bags.

Then they provide even more qualifiers and make statements like -

"The larger sized coins are allowed more friction than are the smaller coins."

"The softer the metal, the more friction is allowed."

"Coin of older types are allowed more friction than are modern types."

You see Paul, you said it quite well. Yeah, a lot of people "choose" to believe in the PCGS philosophy. Why ? Because it allows them to have their AU coins graded as MS. They want their coins graded as MS, they don't want AU coins. So they believe what they want to believe. In spite of the fact that logic dictates otherwise. In spite of the fact that wear is wear regardless of what caused it.

Then there's those nagging contradictions like your claim that -

So what contradiction ? How about this one ? The PCGS definition of AU58 -

"There will be slight wear on the highest points of the coin. In some cases, 5x magnification is needed to notice this wear, and in sometimes it can be noticed by slowly tilting the coin in the light source."

It doesn't say anything about needing to see wear in the fields for the coin to be AU. It says, and quite plainly, slight wear on the highest points. And that this wear can be so slight that 5x magnification is sometimes need to even see it.

Now I will agree with you, when it comes to actual grading PCGS will not grade coins as AU unless there is wear in the fields. But their own written and published grading standards say otherwise. I'd call that a contradiction. And that's just one of many.

 

LOL ! Really Paul ?

I want everybody to know everything !! That's the problem, they don't because they don't read the book. If they did, they would see all of the glaring contradictions with their own eyes and I wouldn't have to point them out.

Now if I remember correctly you are quoting and providing page numbers from the 1st edition of the PCGS book published in 1997, is that correct ? I am quoting from the 2nd edition of the PCGS book published in 2004. And the page numbers are different in the two books. It would also seem that a bit more than just the page numbers are different.

Now I'm going to provide 2 direct quotes from the book, and you please tell me how these two quotes do not contradict each other.

AU58 - "There will be slight wear on the highest points of the coin. In some cases, 5x magnification is needed to notice this wear, and in sometimes it can be noticed by slowly tilting the coin in the light source."

That comes from chapter 4 - titled PCGS Grading Standards, page 30, of the 2nd edition.

In chapter 5 titled Elements of a Coins Grade, on page 48, it says -

"If you need magnification to see the 'wear', it is either not wear or it is wear that is so slight as to not prevent the coin from grading Uncirculated."

So on the one hand they are telling us that the amount of wear on a 58 coin is so slight that we might need 5x magnification to even see it. Then just a bit later they tell us that if we need magnification to see this slight wear, then it is not wear at all. If that is not a blatant contradiction, then I don't what would be.