totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You raise this to their level of consciousness, Doug, they'll just select another descriptive term. Antagonism, abrasion, conflict, discordance, disharmony, resistance, chafing, interference, dissonance. It's a vocabulary game, they have very good vocabularies. But that's about all.

 

If you truly believe that all wear is wear, and that wear is caused by friction between a coin and ANY OTHER OBJECT, then why did you omit only object that is germane to the discussion? If you truly believe that COIN TO COIN FRICTION is tantamount to wear, you would have included it your list of examples (see red text in quote above).

You may think that PCGS's standards are contradictory in many places, but if you are going to criticize others, then you need to be above reproach in that regard. I have already pointed out that what you believe is contradictory with respect to incomplete strike. But lets ignore that example and concentrate on another of YOUR CONTRADICTIONS. I have heard you talk of luster grazes on Morgan Dollars hundreds of times on this forum. I have never seen you claim that a Morgan Dollar with luster grazes is AU, why not?

 

Hey, welcome back Henny Youngman! Never any substance, just snarky comments! Btw, you two are getting crushed in this debate. Don't believe me? Ask the other members of the forum. At this point, you two and Conder are the only ones left in the "wear is wear" boat.

 

I'll take that company, anytime, poker shark. Your problem is, you think the majority is always right. I'd hasten to point out to you there was a time not long ago when the majority believed in witches and burned innocent people at the stake for that inept, delusional thinking, but I won't. Oh wait, I just did.

 

There is no right and wrong, it is a debate about a subjective topic. But I have presented in a very clear and logical manner why I think the PCGS standards make more sense and should be accepted. You continue to try to sway people by using one liners, snarky banter, and ad hominem attacks. With that strategy, it is no surprise that you have very little company in your boat.

 

You think just because you're competent to make accusations, they're true. That's another distinct problem you have, you're long on defamatory accusations. You're preying on the ignorance of people with those. I'm making ad hominem attacks because you say so. You're very clear and logical because you say so. I was a troll because you said so. You keep them coming. I'll keep shaking them off. So will anybody here I'm confident with a brain that can still think.

 

Until you engage in the debate rather than trying to impugn the credibility/character of the participants of the debate, you are a troll. There is a question pending to Doug right now about luster grazes. You are welcome at any time to attempt to answer that question on his behalf. But you wont, you are more interested in throwing around phrases like "you're long on defamatory accusations."

 

Oh my, now he's out there on Pluto, somewhere. I never engage in debate; I impugn the credibility and good character of others, too, not just him. Yeah, now he's really on the campaign trail. Get the last word in, chum. Your ego needs it. I'm gone in this thread.

 

You omitted the one object that is at the center of the debate. If you are calling it an innocent oversight, I will accept that given your advanced age (hehehe). Now hold the phone. So what you are saying is that "coin to coin" friction is responsible for both luster grazes and "roll/bag friction" but that luster grazes don't disturb the metal enough to be considered wear.

That theory is flawed. The result of "roll/bag friction" has nothing to do with repetition, rather where the coin is located in the bag. Coins at the bottom and in the middle will exhibit more friction than those on top because of increased pressure. Furthermore, I never said that bag marks are equivalent to wear. However, we accept that bag marks will vary in size, accepting "coin to coin" friction in different levels of severity only makes sense.

It is your contention that incomplete strike does not look exactly like wear. The reason you give is that the color and texture are different. When the TPGs apply the same standard for "roll/bag friction," you claim that the color difference is indiscernible. Read your statement above in red. If it can be done with respect to incomplete strike, it can be done with respect to "roll/bag friction." And just like there is a texture difference between wear and weak strike, so it holds for "roll/bag friction" as well. You described wear as smooth and flat, "roll/bag friction" has a glossy appearance where the luster still "rolls" when tilted in a good light source.

In order to make your argument make sense, you have resorted to classifying luster grazes as a type of bag mark. You can't be serious! Luster grazes occur the exact same way that "roll/bag friction" occurs, a sliding motion between 2 coins. The design and relief of the coin will determine whether or not the result of this sliding is luster grazes or "roll/bag friction." Additionally, the sentence in red in your post above clearly describes how a bag mark is different than a luster graze. You can't describe how they are created differently and then classify them the same. They are not the same, and PCGS recognizes that they are not the same. PCGS treats luster grazes the exact same whey they treat "roll/bag friction" (see quote below).

That quote comes from the Chapter 3: GRADING TECHNIQUES AND TECHNICAL GRADING: Technical Versus Market Grading: Silver Coins. This is the part where PCGS explains the specific application of market grading with respect to each series. Their admission that they are market grading coins with luster grazes means that under technical grading, coins with luster grazes would be considered AU.

Now if the beginning of your most recent post, you admitted that both luster grazes and "roll/bag friction" are the result of coin to coin friction. You astutely pointed out that the difference between the two is a matter of degree. Under your method, market grading a coin with luster grazes as a mint state coin is acceptable. The coin shown below is a GSA NGC 1881-CC MS66+.



Under the TPG method, market grading a coin with "roll/bag friction" as a mint state coin is acceptable (see example below).



The crux of this issue is that you find the friction on the Morgan Dollar acceptable, but you find the friction on the Saint egregious. While you are welcome to your opinion, there is nothing inherently unreasonable about thinking that the friction found on that Saint is less distracting than that on the Morgan Dollar. And that is basically the crux of the reason why the numismatic community has accepted the market grading of coins that display "roll/bag friction."

Now I know your objection to their expansion of this market grading principle is that it is impossible to definitively determine that the friction came from "coin to coin" contact as opposed to friction with some other object. Yet you freely accept market grading coins with weak strike. A comparison of the grading principles used with respect to weak strike and "roll/bag friction" are essentially identical.

1) Both weak strike and "roll/bag friction" are predictable by series and only occur on very specific areas of the design. For example: Morgan Dollars (Above the ear--weak strike), Saints (Breast & knee--roll/bag friction), Walkers (Miss Liberty's leg--weak strike), SLQs (Miss Liberty's leg--roll/bag friction).

2) Both display color differences that separate them from wear. As an example, PCGS states that "Upon observing real wear on a Saint, one notices the brown grayish look as opposed to the bright look of coin against coin friction."

3) Both have texture properties that differ from wear. Incomplete strike will often exhibit a granular texture related to planchet roughness whereas wear is flat, dull, and smooth. "Roll/Bag friction" has an glossy appearance where the luster still rolls.

Again, it is your prerogative to accept none, some, or all of these market grading principles as a collector. But to tell those who accept the market grading principles employed by the TPGs that they are wrong simply because they are different than the standards that you accept is unacceptable. Coin grading is subjective, there is no right or wrong despite what you might believe.

 

You guys ought to get a room.

 

So anyone who agrees with the TPG grading philosophy is wrong, but the handful of people who agree with you, know what they are talking about. Is that really your position? What I understand is that you are old man who is simply unable to adapt the advances made in the grading standards. The changes in grading standards are not a conspiracy by the TPGs to shovel out higher grades in order to make collectors feel better about their coins. They were implemented in order to alleviate what everyone else would consider punitive grading standards, such as your beloved "wear is wear" campaign. Nobody in their right mind would consider that Wells Fargo Saint an AU coin, except you. The market grading principles employed by the TPGs are fair, logical, and accepted by the numismatic community. And when I say accepted, it includes a whole lot of people who know a heck of a lot more about coins than you do.

There is no difference between wear and frost breaks. Both involve metal displacement caused by coin to coin friction. The only reason that you think there is a difference is so that you can defend your practice of allowing coins with frost breaks to be graded mint state and relegate coins with "roll bag/bag friction" to AU status. Even the most novice of the collectors on this forum can see how disingenuous with respect to this topic. Furthermore, you are grading that Morgan from a photograph. I can show you another photograph and the frost breaks which are so evident practically disappear.


1881-CC GSA Dollar, MS66+ VAM-2, Doubled 88



Looks like an MS66 to me!

The luster is broken on the knee of that Saint, in the same way that the luster is broken on every other uncirculated Saint in existence. But is doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that the total metal displacement on the knee of that Saint is far less than the total metal displacement of the luster grazes on that Morgan Dollar. In both cases, the metal displacement came from coin to coin contact. Remember Doug, the Wells Fargo Saints came directly from sealed bags.

Btw, I never called them luster grazes on the Saint. I said that luster grazes are essentially the same thing as "roll/bag friction". The difference between your argument and mine is a matter of credibility. You see, my argument is not actually mine. Everything I have said comes directly from the PCGS THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION. You are stating that any breaks in luster are wear, and any coin with wear should be graded AU. Except those coins that have luster grazes of course. And what grading entity do you quote to support your position? You claim it is ANA grading standards, but you have never provided any quotes from those written standards on this subject, EVER! So while I make logical point after logical point and provide quotes from the PCGS standards to help make those logical points, your rebuttal is always in the form of "No Paul, you are wrong, BECAUSE I SAY SO!" Well, who are you?

And your reason that it doesn't make sense? Thats right, "because you say so." You admit that the degree of severity is what is important. You are fine with friction when it creates frost breaks, but if it causes metal displacement on a coin with a design that is prone to high point friction, you draw the line and call it wear. Again, why do you get to draw the line of what friction is acceptable for mint state and what is considered AU? You have absolutely no proof that the Morgan Dollar was not subjected to more severe coin to coin friction than the Wells Fargo Saint.

Again, why is it not true? That's right, "because you say so." You claim that you can see the color difference between weak strike and wear, but when PCGS says that it is possible to see the color difference between wear and "roll/bag friction," it is not true. The amount of arrogance that it takes to make that statement is staggering. PCGS has published a book on their grading standards. A book that you like to criticize for being inconsistent. When is your book coming to stores? If you are such and expert on coins, why don't you write a book detailing why the TPGs are wrong? Here is a title recommendation for you: Doug on Coins, Because I say so!

Wait, what? You just said that "bag friction is not the same as a luster graze" and in the very next sentence you state "the frost breaks on that Morgan were caused by bag friction." Such an unfortunate time for a Freudian Slip. Frost breaks have a glossy silver appearance that is different from the dull gray caused by wear.

You can't have it both ways. If breaks in luster are how you identify wear, than any coin with a luster graze (break) has wear. Under you method of grading, you must grade any coin with a luster graze AU. Now who is being inconsistent?

The PCGS standards are not inconsistent. Can you find some minor contradictions within their book? Sure, so go blame the editor of the text for not catching them. But when you read the whole book, the theme becomes very clear as do their grading standards, and the contradictions that you cite fade away. What causes inconsistency in grading is the inherent subjectivity in grading and the application of grading standards by graders of varying expertise. I submit that most of the mistakes that you see in TPG plastic are made by graders who are either grading too quickly or are not experienced enough to handle the coin that they were grading.

Your grading is consistent, unfortunately, it is not accurate. If you think that grading consistently wrong is a good thing, then great, good job. But if you want your opinion to have any meaning to the members of the forum, then you need to stop using grading standards that are uniquely yours. Unless you are gonna write your own book and start your own grading company! If a guy comes on the forum with an MS65 Morgan Dollar and wants to know if it is worth grading, what good does it do him for you to tell him he has an MS63 Morgan Dollar that is really not worth submitting? You are typically 2 grades lower than almost every TPG grade and have been for all the time I have been a member of this forum. Heck, you did it in the last post. What grade were you gonna give that Morgan? MS63? Looking forward to reading the book!

 

To me it's very simple. I feel that if I can see noticeable wear on the high spots with the naked eye, the coin is an AU coin to me no matter what is printed on the holder. I understand that there are different ways that a coin could have received this wear, but why would I pay the same money for a coin with noticeable wear as I can for one that doesn't show this wear? Having said that, I would agree that not all coins with noticeable wear have seen any actual circulation through commerce.

 

You wrote the post above in October 2012 in this same thread.

Based on what you are saying now, it would appear that Doug (et al) have convinced you that the "wear is wear" philosophy is sound.

With regards to your question in red above, you answered it yourself in the first sentence of your first post: "I have seen thousands of Saints, but I have never seen one without some sort of friction (aside from proofs)." If every Saint shows friction (wear), and there are no available coins without any friction (wear), then it stands to reason that how much you would pay would depend of the coin's other attributes and not the high point friction. The only other option is to grade every Saint AU, thereby valuing every Saint of each date/mm the same as well.

How do you view the metal displacement of luster grazes? Do you make and exception for luster grazes, or do you consider it wear?

 

Sigmund Freud said only women can get hysteria and then years later said men can get it, too. When asked how he could change his mind, he said, "I'm smarter."

 

Perfectly legitimate question there. Friction is not always wear to me as I examine a coin. When I say that I have never seen a Saint without some sort of friction, I mean that there is always some sort of contact that has been made to the high points. This is the product of several factors that may have occurred over the life of the coin. I don't always see this as wear and would consider the coin as uncirculated. For me, I grade based on what I would consider a fair price for the coin, and not necessarily the true technical grade. I realize that this is somewhat of a contradiction, but I don't see grade the same way that a dealer may see it, for me, it's more about getting the best coin that I can for the money because it is a coin that I plan to keep. Let's face it, not all coins are going to grade MS-70, so there will likely be contact or friction on just about every coin ever minted. Saints are just more likely to show this contact as wear simply because of their large scale, softer metal content and the fact that most of them have a somewhat frosty appearance. This is not to say that they have ever made it into circulation, but is to say that they may appear to be an AU coin despite that fact. Technically these coins should be considered MS.

 

So is it fair to say that you agree with the TPG application of market grading principles with regards to high point friction as it pertains to luster grazes and "roll/bag friction" of Saint Gaudens double eagles? If so, do you also agree with their application of such standards to other series, specifically, Standing Liberty Quarters?

Obviously I agree with the reasonable application of market grading coins with high point friction by the TPGs. The problem with that sentence is the word reasonable. It means different things to different people. Doug is only comfortable with the market grading of luster grazes, and finds the market grading of "roll/bag friction" as an egregious expansion of market grading. His argument that luster grazes and "roll/bag friction" is completely flawed however. Both are created by the same process, coin to coin contact in a sliding motion.

It is really not incumbent upon me to make his argument for him, but his OPINION does have some merit. The problem with "roll/bag friction" is the degree of subjectivity inherent in identifying such examples. While it is very difficult to mistakenly grade a coin with "circulation wear" as uncirculated because of luster grazes, it becomes much easier to do so with a coin that suffers from "roll/bag friction." The reason for this is because the design of the coins that suffer from "roll/bag friction" do so because an area of the design is higher than the rest of the coin and will always suffer friction first, despite the cause of the friction. Coin to coin contact will impart friction on the coin in the exact same place that a human finger will, whereas luster grazes can be found throughout the entire surface of the coin.

In essence, those who share Doug's principles should object to the application of "roll/bag friction" on the basis of a "slippery slope" argument. After all, who amongst us hasn't seen a coin graded MS based on the application of "roll/bag friction" that upon further inspection, we thought was most certainly an AU coin with circulation wear? I know that I have. The difference between me and Doug is that I choose not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I don't even mind that Doug has the opinion that he has. I understand it, and think it is a reasonable position. What I mind is his unyielding persistence that HE IS RIGHT, and anyone who disagrees with him is WRONG. Coin grading is subjective, and each of us will have our own personal standards with respect to grading. But nobody is right or wrong, we simply have varying opinions based on personal preferences.

 

Yes, I agree with the TPG application of market grading on the basis of roll or bag friction. Frankly I don't see how they could do it any other way. My only problem with it is the inconsistency that has been applied over the years and amongst different coin types. I understand the principle that larger coins, softer metal and high relief designs are much more likely to display friction as wear over other smaller coins even though the coin is technically mint state. But the principle is often ignored on early Lincoln cents mercury dimes and others. All I've ever asked for from them is consistency in this regard.

How many times have you seen a toned coin with high points that are white graded MS? If the definition is only applied to roll or bag friction, how could a coin tone, get the toning rubbed off of the high points, then still receive a MS or (unimpaired) PR grade? I would point to the 1870 proof set that Matt received loose in a cardboard box as a prime example. Not to take anything away from the set, but none of them should have been graded above PR-58 in my opinion, yet none of them received an impaired grade. This neglects the definition and is simply placing a value on a coin as far as I'm concerned.

As far as Doug's relentless need to argue the point goes, I think he just really likes the debate. I have much respect for yours and Doug's knowledge of coins and standards, so I'd prefer not to take a stance either way. I think we all have certain grading criteria that is not the same as what many would consider industry standard. Certainly I've learned quite a bit from both of you, but I can't agree with it all. My own grading standards have evolved over time as much as TPG standard have changed (another debate for another time), but this is not to say that what I may have graded MS thirty years ago would not be MS today, more like I am just more discerning in the coins that I want in my collection.