I always thought that all coins of a type would be graded identically. Any change in design (including high / low relief) requires new standards. But I'm not sure that's true. For instance, I was reading Garrett and Guth's "Encyclopedia of US Gold". The entry for the 1908 Indian $2.50 mentions that the eagle's wing usually lacks detail. Fuljenz's "Collector's Guide to Indian Head Quarter Eagles" goes a step farther, stating that ALL 1908s show weakness on the eagle's wing. Both books agree this is due to the die itself, not the strike. Even the best strikes have poor detail on the wing. And yet 1908s have more MS67s than any other date ! (NGC census) . They are also well represented in 65 and 66. Whazzup wid dat ? I have seen 1908s with much less wing detail than other dates with the same grade - other design features being comparable. The wing is the key focal point of the reverse and the reverse's single most important grading factor (per Halperin). I would have guessed that excellent detail would be mandatory for high grades. If all dates / mints were graded according to one standard, wouldn't a 1908 grade lower than another date with better wing detail (other features similar) ? Since none of the 1908s have good wings, how can any of them grade MS67 ? Similar idea for different mints. In the old days, the Philly mint always had the best equipment. Other mints, notably Dahlonega, had crummy presses and notoriously weak strikes. Are coins from that mint judged by a lower standard ? I would hope not. To cut to the chase : Are all coins of a type judged by the same standard, or are variations in a given issue taken into account ?
i think Speedy said it best.. i cant find the thread he said it in, but it boils down to 2 different grades. I might be missign the boat completely... but, its not like that has never happened before lol Speedy and i think Zaneman also thought as Speedy did.... maybe one of them can pop in and elaborate on my bad memory!! I think it had to do with market grade and somethign else... i wish i could find that thread....
Yep, I remember that thread. He was comparing Market grading with Technical grading. If I recall, the point was this... if two coins were Technical graded, there could still be significant differences in Eye Appeal, and thus they would get different $$$. Market grading is an attempt to equalize $$$... all coins of a given numeric grade would bring equal $$$. I think Speedy was saying Technical grading is more what Jim Halperin describes in "How to Grade US Coins" - Surface preservation, strike, luster, etc. and where distracting marks appear (not all nicks are created equal).
excellent 900fine, thats what i was trying to say. thank you. I think that is why the coins get graded the way they do. is that what you were wondering, does it help answer your question.
I said that?? While I still agree with what you posted above I might have not been very clear. Each coin is graded unlike another. Date, the mintmark, and sometimes toning, must be taken into account. A Morgan dollar dated 1881-S is known for a really sharp strike. A Morgan dollar dated 1880-O would have a week strike. (All Morgan dollars minted at the "O" mint have a week strike) Therefor you wouldn't grade them both the same. In the same way...the weight of the coin comes into the photo here. You don't grade a dime like a Morgan dollar. The heavier the coin the more bag marks it will get. I don't know if you have read the book by Jim Halperin, but if you haven't I'll post a link where you can read it for free. I don't know if what I said made any "cents" or not--- Speedy
No they are not judged by the same standard - never have been. Coins are judged on standards according to date and mint, even if they are the same type. And it has absolutely nothing to do with market grading vs techinical grading. That is an entirely different issue. The Morgan dollar mentioned is a good example. For example, say the S mint coins were struck 70,000 pounds of pressure and the O mint coins with 60,000. It stands to reason that one is going to have a better quality strike because of higher striking pressures. And because of that the coins cannot be judged by the same standard in regard to quality of strike. So you have one set of standards for coins of a given date from 1 mint and another set of standards for coins from another mint.
A coin can only have the details of a very fine coin, but is techinically as struck. Look at some late hammered coins of England to see brilliaint uncirculateds where the bust isn't clear. These coins are generally graded as fair, and they do not command high prices.
Not correct, in simplest terms a market grade is defined as what the market will accept as being accurate. Nothing more and nothing less.
