Me: That's a great coin. What do you think it grades?
Him: $40.00.
Sorry, not a fan of market grading. If a coin has slight wear, it's AU. Period. If someone wants to pay MS64 money for it, no problem.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
@MrEureka said: "What about the really ugly 60 coins that really shouldn’t be worth more than 45 money. Should we grade them MS45?
See the problem you are pointing out? Really ugly 60 coins should be graded MS-60. Trying to indicate the price a coin is "worth" when assigning a grade is 98% of the reason grading is more subjective (lack of training is the other 2%) than it should be! Until numismatists agree to grade the coin for its condition of preservation ONLY we will keep sinking further down the whirlpool of loose and deteriorating non-standard whims of price changes.
In an idea world of true strict grading, a coin would not be AU one day and MS another. AU's would never become MS over time. That sure would not be popular.
I can teach a novice (not color blind and with a reasonable IQ) what loss of original surface (FRICTION WEAR) on a coin looks like in a very short time. You would think I was crazy if I put down the number of minutes.
Then, with a little more time, they can tell a weakly struck coin from a worn one. Of course it takes much longer if the coins are not original (polished, etched, etc).
Today, I believe that some professionals look at a coin they personally would not buy because it is not original or has too much "rub" to be MS yet it is considered to be MS. When a student shows me one of these, I tell them it is correctly graded by market standards and although it is a cleaned AU, I'd sell it as an MS-63 and sleep like a baby!
I have found that each professional numismatist has personal standards but when dealing with the commercial market, many leave them at home!
@specialist said:
My issue is if they can grade them AU62, then why can't they just grade it AU58+. Isn't that the same?
No, the latter is the intellectually honest approach and the one that conforms to the guidelines and standards posted on the PCGS website. I agree with you - AU 58+ sounds right. If we really need to, we can add AU58++.
@koynekwest said:
I'm a fan of just numbers with no other nomenclature, too.
Why not get rid of the numbers too?
@Wabbit2313 said:
I can't believe how many people are taking this as serious rather than a dig!
+2
A humorous story. Around 10 years ago I consigned several coins to auction and a great dealer wanted to see one first. A very pretty slabbed MS67 capped bust coin. They stated it had too much wear and offered me a strong 66 price. Wear? They were right about the friction. Not eye appeal. Sold for 67 money then and once since.
A very pretty slabbed MS67 capped bust coin. They stated it had too much wear and offered me a strong 66 price. Wear? They were right about the friction. Not eye appeal.
Love to see this one! Friction on a 67?
It is not that life is short, but that you are dead for so very long.
@koynekwest said:
I'm a fan of just numbers with no other nomenclature, too.
Why not get rid of the numbers too?
... and just put a dollar value.
That works better than you would think. Forget the grade just price it. Unfortunately, prices go up and down.
A Third-Party Pricing Service (TPPS) could slab generic coins with a letter that could be looked up for the going daily wholesale/retail spread. LOL. Sorta like having a MS-63 on a label right?
@Wabbit2313 said:
I can't believe how many people are taking this as serious rather than a dig!
I’m completely serious. It’s already happening- why not do it out in the open and reap the benefit...instead of overflating other grades for the necessary revenue.
@Wabbit2313 said:
I can't believe how many people are taking this as serious rather than a dig!
I’m completely serious. It’s already happening- why not do it out in the open and reap the benefit...instead of overflating other grades for the necessary revenue.
Let me ask you a hypothetical. If you repeatedly told someone mistruths, would you openly admit it and broadcast it for the world to see especially when you are in a business that involves a lot of trust? It can no longer be called an honest error or a one off if you admit to doing it intentionally.
P.S. and FYI -The PCGS website still lists all of the MS grades as having no trace of wear. It also defines AU58 as only having the "slightest friction" and virtually "full luster."
@tradedollarnut said:
And maybe y’all still believe in the Tooth Fairy...
It is, what it is. The horse has already left the barn. May as well acknowledge that the door is open
I agree and NOTHING is going to change the standards of today except they MAY get even looser. However, I for one was not aware of the posting on the website. That is something I wish they would modify with new wording.
@tradedollarnut said:
And maybe y’all still believe in the Tooth Fairy...
It is, what it is. The horse has already left the barn. May as well acknowledge that the door is open
I can't believe I am one of only a few who see the problem and systemic threat to the market. If the standards are malleable and the guarantee mush, then the rare coin market is built upon a farce and is due for a correction that will make the last ten years of decline look like nothing.
One grading guide says: "Not worn in any way." That may still be too tight.
The ANA guide says: "No trace of CIRCULATION WEAR." Now that provides lots of wiggle room as not all loss of original surface on a coin is due to "circulation in commerce." Perhaps a change to this wording is an easy way out.
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
@Baley said:
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
The numerical grades MS-60 through MS-70, used to denote a business strike coin that never has been in circulation. A Mint State coin can range from one that is covered with marks (MS-60) to a flawless example (MS-70).
@Baley said:
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Circulation wear is circulation wear and contact marks from production is just that. A coin has evidence of circulation or it doesn't. It's really that simple.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@Baley said:
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Only if you believe that the grade is really an appraisal of the coin's value. There are many factors beyond technical grade that factor into value and desirability of any piece. The market is volatile and fickle. If used as an appraisal then a coin needs to be submitted for each transaction for an updated/fresh opinion.... Oh wait, that is sort of the purpose isn't it? If this is the case then the services have rendered themselves useless on the grading front.
@Baley said:
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
The numerical grades MS-60 through MS-70, used to denote a business strike coin that never has been in circulation. A Mint State coin can range from one that is covered with marks (MS-60) to a flawless example (MS-70).
From the same document:
(Although it shows Morgan Dollars, it is clear from the context of the page that it is a general scale.)
@Baley said:
If the numerical grade does not correlate to the relative Quality, then what is the point?
Why are heavy bagmarks on the face and in the fields less of a point deduction than a barely perceptable trace of rub on the highpoints?
Who says they are worse? The world isn't linear. Why do you associate higher numbers necessarily with a better coin? The numbers are arbitrary. The technical differences they supposedly represent are not.
We could just as easily grade coins using a 1-10 scale in each sub category and dump the false appearance of a continuum... or maybe something like this:
@Colonialcoin said: "Why would anyone in their right mind buy an Unc-64 coin at a 64 price if rub is visible? Seriously?? Wait for one with no rub to turn up."
Besides not being in their right mind, I can think of some other reasons:
The label says MS-64 and a CAC sticker confirms the grade.
The person my have a different personal grading standard for the amount of "rub" they allow on a coin before it becomes their AU.
The person cannot grade?
The coin is being sold at the price of a much lower MS grade.
The person cannot tell the difference between wear and weak strike.
The person thinks it has a shot at a + or upgrade.
You guys ever think of this? A coin that has been dipped is circulated! Dipping does remove some of the original surface of the coin....hence wear! Where do you draw the line?
Something else is changing. Weakly struck coins are NO LONGER limited to the 64 grade MAX! I've seen beautiful, virtually mark-free dollars graded 65 and even 66's with no hairlines over the ear.
@Baley said:
If the numerical grade does not correlate to the relative Quality, then what is the point?
Why are heavy bagmarks on the face and in the fields less of a point deduction than a barely perceptable trace of rub on the highpoints?
Who says they are worse? The world isn't linear. Why do you associate higher numbers necessarily with a better coin?
Because MATH
"The numbers are arbitrary. "
Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!
Respectfully, have you never taken a math course beyond Algebra I (linear algebra)? Maybe instead of a straight line it is like a polynomial with multiple points of inflection.
This is a great thread! It shows that there really is not a 100% correct answer. I am seeing that many people have a valid argument on one side or the other. I guess buy and enjoy what you like.
@Baley said:
If the numerical grade does not correlate to the relative Quality, then what is the point?
Why are heavy bagmarks on the face and in the fields less of a point deduction than a barely perceptable trace of rub on the highpoints?
Who says they are worse? The world isn't linear. Why do you associate higher numbers necessarily with a better coin?
Because MATH
"The numbers are arbitrary. "
Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!
Respectfully, have you never taken a math course beyond Algebra I (linear algebra)? Maybe instead of a straight line it is like a polynomial with multiple points of inflection.
@Baley said: "Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!"
I agree! Please help me out here. You posted:
"I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58. and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Question: What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design? and...What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides?
I think a lot of people make good points and arguments for what a coin grading scale should be . The problem is that it is not the scale that we purportedly have. A rewrite is a problem since the guarantee (read as source of $$$$ and stability) and market structure is tied to the other scale.
Some of this reminds me of the guy who claimed that a coin received in change can't POSSIBLY be "uncirculated" because the coin was once used in commerce.
In other words: You're taking the grading terminology way too literally.
And, I'm still confused by the circular reasoning that "Grading should reflect the VALUE of the coin", yet at the same time claiming that an AU-64 coin is somehow different than an MS-64 coin. Pick a side! I think it's pretty clear we have sliders in MS holders BECAUSE they are grading to value.
I think the debate is a little hysterical. I'm not sure the proposal changes anything, and any increase in "honesty" is counteracted by an increase in confusion.
@Insider2 said: @Baley said: "Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!"
I agree! Please help me out here. You posted:
"I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58. and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Question: What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design?
66.6
and...What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides?
@Insider2 said: @Baley said: "Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!"
I agree! Please help me out here. You posted:
"I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58. and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Question: What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design?
66.6
and...What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides?
51.5
As long as the market can agree on what those numbers mean and do so consistently, then it too could be a viable scale (albeit not the one we have).
@TommyType said:
Some of this reminds me of the guy who claimed that a coin received in change can't POSSIBLY be "uncirculated" because the coin was once used in commerce.
In other words: You're taking the grading terminology way too literally.
>
Not really. The debate with the use of the misnomer "uncirculated" is really a semantic one. The difference here is a qualitative one.
@TommyType said:
Some of this reminds me of the guy who claimed that a coin received in change can't POSSIBLY be "uncirculated" because the coin was once used in commerce.
In other words: You're taking the grading terminology way too literally.
>
Not really. The debate with the use of the misnomer "uncirculated" is really a semantic one. The difference here is a qualitative one.
Yes and no. While some would come down on the side that "Wear is Wear!!", (qualitative), the semantics debate is over what constitutes circulation wear, vs. "cabinet friction", vs. strike flatness, vs. bag/roll/stacking friction, vs. "the fields are so pristine, that can't possibly be circulation wear...can it?".
I think if 10 people looked at the same high grade, imperfect high point coin, you might get a half dozen different opinions.
The TPG's put down an imperfect line in the sand. Drawing a different imperfect line doesn't solve anything, it just asks the entire hobby to change again.
There is not much to actually debate- The top tier TPGs already give some nice coins with a trace of wear grades higher than 58. The question is, whether they ought to be also be More intellectually and logically honest and less confusing and Contradictory by stopping calling them MS.
So....an AU58+ should never warrant a gold sticker but mistakes can happen when...whether wear becomes the toss-up between grades. And than there's the strike of the coin, whether it's complete/full, is there any regards with this very important aspect of the coin anymore? Because with Jefferson nickels, when the details on the coin working dies get so hammered out, almost to the smoothness of a hammer head itself, such coins with so little detail whatsoever other than the steps are being graded MS67+.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
Mint State should mean just that-no wear. To hell with this "market grading." I'm a fan of just numbers with no other nomenclature, too.
Why not get rid of the numbers too?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Reminds me of a dealer friend I had:
Me: That's a great coin. What do you think it grades?
Him: $40.00.
Sorry, not a fan of market grading. If a coin has slight wear, it's AU. Period. If someone wants to pay MS64 money for it, no problem.
Folks keep saying it's > @MrEureka said:
Drop the MS, and yes, if the Quality is 45, then give it a 45.
Mint State should theoretically have no marks or toning of any kind, should it? Mint is mint.
Drop the stupid words entirely.
"Good" coins aren't good, are they? They're pretty bad. And Fair coins are actually terrible.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@MrEureka said: "What about the really ugly 60 coins that really shouldn’t be worth more than 45 money. Should we grade them MS45?
See the problem you are pointing out? Really ugly 60 coins should be graded MS-60. Trying to indicate the price a coin is "worth" when assigning a grade is 98% of the reason grading is more subjective (lack of training is the other 2%) than it should be! Until numismatists agree to grade the coin for its condition of preservation ONLY we will keep sinking further down the whirlpool of loose and deteriorating non-standard whims of price changes.
In an idea world of true strict grading, a coin would not be AU one day and MS another. AU's would never become MS over time. That sure would not be popular.
I can teach a novice (not color blind and with a reasonable IQ) what loss of original surface (FRICTION WEAR) on a coin looks like in a very short time. You would think I was crazy if I put down the number of minutes.
Then, with a little more time, they can tell a weakly struck coin from a worn one. Of course it takes much longer if the coins are not original (polished, etched, etc).
Today, I believe that some professionals look at a coin they personally would not buy because it is not original or has too much "rub" to be MS yet it is considered to be MS. When a student shows me one of these, I tell them it is correctly graded by market standards and although it is a cleaned AU, I'd sell it as an MS-63 and sleep like a baby!
I have found that each professional numismatist has personal standards but when dealing with the commercial market, many leave them at home!
My issue is if they can grade them AU62, then why can't they just grade it AU58+. Isn't that the same?
No, the latter is the intellectually honest approach and the one that conforms to the guidelines and standards posted on the PCGS website. I agree with you - AU 58+ sounds right. If we really need to, we can add AU58++.
I take this as a joke, but I agree with you. I wish we would go back to four uncirculated grades.
+2
A humorous story. Around 10 years ago I consigned several coins to auction and a great dealer wanted to see one first. A very pretty slabbed MS67 capped bust coin. They stated it had too much wear and offered me a strong 66 price. Wear? They were right about the friction. Not eye appeal. Sold for 67 money then and once since.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Love to see this one! Friction on a 67?
... and just put a dollar value.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
so, is the LOL the new disagree button? Rarely do i LOL, but some of this is crazy.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
That works better than you would think. Forget the grade just price it. Unfortunately, prices go up and down.
A Third-Party Pricing Service (TPPS) could slab generic coins with a letter that could be looked up for the going daily wholesale/retail spread. LOL. Sorta like having a MS-63 on a label right?
I’m completely serious. It’s already happening- why not do it out in the open and reap the benefit...instead of overflating other grades for the necessary revenue.
There should be no 'fudge' when grading the aspect of minted coins. Stay Sheldon.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Let me ask you a hypothetical. If you repeatedly told someone mistruths, would you openly admit it and broadcast it for the world to see especially when you are in a business that involves a lot of trust? It can no longer be called an honest error or a one off if you admit to doing it intentionally.
P.S. and FYI -The PCGS website still lists all of the MS grades as having no trace of wear. It also defines AU58 as only having the "slightest friction" and virtually "full luster."
And maybe y’all still believe in the Tooth Fairy...
It is, what it is. The horse has already left the barn. May as well acknowledge that the door is open
Well, in similar vein to words that live in infamy: "It all depends on what wear is."
I agree and NOTHING is going to change the standards of today except they MAY get even looser. However, I for one was not aware of the posting on the website.
That is something I wish they would modify with new wording.
I can't believe I am one of only a few who see the problem and systemic threat to the market. If the standards are malleable and the guarantee mush, then the rare coin market is built upon a farce and is due for a correction that will make the last ten years of decline look like nothing.
Great. When you need to start resorting to Clintonisms to justify your actions then you know you're in trouble.
Just trying to be helpful here...
One grading guide says: "Not worn in any way." That may still be too tight.
The ANA guide says: "No trace of CIRCULATION WEAR." Now that provides lots of wiggle room as not all loss of original surface on a coin is due to "circulation in commerce." Perhaps a change to this wording is an easy way out.
I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58, and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Ah, this post is very troubling.
From the website
The numerical grades MS-60 through MS-70, used to denote a business strike coin that never has been in circulation. A Mint State coin can range from one that is covered with marks (MS-60) to a flawless example (MS-70).
Why would anyone in their right mind buy an Unc-64 coin at a 64 price if rub is visible? Seriously?? Wait for one with no rub to turn up.
Richard Picker had it right all along. Here is the coin ungraded, this is the price. Let the customer decide if it is right for him/her.
Circulation wear is circulation wear and contact marks from production is just that. A coin has evidence of circulation or it doesn't. It's really that simple.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Only if you believe that the grade is really an appraisal of the coin's value. There are many factors beyond technical grade that factor into value and desirability of any piece. The market is volatile and fickle. If used as an appraisal then a coin needs to be submitted for each transaction for an updated/fresh opinion.... Oh wait, that is sort of the purpose isn't it? If this is the case then the services have rendered themselves useless on the grading front.
Value them accordingly
From the same document:
(Although it shows Morgan Dollars, it is clear from the context of the page that it is a general scale.)
If the numerical grade does not correlate to the relative Quality, then what is the point?
Why are heavy bagmarks on the face and in the fields less of a point deduction than a barely perceptable trace of rub on the highpoints?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Who says they are worse? The world isn't linear. Why do you associate higher numbers necessarily with a better coin? The numbers are arbitrary. The technical differences they supposedly represent are not.
We could just as easily grade coins using a 1-10 scale in each sub category and dump the false appearance of a continuum... or maybe something like this:
Unc. 1-10
AU. 1-10
XF 1-5
VF 1-5
F 1-3
G 1-3
etc.
@Colonialcoin said: "Why would anyone in their right mind buy an Unc-64 coin at a 64 price if rub is visible? Seriously?? Wait for one with no rub to turn up."
Besides not being in their right mind, I can think of some other reasons:
You guys ever think of this? A coin that has been dipped is circulated! Dipping does remove some of the original surface of the coin....hence wear! Where do you draw the line?
There is a hailstorm at a new car lot. A brand new car gets dinged up because of the storm. It is still new.
I buy a new car with no problems and drive it on a 1000 mile trip. It now has become a pre-owned car.
Which is the better value?
Which grades higher?
I’ll pass on the dinged up car.
In terms of coins, I’ll take the more eye appealing item any day. I don’t care what anyone calls it.
Cover up the label and look at the coin.
Because MATH
"The numbers are arbitrary. "
Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Something else is changing. Weakly struck coins are NO LONGER limited to the 64 grade MAX! I've seen beautiful, virtually mark-free dollars graded 65 and even 66's with no hairlines over the ear.
Respectfully, have you never taken a math course beyond Algebra I (linear algebra)? Maybe instead of a straight line it is like a polynomial with multiple points of inflection.
This is a great thread! It shows that there really is not a 100% correct answer. I am seeing that many people have a valid argument on one side or the other. I guess buy and enjoy what you like.
LoL, please expound, professor!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: "Holy cow, this gets more entertaining by the minute!"
I agree! Please help me out here. You posted:
"I can't believe anyone thinks an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design grades 58. and meanwhile an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides of it grades 60.
Question: What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with the barest trace of wear on just the very highest points of the design? and...What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides?
I think a lot of people make good points and arguments for what a coin grading scale should be . The problem is that it is not the scale that we purportedly have. A rewrite is a problem since the guarantee (read as source of $$$$ and stability) and market structure is tied to the other scale.
Some of this reminds me of the guy who claimed that a coin received in change can't POSSIBLY be "uncirculated" because the coin was once used in commerce.
In other words: You're taking the grading terminology way too literally.
And, I'm still confused by the circular reasoning that "Grading should reflect the VALUE of the coin", yet at the same time claiming that an AU-64 coin is somehow different than an MS-64 coin. Pick a side! I think it's pretty clear we have sliders in MS holders BECAUSE they are grading to value.
I think the debate is a little hysterical. I'm not sure the proposal changes anything, and any increase in "honesty" is counteracted by an increase in confusion.
66.6
and...What is the grade of an otherwise MS70 coin with dozens of heavy contact marks from other coins all over both sides?
51.5
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
As long as the market can agree on what those numbers mean and do so consistently, then it too could be a viable scale (albeit not the one we have).
>
Not really. The debate with the use of the misnomer "uncirculated" is really a semantic one. The difference here is a qualitative one.
Yes and no. While some would come down on the side that "Wear is Wear!!", (qualitative), the semantics debate is over what constitutes circulation wear, vs. "cabinet friction", vs. strike flatness, vs. bag/roll/stacking friction, vs. "the fields are so pristine, that can't possibly be circulation wear...can it?".
I think if 10 people looked at the same high grade, imperfect high point coin, you might get a half dozen different opinions.
The TPG's put down an imperfect line in the sand. Drawing a different imperfect line doesn't solve anything, it just asks the entire hobby to change again.
There is not much to actually debate- The top tier TPGs already give some nice coins with a trace of wear grades higher than 58. The question is, whether they ought to be also be More intellectually and logically honest and less confusing and Contradictory by stopping calling them MS.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
So....an AU58+ should never warrant a gold sticker but mistakes can happen when...whether wear becomes the toss-up between grades. And than there's the strike of the coin, whether it's complete/full, is there any regards with this very important aspect of the coin anymore? Because with Jefferson nickels, when the details on the coin working dies get so hammered out, almost to the smoothness of a hammer head itself, such coins with so little detail whatsoever other than the steps are being graded MS67+.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I think I can sum this discussion up with a question, does the grade determine the value or the value determine the grade. Chicken or egg.