@MFeld said: "If I were describing the $10 Indian to someone, I would use the word "cut" or perhaps "gouge", rather than "scratch".
Agree.
@TommyType said: "Yeah, maybe. But isn't that just semantics?""
No, words mean things. it is all about passing down knowledge and trying not to corrupt the language. A scratch is a scratch and fits a certain description due to its appearance. We cannot allow folks to start changing things as they have succeeded in doing with Mint State!
@TommyType continued: "The question(s) still remain, "Can you say without question that it is a result of normal handling?" "Should it be straight graded?" And (my question), "Just because it is straight graded (or body bagged), are you required to take the TPG word for it?"
Knowledge is power. It appears that Professionals have decided the coin is graded, described, and VALUED at a certain grade. Other folks are free to agree or disagree. That will not change anything.
@Tommy believes: "My point being, whether the TPG decide to straight grade it or not shouldn't automatically dictate what an experienced collector decides.
Congratulations, I think you get the idea. Now, why not tell us how you would define a scratch.
@Insider2 said:
Congratulations, I think you get the idea. Now, why not tell us how you would define a scratch.
I think I "got the idea" long before we started playing semantics games, and you pretended you didn't see a scratch.
There is "damage of unknown origin" that turned that previously collectable coin into bullion value only. Call it a scratch, call it a gouge, call it a chisel mark, or a lightning strike, I contend it doesn't matter.
(And, no, my definition (or yours) of "scratch" isn't a remotely interesting topic to me).
The TPG elected to straight grade it. Fine. Their circus, their monkey. Just saying we aren't required to play along. Experienced collectors already know that, of course.
I guess the ones who could be hurt are the new collectors who look at the grade, look at the price guide, figure they did their due diligence, and whip out their wallets. I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)
They have been known to "genie" coins with significant planchet flaws, so why not significant flaws EVEN IF they determine they are mint induced, or "normal handling" induced?? At least it would give collectors pause to think about what the coin is really worth.
How to grade "excessively baggy" is kind of an academic question for those with experience. Not so much for novices, or for the truly sight-unseen market, as someone else pointed out.
Grading does more then just add to market value. I would say that Grading is a good idea for old gold especially if you don’t know it path to getting to you. I like Holders and the preservation of it. Modern different story. For me.
@TommyType said: "I think I "got the idea" long before we started playing semantics games, and you pretended you didn't see a scratch."
I asked you to show me a SCRATCH on the $10. You did not. I pretended nothing. I don't see one and I am very sorry that my attempt to EDUCATE YOU (and others) has left you sour. No personal attack was intended and it is against the rules. Unfortunately, you come across as an uninformed new collector. My mistake.
"There is "damage of unknown origin" that turned that previously collectable coin into bullion value only. Call it a scratch, call it a gouge, call it a chisel mark, or a lightning strike, I contend it doesn't matter."
Half the job of an educator is finding some one who is interested in learning. The characteristics we see on coins DO MATTER to a numismatist. Since it does not matter to you, that's fine. There are others (both numismatists and folks striving to be one) who may think the words we use to describe our coins matters. Those folks matter to me.
"(And, no, my definition (or yours) of "scratch" isn't a remotely interesting topic to me)."
That's too bad. I assumed (that makes me one) when you posted in this thread that you were interested.
"The TPG elected to straight grade it. Fine. Their circus, their monkey. Just saying we aren't required to play along. Experienced collectors already know that, of course. I guess the ones who could be hurt are the new collectors who look at the grade, look at the price guide, figure they did their due diligence, and whip out their wallets. I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)."
I fail to understand how any self-confessed person who is not interested in correct numismatic terminology can make any claim that a group of professionals who could (Self Edit) made a mistake.
"They have been known to "genie" coins with significant planchet flaws, so why not significant flaws EVEN IF they determine they are mint induced, or "normal handling" induced?? At least it would give collectors pause to think about what the coin is really worth."
AFAIK, the submitter is the one who can request a "genie only" holder. I guess you must know differently from experience.
@Insider2 said: @TommyType said: "I think I "got the idea" long before we started playing semantics games, and you pretended you didn't see a scratch."
I asked you to show me a SCRATCH on the $10. You did not. I pretended nothing. I don't see one and I am very sorry that my attempt to EDUCATE YOU (and others) has left you sour. No personal attack was intended and it is against the rules. Unfortunately, you come across as an uninformed new collector. My mistake.
"There is "damage of unknown origin" that turned that previously collectable coin into bullion value only. Call it a scratch, call it a gouge, call it a chisel mark, or a lightning strike, I contend it doesn't matter."
Half the job of an educator is finding some one who is interested in learning. The characteristics we see on coins DO MATTER to a numismatist. Since it does not matter to you, that's fine. There are others (both numismatists and folks striving to be one) who may think the words we use to describe our coins matters. Those folks matter to me.
"(And, no, my definition (or yours) of "scratch" isn't a remotely interesting topic to me)."
That's too bad. I assumed (that makes me one) when you posted in this thread that you were interested.
"The TPG elected to straight grade it. Fine. Their circus, their monkey. Just saying we aren't required to play along. Experienced collectors already know that, of course. I guess the ones who could be hurt are the new collectors who look at the grade, look at the price guide, figure they did their due diligence, and whip out their wallets. I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)."
I fail to understand how any self-confessed person who is not interested in correct numismatic terminology can make any claim that a group of professionals who could (Self Edit) made a mistake.
"They have been known to "genie" coins with significant planchet flaws, so why not significant flaws EVEN IF they determine they are mint induced, or "normal handling" induced?? At least it would give collectors pause to think about what the coin is really worth."
AFAIK, the submitter is the one who can request a "genie only" holder. I guess you must know differently from experience.
I was going to walk away from this. My point was that a TPG straight grading a coin doesn't' necessarily make it a good coin....and a net graded (or genie) coin isn't necessarily a bad coin.
But, I got dragged into "what is a scratch".....which STILL doesn't interest me as a topic of conversation....and then what I wrote was horribly misconstrued, either because I wrote it poorly, or it was read poorly.
My (edited) comment: " I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)."
Your reply: I fail to understand how any self-confessed person who is not interested in correct numismatic terminology can make any claim that a group of professionals who could (Self Edit) made a mistake.
The "mistake" in question isn't the TPG's assessment. (Their circus, their monkey!) The Mistake is the novice collector who uses that assessment to pay full retail for what I, and many others in this thread, see as a damaged coin. (This could be expanded into a tedious thread of its own....but it would be off topic, and probably would get us nowhere either).
Now, if you are still determined to educate me, please tell me what a scratch is? Please? (smiley added intentionally. Don't delete it).
Added: Hopefully before you reply....
What would YOU call the disfiguring mark on Miss Liberty's face? I want to speak your language should we meet each other in a dark hallway again.
@TommyType asked: "When does a bag mark become a scratch? @Insider2 said: "Good question and very easy to answer: NEVER! That's because they are completely different and never appear similar in any of their degrees of severity.
@TommyType said: "Well, that 1910 $10 Indian sure looks like it has a scratch, vs. a bag mark." @Insider2 said: "Let's write about it if you wish and see if we can come close to an agreement. Hopefully, others will join in. Look in the field right behind the head if the 1803 dollar. That is a **scratch. I see no scratches on the $10. Perhaps, if the coin is turned in the light and imaged again, the one you see will pop out."
I just reviewed the thread. Glad you did not walk away because I agree with the "meat" of your warnings to less informed folks who think a label is "Gospel." Labels are not, however, they have made coin collecting a much safer place for all of us.
@TommyType asked: "What would YOU call the disfiguring mark on Miss Liberty's face? I want to speak your language should we meet each other in a dark hallway again."
The words "cut," "gash," "gouge," and "damage" quickly come to mind. This coin was damaged after it was
struck! In this case I would choose "gash" and qualify it with "medium, deep." While the surface is "cut" I usually associate a cut with something on a coin's edge. A "Gouge" implies someone jammed something into the surface. the mark does not show this. Something hit the coin. Therefore IMO, "gash" describes it best. If the mark was much shorter as the ones under it, It would be classified as a "gouge."
When I devised the original technical grading system used ONLY for internal records while the ANA's Certification Service was still in DC, we made notes (using particular common words) to describe a coin in order to identify it. These words and their description/definitions (developed viewing a just a few coins with a stereo microscope) were carried over to the seminars we taught. There was a simple reason for this. The students needed to be on the same page. If someone on the left side of the room said a coin was flatly struck with a long scratch in the left field, everyone in the room had a good idea what the coin looked like and that the scratch resembled the one I pointed out over "Liberty's" head rather than the mark on the cheek.
I guess none of this matters in the big world. New folks come along and call things whatever they wish.
I was trying to find the picture of the mint workers using shovels to scoop up silver dollars from canvas bags that had rotted and burst open.
The coins are uncirculated but might have some nasty "cascades out of the rotten bags, and shovel marks" and still be in a "new" "repackaged" mint sewn bag.
I blew the coin out on ebay at $760, I had paid $860 for it when ebay had a promoting. so my loss was considerable. I had taken it out of the plastic leaving it on a sunny window thinking it might help, no dice on that. I shipped it with the NGC cert. label. Several weeks after the sale I got this email from the buyer, uh-oh:
Why did you take the coin out of the original NCG Holder? You said it had bag marks, NGC said it was damaged. I think this is misleading. I have never seen a NGC coin in that type of Holder. The labels have been taken off and put on this Holder. I want your response before I leave you a feedback.
DC
Hi--thanks for contacting me--the listing said it was uncertified. You can verify NGC images from the certification number, NGC has images of it on their site, let me know if you need to know how to find that. I purchased the coin on September 25, 2018 from eternitycoin for $860. Ebay listing number 142950040684. I was just selling it at a loss after having it for a while. If you are unhappy with the coin just send it back, I will pay for return shipping and you will get all your money back.
Another place where more is not always better. If the gold Indian is an MS60 there are tons of AU coins that would be more appealing and should, in my opinion, be worth more, but the price guides don’t reflect this. I’m not really sure why common-date, plentiful coins like this should trade at any premium over their bullion value.
Here we go again. Is there anyone reading this who cannot imagine what an MS-60 coin could look like? The grade is described in detail all over the place. Next, the value of the coin is screwing up the grade and discussion. In most cases many of us would rather have a mark free, lustrous, and attractive coin that just squeaks into AU than a true MS-60! So what.
I'm not going back to look at this thread to see if this is a duplicate post but in the old days, if a gold coin was free of friction wear it was considered MS. Those that were beat up were graded MS-60. In cases where they were extremely beat up they were graded MS-60, extremely baggy or MS-60, excessive bagmarked.
You see, the "detail grading" used today by the major TPGS is just an exact revival of our old "Technical" Grading System that was developed in 1973. Grade the coin, state the problems.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
That is what the grades MS60 and MS62 are for.
A MS60 isn't a pretty coin, but it is supposedly problem free. The Indian Head $10 does not look problem free to me, and the marks look intentional or some sort of other non-bag mark PMD to me.
@Baley said:
IMO, saying such ugly coins can't be lower than 60 is just as silly as saying a gorgeous coin with a bit of rub can't grade higher than 58.
While we're in the process of blowing up the grading scale that has existed for decades, who is to say that a coin with light cleaning hairlines from an old cleaning but unimpaired luster should receive a details grade while a staple scratched coin may straight grade and even bean?
@Baley said: " Grade the coin, state the problems. Yup. Then evaluate the problems, ** assign a fair Net Grade,** and price the coin appropriately, and sell it for what it's worth. Easy peasy!"
No, close but yappy crappy!
Much better and less confusing: "Grade the coin, state the problems. Yup. Then evaluate the problems keep the actual grade of the coin and price the coin appropriately. Sell it for what it's worth."
NET GRADING IS STUPID FOOLISHNESS that confuses any collector who is not familiar with or does not practice this nonsense. A coin's grade and price are subjective enough without starting with a grade that does not match accepted practice and published images just to come up with a fair selling price. I guess we can call it reverse "Net grading" when we call very special AU coins MINT STATE because they are worth millions of dollars. More confusing stupidity yet necessary because folks decided to couple a coin's value to its "acceptable at a certain point in
time - grade. LOL!
Comments
@MFeld said: "If I were describing the $10 Indian to someone, I would use the word "cut" or perhaps "gouge", rather than "scratch".
Agree.
@TommyType said: "Yeah, maybe. But isn't that just semantics?""
No, words mean things. it is all about passing down knowledge and trying not to corrupt the language. A scratch is a scratch and fits a certain description due to its appearance. We cannot allow folks to start changing things as they have succeeded in doing with Mint State!
@TommyType continued: "The question(s) still remain, "Can you say without question that it is a result of normal handling?" "Should it be straight graded?" And (my question), "Just because it is straight graded (or body bagged), are you required to take the TPG word for it?"
Knowledge is power. It appears that Professionals have decided the coin is graded, described, and VALUED at a certain grade. Other folks are free to agree or disagree. That will not change anything.
@Tommy believes: "My point being, whether the TPG decide to straight grade it or not shouldn't automatically dictate what an experienced collector decides.
Congratulations, I think you get the idea. Now, why not tell us how you would define a scratch.
I think I "got the idea" long before we started playing semantics games, and you pretended you didn't see a scratch.
There is "damage of unknown origin" that turned that previously collectable coin into bullion value only. Call it a scratch, call it a gouge, call it a chisel mark, or a lightning strike, I contend it doesn't matter.
(And, no, my definition (or yours) of "scratch" isn't a remotely interesting topic to me).
The TPG elected to straight grade it. Fine. Their circus, their monkey. Just saying we aren't required to play along. Experienced collectors already know that, of course.
I guess the ones who could be hurt are the new collectors who look at the grade, look at the price guide, figure they did their due diligence, and whip out their wallets. I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)
They have been known to "genie" coins with significant planchet flaws, so why not significant flaws EVEN IF they determine they are mint induced, or "normal handling" induced?? At least it would give collectors pause to think about what the coin is really worth.
How to grade "excessively baggy" is kind of an academic question for those with experience. Not so much for novices, or for the truly sight-unseen market, as someone else pointed out.
Grading does more then just add to market value. I would say that Grading is a good idea for old gold especially if you don’t know it path to getting to you. I like Holders and the preservation of it. Modern different story. For me.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
@TommyType said: "I think I "got the idea" long before we started playing semantics games, and you pretended you didn't see a scratch."
I asked you to show me a SCRATCH on the $10. You did not. I pretended nothing. I don't see one and I am very sorry that my attempt to EDUCATE YOU (and others) has left you sour.
No personal attack was intended and it is against the rules. Unfortunately, you come across as an uninformed new collector. My mistake.
"There is "damage of unknown origin" that turned that previously collectable coin into bullion value only. Call it a scratch, call it a gouge, call it a chisel mark, or a lightning strike, I contend it doesn't matter."
Half the job of an educator is finding some one who is interested in learning. The characteristics we see on coins DO MATTER to a numismatist. Since it does not matter to you, that's fine. There are others (both numismatists and folks striving to be one) who may think the words we use to describe our coins matters. Those folks matter to me.
"(And, no, my definition (or yours) of "scratch" isn't a remotely interesting topic to me)."
That's too bad. I assumed (that makes me one) when you posted in this thread that you were interested.
"The TPG elected to straight grade it. Fine. Their circus, their monkey. Just saying we aren't required to play along. Experienced collectors already know that, of course. I guess the ones who could be hurt are the new collectors who look at the grade, look at the price guide, figure they did their due diligence, and whip out their wallets. I don't know if the TPG is complicit in that "mistake" or not. (I guess if you dig deep enough, that's probably what the topic of this thread is all about.)."
I fail to understand how any self-confessed person who is not interested in correct numismatic terminology can make any claim that a group of professionals who could (Self Edit) made a mistake.
"They have been known to "genie" coins with significant planchet flaws, so why not significant flaws EVEN IF they determine they are mint induced, or "normal handling" induced?? At least it would give collectors pause to think about what the coin is really worth."
AFAIK, the submitter is the one who can request a "genie only" holder. I guess you must know differently from experience.
I was going to walk away from this. My point was that a TPG straight grading a coin doesn't' necessarily make it a good coin....and a net graded (or genie) coin isn't necessarily a bad coin.
But, I got dragged into "what is a scratch".....which STILL doesn't interest me as a topic of conversation....and then what I wrote was horribly misconstrued, either because I wrote it poorly, or it was read poorly.
The "mistake" in question isn't the TPG's assessment. (Their circus, their monkey!) The Mistake is the novice collector who uses that assessment to pay full retail for what I, and many others in this thread, see as a damaged coin. (This could be expanded into a tedious thread of its own....but it would be off topic, and probably would get us nowhere either).
Now, if you are still determined to educate me, please tell me what a scratch is? Please?
(smiley added intentionally. Don't delete it). 
Added: Hopefully before you reply....
What would YOU call the disfiguring mark on Miss Liberty's face? I want to speak your language should we meet each other in a dark hallway again.
@TommyType asked: "When does a bag mark become a scratch?
@Insider2 said: "Good question and very easy to answer: NEVER! That's because they are completely different and never appear similar in any of their degrees of severity.
@TommyType said: "Well, that 1910 $10 Indian sure looks like it has a scratch, vs. a bag mark."
@Insider2 said: "Let's write about it if you wish and see if we can come close to an agreement. Hopefully, others will join in. Look in the field right behind the head if the 1803 dollar. That is a **scratch. I see no scratches on the $10. Perhaps, if the coin is turned in the light and imaged again, the one you see will pop out."
I just reviewed the thread. Glad you did not walk away because I agree with the "meat" of your warnings to less informed folks who think a label is "Gospel." Labels are not, however, they have made coin collecting a much safer place for all of us.
@TommyType asked: "What would YOU call the disfiguring mark on Miss Liberty's face? I want to speak your language should we meet each other in a dark hallway again."
The words "cut," "gash," "gouge," and "damage" quickly come to mind. This coin was damaged after it was
struck! In this case I would choose "gash" and qualify it with "medium, deep." While the surface is "cut" I usually associate a cut with something on a coin's edge. A "Gouge" implies someone jammed something into the surface. the mark does not show this. Something hit the coin. Therefore IMO, "gash" describes it best. If the mark was much shorter as the ones under it, It would be classified as a "gouge."
When I devised the original technical grading system used ONLY for internal records while the ANA's Certification Service was still in DC, we made notes (using particular common words) to describe a coin in order to identify it. These words and their description/definitions (developed viewing a just a few coins with a stereo microscope) were carried over to the seminars we taught. There was a simple reason for this. The students needed to be on the same page. If someone on the left side of the room said a coin was flatly struck with a long scratch in the left field, everyone in the room had a good idea what the coin looked like and that the scratch resembled the one I pointed out over "Liberty's" head rather than the mark on the cheek.
I guess none of this matters in the big world. New folks come along and call things whatever they wish.
I was trying to find the picture of the mint workers using shovels to scoop up silver dollars from canvas bags that had rotted and burst open.
The coins are uncirculated but might have some nasty "cascades out of the rotten bags, and shovel marks" and still be in a "new" "repackaged" mint sewn bag.
I blew the coin out on ebay at $760, I had paid $860 for it when ebay had a promoting. so my loss was considerable. I had taken it out of the plastic leaving it on a sunny window thinking it might help, no dice on that. I shipped it with the NGC cert. label. Several weeks after the sale I got this email from the buyer, uh-oh:
Why did you take the coin out of the original NCG Holder? You said it had bag marks, NGC said it was damaged. I think this is misleading. I have never seen a NGC coin in that type of Holder. The labels have been taken off and put on this Holder. I want your response before I leave you a feedback.
DC
Hi--thanks for contacting me--the listing said it was uncertified. You can verify NGC images from the certification number, NGC has images of it on their site, let me know if you need to know how to find that. I purchased the coin on September 25, 2018 from eternitycoin for $860. Ebay listing number 142950040684. I was just selling it at a loss after having it for a while. If you are unhappy with the coin just send it back, I will pay for return shipping and you will get all your money back.
Another place where more is not always better. If the gold Indian is an MS60 there are tons of AU coins that would be more appealing and should, in my opinion, be worth more, but the price guides don’t reflect this. I’m not really sure why common-date, plentiful coins like this should trade at any premium over their bullion value.
Here we go again. Is there anyone reading this who cannot imagine what an MS-60 coin could look like? The grade is described in detail all over the place. Next, the value of the coin is screwing up the grade and discussion. In most cases many of us would rather have a mark free, lustrous, and attractive coin that just squeaks into AU than a true MS-60! So what.
I'm not going back to look at this thread to see if this is a duplicate post but in the old days, if a gold coin was free of friction wear it was considered MS. Those that were beat up were graded MS-60. In cases where they were extremely beat up they were graded MS-60, extremely baggy or MS-60, excessive bagmarked.
You see, the "detail grading" used today by the major TPGS is just an exact revival of our old "Technical" Grading System that was developed in 1973. Grade the coin, state the problems.
Yup. Then evaluate the problems, assign a fair Net Grade, and price the coin appropriately, and sell it for what it's worth. Easy peasy!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The Indian is pushing the envelope. It looks like someone took a knife to it.
A MS60 isn't a pretty coin, but it is supposedly problem free. The Indian Head $10 does not look problem free to me, and the marks look intentional or some sort of other non-bag mark PMD to me.
While we're in the process of blowing up the grading scale that has existed for decades, who is to say that a coin with light cleaning hairlines from an old cleaning but unimpaired luster should receive a details grade while a staple scratched coin may straight grade and even bean?
@logger7 What did NGC call the eagle?
@Baley said: " Grade the coin, state the problems. Yup. Then evaluate the problems, ** assign a fair Net Grade,** and price the coin appropriately, and sell it for what it's worth. Easy peasy!"
No, close but yappy crappy!
Much better and less confusing: "Grade the coin, state the problems. Yup. Then evaluate the problems keep the actual grade of the coin and price the coin appropriately. Sell it for what it's worth."
NET GRADING IS STUPID FOOLISHNESS that confuses any collector who is not familiar with or does not practice this nonsense. A coin's grade and price are subjective enough without starting with a grade that does not match accepted practice and published images just to come up with a fair selling price. I guess we can call it reverse "Net grading" when we call very special AU coins MINT STATE because they are worth millions of dollars. More confusing stupidity yet necessary because folks decided to couple a coin's value to its "acceptable at a certain point in
time - grade. LOL!