Options
Where (What condition - grade) do you think the "details" grade should...?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some coins appear circulated and some don't. Any coin showing wear (circ) or not (unc) can become mishandled or damaged. Things such as bagmarks are Ok but other things such as scratches, scrapes, hairlines, etc are detracting.
So, is there a particular grade point where a problem that is considered to be a "details" part of the grade should be ignored or affect the coin less? Or, do you believe a problem is a problem no matter what the condition of the coin is?
1
Comments
They should be numerical graded w/“details” next to the #
@KollectorKing said: "They should be numerical graded w/“details” next to the #"
I agree **BUT, anyone who looks around will need to admit that this is not done. That's why I want opinions. Should have done a poll.
At a certain point, a problem is enough of a problem, such that it should be designated as such, regardless of how high or low the grade would otherwise be.😉
Edited to add: I would, however, tend to be more forgiving in the case of heavily circulated coins than I would for uncirculated or Proof coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It really depends. Early copper is given a pass on all sorts of nasty issues that would NEVER straight-grade on modern issues. Planchet problems and even mild environmental damage are sometimes tolerated even in MS grades while even the most minuscule lamination on a Morgan is an automatic no-grade.
In other words, the unwritten rules seem to vary by series, material, and era. Should they? Well, maybe not, but there wouldn’t be many early Federal US issues is problem-free holders if they were held to the same “standards.”
"Scratched" sometimes seems too subjective to me. An MS60 can be straight-graded and beat to heck, but one little scratch can condemn an otherwise excellent coin, and below say VF20, designating "scratched" seems kind of cruel. "Rim damage" is another one where they occasionally seem over-zealous. For example, New Orleans Barber dimes. I was just looking at one on David Lawrence, 1905 Micro-O PCGS VF-Details EdgeDmg because of raised metal all around. I know that's not really what you're asking, but I can just about guarantee that that coin came out of the press looking like that. Relating to what @BryceM just said, I think the "unwritten rules" also vary by how popular a variety is. I question whether they would have bothered to Detail another run of the mill VF O-mint dime for the same "rim damage".
Not ignored. Just factored into the net grade.
(Couldn’t resist...)
Smitten with DBLCs.
This is just another part of the entire issue of NO REAL STANDARDS for coin grading.... If there were standards, this would be covered and clearly understood. Cheers, RickO
@kbbpll said: "Scratched" sometimes seems too subjective to me. An MS60 can be straight-graded and beat to heck, but one little scratch can condemn an otherwise excellent coin, and below say VF20, designating "scratched" seems kind of cruel. "Rim damage" is another one where they occasionally seem over-zealous. For example, New Orleans Barber dimes. I was just looking at one on David Lawrence, 1905 Micro-O PCGS VF-Details EdgeDmg because of raised metal all around. I know that's not really what you're asking, but I can just about guarantee that that coin came out of the press looking like that. Relating to what @BryceM just said, I think the "unwritten rules" also vary by how popular a variety is. I question whether they would have bothered to Detail another run of the mill VF O-mint dime for the same "rim damage"."
I can just about guarantee that it did not.
So far many things on coins (rim nicks, scratches, etc.) have not been addressed. A bag mark can be counted, and its severity and location can be measured somewhat. No one has published the length and depth of a scratch.
I politely disagree. You do not have to look far to find O dimes from this period with straight-graded "rim damage". My example above was perhaps a bit extreme, but I think they had collar problems in NO.
1901-O PCGS MS63
I politely request to see the other side. Anyway, I see nicks and some cuts under the prongs on this side.
Rim breaks are not damage but if something "pushed" metal up from the edge after the coin was struck, that is rim damage.
Devils Advocate...would you want a shiny VF30 coin that was a sandblasted piece of jewelry? I appreciate the details grade in cases of a coin that was so heavily altered.
As requested. The rim opposite is also pushed up but not as folded over as the obverse. The Lawrence coin mentioned is pretty similar except that the raised rim goes all the way around (both sides) and is worn due to the VF state. I could dig up lots of these. I'm not sure where this leads the original discussion but I'm always ready to learn something new. My original point was that I perceive a greater inclination to "detail" a coin when it's a popular/valuable date/variety. I'm probably wrong.
Check out the reverse rim at 9 o'clock. I suspect that all the little nicks on the rim pushed it over the edge. Crack it out and trade for a better one.
@matt_dac said: "Devils Advocate...would you want a shiny VF30 coin that was a sandblasted piece of jewelry? I appreciate the details grade in cases of a coin that was so heavily altered."
IMO, this coin is a border line case. As "first-up" I would send it to the next grader as "rim nicks" and let the others decide. That's because I've trained myself to look for the "minus" characteristics of a coin - first.
I would say that the services are very inconsistent with early copper. I’ve purchased a number of better early dates in details holders that look nicer/have fewer issues than their straight graded counterparts.
How does it make any sense to numerically grade a problem coin? An altered coin (cleaned, tooled, smoothed, AT'd, etc.) was likely altered in attempt to make the coin look better than it is. A heavy AT, for example, can conceal hairlines and superficial chatter making a would-be 63 appear 65. A $20 gold may be wearing make up over a patch of hairlines or scratches, the concealment of those may make the coin appear several grades higher.
Numerically grading problem coins would certainly serve as an encouraging & profitable venture for those who alter coins.
Absolutely, completely, 100% agree. I actually like the situation because I can pick up good eye appeal coins (which have been detailed) at a discount.
Smitten with DBLCs.
Not at all. A coin in any condition can be graded. So can pieces of struck coins and coin designs struck on foreign objects such as a nail.
PCI was the first grading service to grade problem coins. When I was at shows, dealers would come up to brag that they got this or that PCI "Red Label"problem coin straight graded by another grading service.
BTW, in my opinion all the major TPGS are inconsistent with all copper. It is a difficult metal to grade due to spots and color.
Of course it can be. My confusion is rooted in not being able to understand what the point of rewarding a coin doc is.
If a major TPG started numerically grading problem coins, imagine someone targeting a coin like 1890 morgans. Purchase a 64 for $120, crack it, alter surfaces to 66 appearance. 66 price guides $15,000. Sure it will say "MS66 Details ~ Altered surfaces" but I'm willing to bet it would sell for alot more than 64 money. If you dont think numerically grading problem coins would encourage the alteration of original coins I am mind blown.
Doesn't matter.
"Details" - whatever that might happen to mean - is not a grade. It is a modifier. The authentication-grading company's responsibility is to assign a defined, stable grade to the coin, then if they wish, add a modifier. The modifier - such as "holed" "crushed" "details" "scratched" is a warning about some sort of abnormal mutilation. Of course, a company can decide that the mutilation renders the coin "ungradable" and that is their business policy - again not a "grade."
I agree with you - you are mind blown if you don't think coins are cracked and fraudulently altered all the time. Circulated coins are "detail" graded with numbers because it is easy. It is not hard to differentiate a "detailed" MS coin either so I don't know why it is not done.
A poorly struck coin is the greatest distraction of all detracts. Heavily worn out dies that can't transfer the complete original design intended by the sculptor and US Mint, such coins are not collector coins. Both sides of the entire coin is affected, this problem is a total eye sore. Coins are scrutinized for all kinds of marks after they leave the US Mint. But what about the condition of the dies when the coin blanks were stamped? What condition/grade were the working dies in? The detailed original design suffers a great deal of damage after the coin/working dies have been used to strike thousands of coins. It's not a difficult task to spot coins with missing details, a given fact. What is the reason for collecting coins? There are lots of folks out there lost on this problem. But we have CGC's and people searching coins that have incomplete strikes/designs for unblemished surfaces with no nicks or dings in hopes of making a money coin. Bizarre grading is what it is. Coins with grossly incomplete design strikes should be net graded, not graded MS65 to MS68. Imagine a poorly struck (modern) coin getting net graded MS67+ due to a scratch? How comical is that? But to see a coin with a totally flat strike net graded.....by god, what are we collecting? But we can't forget, we have people with all kinds of ideas and motives what a collector coin is and it has been proven....it could be anything.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection