@Baley said:
The marks, from whatever source, don't improve the Quality, do they?
Absolutely not. Nevertheless, since this is an educational discussion about hairlines that has matured into a broader discussion including adjustment marks introducing value, eye-appeal, and "quality is "fluff!" I think all of us posting will agree that that just about anything that happens to a coin after it is minted (except for beautiful color) is detracting and lowers the coin's "quality."
Back to the topic: I still wish to learn what the "non-scratch" is called and what caused it. The evidence is all over the coin and I've provided a clue.
Cleaned for 1.
Homer got punched in the face while trying to verify gold with his teeth. Once the coin came out his back end they had to clean it, lol
I don't "Net" grade because IMO it is stupid. How much do I deduct for a spot? Is this rim nick more of a deduction than that one? Oh, this scratch is minor? That's why someone who cannot see a "net graded" coin will have absolutely no clue at all what it looks like because standard grading is subjective and "net" grading is extremely subjective making subjective + very subjective = @#%^&@#$@#$$% or STUPID FOLLY!
I asked @Baley to give an opinion of it's net grade but so far he has not.
I pulled the image off the internet for the adjustment marks. It is graded by NGC but I don't know their grade. It is impossible to tell if this coin is cleaned from the washed-out image. I personally grade the coin AU-55, Adjustment Marks but that is technical grading which does not exist outside of some grading classes. I'll bet the NGC label
is AU-58. IMO, there is too much rub for them to bump it to a "modern" MS-62 (unc w/rub).
@Baley said:
All grading of coins is Net grading for the location and severity of each and every individual and collective imperfection.
Show the whole coin, all 3 sides.
I agree about “net grading”. And I think that two classifications - “grade” and “details-grade” cover it. There’s no need to create a separate category of “net grade”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Baley said:
All grading of coins is Net grading for the location and severity of each and every individual and collective imperfection.
Show the whole coin, all 3 sides.
Very important clarification for new collectors:
While some purists correctly state: "All grading of coins is Net Grading." This can be very confusing.
There is a difference between normal grading as done by the grading guides, TPGS's, and most of us - examining a coin and subjectively taking away points due to the amount it has changed from the time it left the die; and TRUE "net" grading as done by copper collectors who first arrive at the standard subjective grade as all of us and then continue to "net" the grade further down due to defects!
This results in an auction catalog listing such as Lot 190 1798 S-162 Draped Bust cent (insert TPGS Name) AU-55;
EAC grade XF-45!
PS I am still waiting for ANYONE to tell me the name of the "numismatic genius" who invented the true Net Grading System used by EAC collectors. It was not done in the first grading system I became aware of in Sheldon's book.
It's a way to communicate the overall quality level of the coin.
Two coins, both "XF detail, scratched" tells me very little.
If one, as judged by a trusted pragmatist, is XF details, scratched, net 35, an the other one is XF details, scratched, net 6, that tells me much.
If they go further and describe the scratches with accurate words, that tells me even more..
Or, just show the coin, and/or excellent pictures of the whole thing, and I'll decide the overall Quality, and whether and at what level to have a transaction that changes the ownership.
@CoinscratchFever said: @Insider2 What is net grading? And what is standard grading? I'm assuming net means raw??
If you are not making a joke to "bait" me,standard grading is what you'll find in all the grading guides (except EAC) and specific reference books on particular denominations,and the PCGS web site.
Net grading is done by copper collectors. They have published an excellent and highly recommended book that ALL SHOULD have or read while still in print. Look on the internet for a better explanation than I can provide:
@Insider2 No, not bait, I am trying to learn/understand what y’all guys are talking about. And honestly still a little confused especially when you throw copper into the equation. As if that is a different system altogether. As usual, I will need to read this thread a few times before the light comes on and yes, I will joke a lil along the way it’s in my dna please don’t take offense.
@Baley said:
It's a way to communicate the overall quality level of the coin.
Two coins, both "XF detail, scratched" tells me very little.
If one, as judged by a trusted pragmatist, is XF details, scratched, net 35, an the other one is XF details, scratched, net 6, that tells me much.
If they go further and describe the scratches with accurate words, that tells me even more..
Or, just show the coin, and/or excellent pictures of the whole thing, and I'll decide the overall Quality, and whether and at what level to have a transaction that changes the ownership.
All else is sophistry, imo
Fun but pointless.
Sophistry: The use of sophisms.
Sophisms: A clever but specious argument.
Specious: Apparently good or right but lacking real merit.
NUTS!
Thanks for the reply...now, I'm even more confused. But I do understand why, Here is a quote: "The EAC grading system is not simple. [I'll agree with that. Subjective + very subjective = Extremely Complicated and not precise.]
There are just too many variables involved in grading for a simple system to work." Through personal experience I'll disagree with this. Once a coin's value and eye appeal were removed, the old "true" technical grading system practiced ONLY at ANACS in DC and the first TPGS (INSAB) in DC proved over the years to be both simple to teach and very precise.
"If one, as judged by a trusted pragmatist, is XF details, scratched, net 35, an the other one is XF details, scratched, net 6, that tells me much." I agree. One of the XF coins that matches the image of an XF in all the grading guides has a very big scratch! LOL. That's why EAC grading is NOT SIMPLE and I defy any numismatist to try to teach that system to anybody.
This is SIMPLE: Grade both the coins as all of us do XF. Then price the first at $150 and the second at $30.
Thankfully, It is easier today with Internet images to take the guesswork out of the equation.
Thanks. My head just exploded. And until synapses can occur again I will just let the paid pros figure it out
But while I have your attention let me ask just one simple question:
I recently had a 74 D 1c from an original roll grade to a 67. It was free of any hits so, in my mind (at the time) it was the best of the bunch. Now, I realize that some of the others have a better strike and/or luster but, have a few hits.
So, will those grade higher, the same, or worse?
@CoinscratchFever said:
Thanks. My head just exploded. And until synapses can occur again I will just let the paid pros figure it out
But while I have your attention let me ask just one simple question:
I recently had a 74 D 1c from an original roll grade to a 67. It was free of any hits so, in my mind (at the time) it was the best of the bunch. Now, I realize that some of the others have a better strike and/or luster but, have a few hits.
So, will those grade higher, the same, or worse?
Hold the coin close to the computer. LOL.
Mint State grading is comprised of several things. Once a coin is well struck, that does not affect the final grade. Once the luster is full the coin is MS. Then you'll need to develop an eye for above average and exceptional luster which affects eye appeal and raises a grade. If you start to see hits on one of the other coins, it probably will not grade higher than the 67. You are very lucky to have a 67 to use as an example. The ANA grading guide has a good chart for beginners trying to learn MS coin grading in the silver dollar section.
@Baley said:
Net grading is done by all wise, informed, and experienced collectors for all coins of any metal, not just copper by EAC.
It's not usually worth the trouble for common coins with problems, but essential for rare, expensive, desirable-in-any-grade coins.
And no, it is not "simple".
Any simpleton can do "simple" things like match a coin to a picture or line drawing.
As a confessed "simpleton" myself, I assure members that determining the actual condition of preservation of a coin is something that can be learned and even self taught. However, determining the grade of a coin based on what it should be worth is something for ONLY all wise, informed, and experienced collectors. I think @Baley is one of them. Folks like JA, Ms.Laura, @tradedollarnut, Mr. Halperin, etc are others. You get the idea.
I'll add that all these wise, [extremely] informed, and [extremely] experienced collectors/dealers have made placing a grade on a piece of round metal so extremely complicated, proprietary, and secretive - based on market conditions and value so that none of the "simpletons" (like me) can have a clue of a coin's grade without the "official" label of a major TPGS + a sticker.
Thankfully. it seems to be working no matter what we call it. Just PLEASE don't call it "Net" grading. That's done by the copper guys and they can keep it!
I realize that these cell pics do not tell the whole story but, they show truer colors and luster much better than my cheap scope. And the lighting between different pics can also throw you off. But, there are a few in the bunch that have more of a glare around Lincolns bust. And regardless of the light angles the 67 does not exhibit the same.
Ok. Just read the highlights of the thread. Nice of you to do an educational grading thread @Insider2 .
I stand by my grade on the quarter of MAX 62. On the San Diego, I would likely bodybag the coin, but in hand, the final decision would be how the scratch "blinked" at me. Chance it could slide as a 61 coin if booming luster and no bare metal.
@Baley is correct and @coinlieutenant has been taken in by what might appear obvious - marks from plastic slides.
Folks, while the plastic slides in some coin folders MAY EVENTUALLY CAUSE A COIN TO ACQUIRE A HAIRLINE due to a piece of trapped grit, as with many other things, MOST of this drivel is a big myth propagated buy your typical uninformed coin dealer! As a young collector, I've heard it all. Then, when I became a professional and learned a few things viewing coins under high magnification and by actual experiment (dipping for instance), I took extreme delight exposing this type of ignorance that is foisted on less experienced collectors.
I'm very sorry now for my abrasive attacks of the past but I do try to cover up this character fault now. Unfortunately, sometimes as now, I'm not successful.
PS Stick a proof coin into an album as I've done and try to put hairlines on it.
@Insider2 said:
What about this coin? Should this coin be "Details?" Hairline? Scratch?
Are those marks left from the metal strips being pulled through rollers (draw bench marks) prior to blanks being cut?
I also note some nice die polish marks on either side of the bust.
@kaz asked: "Are those marks left from the metal strips being pulled through rollers (draw bench marks) prior to blanks being cut?"
Probably. The important thing is they were on the planchet and were not struck out. The "key" to identification is the interior of the marks. It is the color of the original planchet surface. Additionally, you cannot tell from this image, but marks on a planchet generally become weaker at their ends as they were practically obliterated in the strike.
So, while they look like PMD, and they will probably be described as a scratch by many collectors ( ) we call them "planchet stria" or "planchet striae" in this case as there is more than one.
They do detract from the eye appeal so many will lower the grade or "pass" on this technical, MS-65 coin with planchet striae. I wish I owned it for my classes.
PS IMO, to body bag or "detail" this coin would be unthinkable.
@kaz asked: "Are those marks left from the metal strips being pulled through rollers (draw bench marks) prior to blanks being cut?"
Probably. The important thing is they were on the planchet and were not struck out. The "key" to identification is the interior of the marks. It is the color of the original planchet surface. Additionally, you cannot tell from this image, but marks on a planchet generally become weaker at their ends as they were practically obliterated in the strike.
So, while they look like PMD, and they will probably be described as a scratch by many collectors ( ) we call them "planchet stria" or "planchet striae" in this case as there is more than one.
They do detract from the eye appeal so many will lower the grade or "pass" on this technical, MS-65 coin with planchet striae. I wish I owned it for my classes.
PS IMO, to body bag or "detail" this coin would be unthinkable.
How much should the grade be lowered from what it would otherwise be for such a coin?
Option 1) If, for example, the coin would grade 66 without the mint-made flaw, should you deduct X number of points?
Option 2) Or, should the grade automatically be limited to X, no matter how high the coin would have otherwise graded? For example, should the grade be limited to 64, 63 or whatever?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld asked an important question that was stated in the OP:
How much should the grade be lowered from what it would otherwise be for such a coin?
Option 1) If, for example, the coin would grade 66 without the mint-made flaw, should you deduct X number of points?
Option 2) Or, should the grade automatically be limited to X, no matter how high the coin would have otherwise graded? For example, should the grade be limited to 64, 63 or whatever?
Let's assume this coin is a fully lustrous, white MS-66. Hardly any detracting marks except a few tiny ones on the high points. Above-average eye appeal EXCEPT for the "scratch." IMO, there is no way to apply option one as each coin and each Mint-made defect is different - some worse than others. Remember, tiny strike thru's are allowed on many MS-70 SE.
I think I would go with option 2. That's the way it was at one time for the "Strike" part of the grading equation. At one time, without a nice strike, a coin did not grade over MS-64 in the "Commercial" system. I have an NGC fully lustrous, gem ++++ 1883-O $ with no ear in an MS-63 slab that was graded in the 1980's. Today if normally struck for an "O" mint, I could easily see graded MS-67 * at the minimum!
@Insider2 said: @Baley is correct and @coinlieutenant has been taken in by what might appear obvious - marks from plastic slides.
Folks, while the plastic slides in some coin folders MAY EVENTUALLY CAUSE A COIN TO ACQUIRE A HAIRLINE due to a piece of trapped grit, as with many other things, MOST of this drivel is a big myth propagated buy your typical uninformed coin dealer! As a young collector, I've heard it all. Then, when I became a professional and learned a few things viewing coins under high magnification and by actual experiment (dipping for instance), I took extreme delight exposing this type of ignorance that is foisted on less experienced collectors.
I'm very sorry now for my abrasive attacks of the past but I do try to cover up this character fault now. Unfortunately, sometimes as now, I'm not successful.
PS Stick a proof coin into an album as I've done and try to put hairlines on it.
All of this is pretty easy to comment in off when you have the coin in hand and we have a partial picture.
While I agree that it does take some effort SOMETIMES to put slide marks on a coin, it can be done much easier that you describe it with the right combo of foreign matter and hardness of the slide. To this day, when I get in an old fresh deal in holders....if there is any doubt, I cut the coins out with an exacto knife. Overkill? Not in my opinion. It doesn't take much to take make a line blink in a way that lowers a coin by one or two grades.
Regarding the San Diego, I agree with the possibility of them being roller lines, but from a pic again....hard to tell. I stand by my original statement that it depends on how the line looks when rotated. A roller line wouldn't blink....and under magnification is "clean", not irregular.
@coinlieutenant said: "All of this is pretty easy to comment in off when you have the coin in hand and we have a partial picture."
Absolutely, that's why I view this as an educational post, based on the opinions of three long-time professional graders with almost 130 years combined experience.
While I agree that it does take some effort SOMETIMES to put slide marks on a coin, it can be done much easier that you describe it with the right combo of foreign matter and hardness of the slide. [Most coins do not even touch the hard plastic slides in the first place. Nevertheless, if someone offered me $100 I'd find a way to hairline a coin with a slide and the "right combo" of foreign matter. The hardest thing I've tried it with so far (with no effect) is chocolate chip cookie crumbs.]
Regarding the San Diego, I agree with the possibility of them being roller lines, but from a pic again....hard to tell. I stand by my original statement that it depends on how the line looks when rotated. A roller line wouldn't blink....[100% correct] and under magnification is "clean", not irregular [100% in disagreement. From this "opinion," I doubt very much that you've seen ANY characteristic on a coin using florescent light and a stereomicroscope.]
In grading a coin, it should make no difference if a detracting feature was caused by the mint or it was caused after it left the mint. The grade of the coin should reflect only the coin as it now exists, regardless of whether the apparent damage occurred at the mint or after the mint.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
In grading a coin, it should make no difference if a detracting feature was caused by the mint or it was caused after it left the mint. The grade of the coin should reflect only the coin as it now exists, regardless of whether the apparent damage occurred at the mint or after the mint.
Unless you like collecting mint errors.
OINK
The market usually feels otherwise. As-made flaws are typically treated considerably more forgivingly than post-production ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
For me, 1-58 and 60-70 are totally different scales.
Please do not net grade the first scale. Grade it only by wear. Then let the market decide which XF40 is junk and which is premium. To take an AU50 that is dinged all to heck and call it a “net 40” is a joke. It’s not. It’s a crappy 50.
The 60-70 scale on the other hand is all about net grading. It has to be because (originally at least) all the coins on the scale have the same grade by wear. UNC. So to tell them apart you use strike, luster, marks etc.
I’d be happier if one scale did not bleed into the other, “market grading” style. But then grading would be easier, and it’s important to the market that grading not be easy at all.
@Insider2
[Most coins do not even touch the hard plastic slides in the first place. Nevertheless, if someone offered me $100 I'd find a way to hairline a coin with a slide and the "right combo" of foreign matter. The hardest thing I've tried it with so far (with no effect) is chocolate chip cookie crumbs.]
In 2016 I bought a six figure collection of dollars from a collector in New Mexico, all in Dansco or older albums. A good 50% or more of the coins had honest to goodness real slide marks on the coins that lowered the value of the collection by half of what it could have been. These were not cleaning lines, they were very clearly limited to the high cheek points of lady liberty on the same spot on every coin that had them. If slide marks are so difficult to make, how did this happen?
A roller line wouldn't blink....[100% correct] and under magnification is "clean", not irregular [100% in disagreement. From this "opinion," I doubt very much that you've seen ANY characteristic on a coin using florescent light and a stereomicroscope.]
Let me be more detailed so as to save you from your condescending proclivities. The metal on a scratch induced mark only has one way to go...and that is up. Because a scratch depth is rarely uniform, the scratch is not clean, with varying heights of "mountain range" on either side of the line and looks entirely different under magnification than a roller mark.
Absolutely, that's why I view this as an educational post, based on the opinions of three long-time professional graders with almost 130 years combined experience.
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that it is good to see these kinds of threads. I stand by that statement. However, let me clearly say, that it is clear to all students which professors teach because they want their students to learn and which are teaching to show how smart they are. Students learn better from the former.
If you wish to use the Socratic method in these threads, consider how your responses will encourage further discussion. Based on your previous responses to both me and others, you are failing in this regard.
And just to head you off at the pass, I am not butt hurt about your condescending words of "duped", "opinion" nor your passive aggressive allusions to my inferior knowledge. I just shake my head when I read some of the comments, but I am a big boy and have dealt with, face to face, much more difficult characters. I talk almost daily with your wordsmithing doppelganger, and love him dearly, and I know that both of you know more about coins than I do. And that is why I am listening...but no students wants to be bludgeoned on the internet in front of their classmates.
And to close, I have most certainly looked at coins under a microscope. I don't remember the light type however, and I'm quite sure your microscope was bigger than mine.
@coinlieutenant I will respond to your post after I get back from a long ride on this beautiful day. This is the exact type of dish-it-out-take-reply that becomes VERY educational. As you have noted, I love to stir the pot!
@Cougar1978 said:
Hairlines Coins - MS 60 at best.
Actually not. According to the ANA published standard, a coin can have significant hairlines all the way up to an
MS-63 straight grade. However, in most cases, "significant" indicates a grade of MS-62 and below. There is a valuable chart in the ANA Grading Guide that can help folks develop their own personal standards.
@Baley said:
And the non-parallel mark on her left (viewer's right) shoulder?
Same cause? How abiut the dent above right breast?
Lots of action here
YES! Every line on the image is from the same cause EXCEPT the small curved one at the lower center and the raised die polish in front of the face. As for the dent, you are micro-grading. BUT IMO, THAT IS OK! I prefer to see every "micro-defect" on a coin when I form an opinion. After you see everything, then you must BACK OFF so you will be in line with the majority of "correct" commercial opinions. It is OK to have your personal opinion but you must know the coin's "real" grade. The "dent" is simply a contact mark.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
In grading a coin, it should make no difference if a detracting feature was caused by the mint or it was caused after it left the mint. The grade of the coin should reflect only the coin as it now exists, regardless of whether the apparent damage occurred at the mint or after the mint.
Unless you like collecting mint errors.
OINK
In the obsolete "True" Technical Grading System, there was a difference. However, Mark has posted a perfect reply for modern times. Look again at the gold coin I posted with adjustment marks. Does it deserve a detail grade because it is damaged?
@Cougar1978 said:
Hairlines Coins - MS 60 at best.
Actually not. According to the ANA published standard, a coin can have significant hairlines all the way up to an
MS-63 straight grade. However, in most cases, "significant" indicates a grade of MS-62 and below. There is a valuable chart in the ANA Grading Guide that can help folks develop their own personal standards.
@Baley said:
And the non-parallel mark on her left (viewer's right) shoulder?
Same cause? How abiut the dent above right breast?
Lots of action here
YES! Every line on the image is from the same cause EXCEPT the small curved one at the lower center and the raised die polish in front of the face. As for the dent, you are micro-grading. BUT IMO, THAT IS OK! I prefer to see every "micro-defect" on a coin when I form an opinion. After you see everything, then you must BACK OFF so you will be in line with the majority of "correct" commercial opinions. It is OK to have your personal opinion but you must know the coin's "real" grade. The "dent" is simply a contact mark.
Please don’t use the term “real grade”. That is an illusory term, which can mislead those who don’t know better. Surely, you can come up with a more meaningful and realistic way of saying what you (hopefully) really mean.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Baley said:
Instead of "real grade," How about,
"consensus grade by someone(s) who stand by their Opinion with a bid to buy the coin at stated grade/price"
How about ”consensus grading opinion by X” ?
I don’t think the rest of what you’d included occurs In enough instances to make it part of the equation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "Please don’t use the term “real grade”. That is an illusory term, which can mislead those who don’t know better. Surely, you can come up with a more meaningful and realistic way of saying what you (hopefully) really mean."
Perhaps the grade in a Heritage Auction is the "real" grade. Oops, Heritage doesn't grade coins anymore. They market slabs that are graded by other folks.
News flash, this comes pretty close: @Baley said: "[A] consensus grade by someone(s) who stand by their Opinion with a bid to buy the coin at stated grade/price"
Grading is a ranking system based on the appearance of a coin. Unfortunately, there are too many variables in the modern "market" grading system. That's why I can understand how hard it is for even knowledgeable numismatists to understand the meaning of "real." The fact that coins have an "actual grade" would be a better way to express a "real" grade based only on its condition of preservation. That way when I say that many coins graded low MS today have an actual grade of AU. It is not hard to understand. So you can see that IMO the only IMAGINARY THING GOING ON with regard to grading is in the commercial market and auction companies.
Comments
The marks, from whatever source, don't improve the Quality, do they?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The 1798, like the 1951 and the San Diego, I personally would Net way, way down to even consider them.
If a prospective buyer were to say, "hey, they are mint-made defects and therefore neutral, I'd say, Have at it then, it's all yours!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Lance's 1821, otoh, loses a couple to a few points for the hard to see Problem
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Insider2 What grade would the "Net Graders" assign to the 1798?
Cleaned for 1.
Homer got punched in the face while trying to verify gold with his teeth. Once the coin came out his back end they had to clean it, lol
Absolutely not. Nevertheless, since this is an educational discussion about hairlines that has matured into a broader discussion including adjustment marks introducing value, eye-appeal, and "quality is "fluff!" I think all of us posting will agree that that just about anything that happens to a coin after it is minted (except for beautiful color) is detracting and lowers the coin's "quality."
Back to the topic: I still wish to learn what the "non-scratch" is called and what caused it. The evidence is all over the coin and I've provided a clue.
I don't "Net" grade because IMO it is stupid. How much do I deduct for a spot? Is this rim nick more of a deduction than that one? Oh, this scratch is minor? That's why someone who cannot see a "net graded" coin will have absolutely no clue at all what it looks like because standard grading is subjective and "net" grading is extremely subjective making subjective + very subjective = @#%^&@#$@#$$% or STUPID FOLLY!
I asked @Baley to give an opinion of it's net grade but so far he has not.
I pulled the image off the internet for the adjustment marks. It is graded by NGC but I don't know their grade. It is impossible to tell if this coin is cleaned from the washed-out image. I personally grade the coin AU-55, Adjustment Marks but that is technical grading which does not exist outside of some grading classes. I'll bet the NGC label
is AU-58. IMO, there is too much rub for them to bump it to a "modern" MS-62 (unc w/rub).
@Insider2 What is net grading? And what is standard grading? I'm assuming net means raw??
All grading of coins is Net grading for the location and severity of each and every individual and collective imperfection.
Show the whole coin, all 3 sides.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
BST... the page, hint hint. I got a garage sell going on over there.
uh hem, back to the subject
I agree about “net grading”. And I think that two classifications - “grade” and “details-grade” cover it. There’s no need to create a separate category of “net grade”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Very important clarification for new collectors:
While some purists correctly state: "All grading of coins is Net Grading." This can be very confusing.
There is a difference between normal grading as done by the grading guides, TPGS's, and most of us - examining a coin and subjectively taking away points due to the amount it has changed from the time it left the die; and TRUE "net" grading as done by copper collectors who first arrive at the standard subjective grade as all of us and then continue to "net" the grade further down due to defects!
This results in an auction catalog listing such as Lot 190 1798 S-162 Draped Bust cent (insert TPGS Name) AU-55;
EAC grade XF-45!
PS I am still waiting for ANYONE to tell me the name of the "numismatic genius" who invented the true Net Grading System used by EAC collectors. It was not done in the first grading system I became aware of in Sheldon's book.
It's a way to communicate the overall quality level of the coin.
Two coins, both "XF detail, scratched" tells me very little.
If one, as judged by a trusted pragmatist, is XF details, scratched, net 35, an the other one is XF details, scratched, net 6, that tells me much.
If they go further and describe the scratches with accurate words, that tells me even more..
Or, just show the coin, and/or excellent pictures of the whole thing, and I'll decide the overall Quality, and whether and at what level to have a transaction that changes the ownership.
All else is sophistry, imo
Fun but pointless.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If you are not making a joke to "bait" me,standard grading is what you'll find in all the grading guides (except EAC) and specific reference books on particular denominations,and the PCGS web site.
Net grading is done by copper collectors. They have published an excellent and highly recommended book that ALL SHOULD have or read while still in print. Look on the internet for a better explanation than I can provide:
earlyamericancopper.blogspot.com
@Insider2 No, not bait, I am trying to learn/understand what y’all guys are talking about. And honestly still a little confused especially when you throw copper into the equation. As if that is a different system altogether. As usual, I will need to read this thread a few times before the light comes on and yes, I will joke a lil along the way it’s in my dna please don’t take offense.
Sophistry: The use of sophisms.
Sophisms: A clever but specious argument.
Specious: Apparently good or right but lacking real merit.
NUTS!
Thanks for the reply...now, I'm even more confused.
But I do understand why, Here is a quote: "The EAC grading system is not simple. [I'll agree with that. Subjective + very subjective = Extremely Complicated and not precise.]
There are just too many variables involved in grading for a simple system to work." Through personal experience I'll disagree with this. Once a coin's value and eye appeal were removed, the old "true" technical grading system practiced ONLY at ANACS in DC and the first TPGS (INSAB) in DC proved over the years to be both simple to teach and very precise.
"If one, as judged by a trusted pragmatist, is XF details, scratched, net 35, an the other one is XF details, scratched, net 6, that tells me much." I agree. One of the XF coins that matches the image of an XF in all the grading guides has a very big scratch! LOL. That's why EAC grading is NOT SIMPLE and I defy any numismatist to try to teach that system to anybody.
This is SIMPLE: Grade both the coins as all of us do XF. Then price the first at $150 and the second at $30.
Thankfully, It is easier today with Internet images to take the guesswork out of the equation.
Thanks. My head just exploded. And until synapses can occur again I will just let the paid pros figure it out
But while I have your attention let me ask just one simple question:
I recently had a 74 D 1c from an original roll grade to a 67. It was free of any hits so, in my mind (at the time) it was the best of the bunch. Now, I realize that some of the others have a better strike and/or luster but, have a few hits.
So, will those grade higher, the same, or worse?
Net grading is done by all wise, informed, and experienced collectors for all coins of any metal, not just copper by EAC.
It's not usually worth the trouble for common coins with problems, but essential for rare, expensive, desirable-in-any-grade coins.
And no, it is not "simple".
Any simpleton can do "simple" things like match a coin to a picture or line drawing.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Hold the coin close to the computer. LOL.
Mint State grading is comprised of several things. Once a coin is well struck, that does not affect the final grade. Once the luster is full the coin is MS. Then you'll need to develop an eye for above average and exceptional luster which affects eye appeal and raises a grade. If you start to see hits on one of the other coins, it probably will not grade higher than the 67. You are very lucky to have a 67 to use as an example. The ANA grading guide has a good chart for beginners trying to learn MS coin grading in the silver dollar section.
As a confessed "simpleton" myself, I assure members that determining the actual condition of preservation of a coin is something that can be learned and even self taught. However, determining the grade of a coin based on what it should be worth is something for ONLY all wise, informed, and experienced collectors. I think @Baley is one of them. Folks like JA, Ms.Laura, @tradedollarnut, Mr. Halperin, etc are others. You get the idea.
I'll add that all these wise, [extremely] informed, and [extremely] experienced collectors/dealers have made placing a grade on a piece of round metal so extremely complicated, proprietary, and secretive - based on market conditions and value so that none of the "simpletons" (like me) can have a clue of a coin's grade without the "official" label of a major TPGS + a sticker.
Thankfully. it seems to be working no matter what we call it. Just PLEASE don't call it "Net" grading. That's done by the copper guys and they can keep it!
I realize that these cell pics do not tell the whole story but, they show truer colors and luster much better than my cheap scope. And the lighting between different pics can also throw you off. But, there are a few in the bunch that have more of a glare around Lincolns bust. And regardless of the light angles the 67 does not exhibit the same.
Looks like slide marks. If limited to that amount, the MAX grade should be 63.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Here is a link to the original thread with some better pics.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1018168/1974-d-original-roll-gold#latest
Is that the same thing as bag marks? Shiny lil short scratches?
No. much different. And, I turned up the brightness on the screen and see many more than just the cheek. I'd say max coin grade would be 62 on this.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Ok. Just read the highlights of the thread. Nice of you to do an educational grading thread @Insider2 .
I stand by my grade on the quarter of MAX 62. On the San Diego, I would likely bodybag the coin, but in hand, the final decision would be how the scratch "blinked" at me. Chance it could slide as a 61 coin if booming luster and no bare metal.
Interested to hear other opinions.
siliconvalleycoins.com
@coinlieutenant My bad you were talking about the OP’s coin. Didn’t mean to hijack.
@coinlieutenant said:
So, someone put it in an album sideways, then slid the slide real hard leaving one set of perfectly parallel micro scratches just on the face??
No.
I've seen this effect many times after opening OBW ROLLS of Washingtons, Franklins, and Roosevelts.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley is correct and @coinlieutenant has been taken in by what might appear obvious - marks from plastic slides.
Folks, while the plastic slides in some coin folders MAY EVENTUALLY CAUSE A COIN TO ACQUIRE A HAIRLINE due to a piece of trapped grit, as with many other things, MOST of this drivel is a big myth propagated buy your typical uninformed coin dealer! As a young collector, I've heard it all. Then, when I became a professional and learned a few things viewing coins under high magnification and by actual experiment (dipping for instance), I took extreme delight exposing this type of ignorance that is foisted on less experienced collectors.
I'm very sorry now for my abrasive attacks of the past but I do try to cover up this character fault now. Unfortunately, sometimes as now, I'm not successful.
PS Stick a proof coin into an album as I've done and try to put hairlines on it.
Are those marks left from the metal strips being pulled through rollers (draw bench marks) prior to blanks being cut?
I also note some nice die polish marks on either side of the bust.
@kaz asked: "Are those marks left from the metal strips being pulled through rollers (draw bench marks) prior to blanks being cut?"
Probably. The important thing is they were on the planchet and were not struck out. The "key" to identification is the interior of the marks. It is the color of the original planchet surface. Additionally, you cannot tell from this image, but marks on a planchet generally become weaker at their ends as they were practically obliterated in the strike.
So, while they look like PMD, and they will probably be described as a scratch by many collectors (
) we call them "planchet stria" or "planchet striae" in this case as there is more than one.
They do detract from the eye appeal so many will lower the grade or "pass" on this technical, MS-65 coin with planchet striae. I wish I owned it for my classes.
PS IMO, to body bag or "detail" this coin would be unthinkable.
How much should the grade be lowered from what it would otherwise be for such a coin?
Option 1) If, for example, the coin would grade 66 without the mint-made flaw, should you deduct X number of points?
Option 2) Or, should the grade automatically be limited to X, no matter how high the coin would have otherwise graded? For example, should the grade be limited to 64, 63 or whatever?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld asked an important question that was stated in the OP:
How much should the grade be lowered from what it would otherwise be for such a coin?
Option 1) If, for example, the coin would grade 66 without the mint-made flaw, should you deduct X number of points?
Option 2) Or, should the grade automatically be limited to X, no matter how high the coin would have otherwise graded? For example, should the grade be limited to 64, 63 or whatever?
Let's assume this coin is a fully lustrous, white MS-66. Hardly any detracting marks except a few tiny ones on the high points. Above-average eye appeal EXCEPT for the "scratch." IMO, there is no way to apply option one as each coin and each Mint-made defect is different - some worse than others. Remember, tiny strike thru's are allowed on many MS-70 SE.
I think I would go with option 2. That's the way it was at one time for the "Strike" part of the grading equation. At one time, without a nice strike, a coin did not grade over MS-64 in the "Commercial" system. I have an NGC fully lustrous, gem ++++ 1883-O $ with no ear in an MS-63 slab that was graded in the 1980's. Today if normally struck for an "O" mint, I could easily see graded MS-67 * at the minimum!
All of this is pretty easy to comment in off when you have the coin in hand and we have a partial picture.
While I agree that it does take some effort SOMETIMES to put slide marks on a coin, it can be done much easier that you describe it with the right combo of foreign matter and hardness of the slide. To this day, when I get in an old fresh deal in holders....if there is any doubt, I cut the coins out with an exacto knife. Overkill? Not in my opinion. It doesn't take much to take make a line blink in a way that lowers a coin by one or two grades.
Regarding the San Diego, I agree with the possibility of them being roller lines, but from a pic again....hard to tell. I stand by my original statement that it depends on how the line looks when rotated. A roller line wouldn't blink....and under magnification is "clean", not irregular.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Hairlines Coins - MS 60 at best.
@coinlieutenant said: "All of this is pretty easy to comment in off when you have the coin in hand and we have a partial picture."
Absolutely, that's why I view this as an educational post, based on the opinions of three long-time professional graders with almost 130 years combined experience.
While I agree that it does take some effort SOMETIMES to put slide marks on a coin, it can be done much easier that you describe it with the right combo of foreign matter and hardness of the slide. [Most coins do not even touch the hard plastic slides in the first place. Nevertheless, if someone offered me $100 I'd find a way to hairline a coin with a slide and the "right combo" of foreign matter. The hardest thing I've tried it with so far (with no effect) is chocolate chip cookie crumbs.]
Regarding the San Diego, I agree with the possibility of them being roller lines, but from a pic again....hard to tell. I stand by my original statement that it depends on how the line looks when rotated. A roller line wouldn't blink....[100% correct] and under magnification is "clean", not irregular [100% in disagreement. From this "opinion," I doubt very much that you've seen ANY characteristic on a coin using florescent light and a stereomicroscope.]
And the non-parallel mark on her left (viewer's right) shoulder?
Same cause? How abiut the dent above right breast?
Lots of action here
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
In grading a coin, it should make no difference if a detracting feature was caused by the mint or it was caused after it left the mint. The grade of the coin should reflect only the coin as it now exists, regardless of whether the apparent damage occurred at the mint or after the mint.
Unless you like collecting mint errors.
OINK
The market usually feels otherwise. As-made flaws are typically treated considerably more forgivingly than post-production ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
For me, 1-58 and 60-70 are totally different scales.
Please do not net grade the first scale. Grade it only by wear. Then let the market decide which XF40 is junk and which is premium. To take an AU50 that is dinged all to heck and call it a “net 40” is a joke. It’s not. It’s a crappy 50.
The 60-70 scale on the other hand is all about net grading. It has to be because (originally at least) all the coins on the scale have the same grade by wear. UNC. So to tell them apart you use strike, luster, marks etc.
I’d be happier if one scale did not bleed into the other, “market grading” style. But then grading would be easier, and it’s important to the market that grading not be easy at all.
@Insider2
[Most coins do not even touch the hard plastic slides in the first place. Nevertheless, if someone offered me $100 I'd find a way to hairline a coin with a slide and the "right combo" of foreign matter. The hardest thing I've tried it with so far (with no effect) is chocolate chip cookie crumbs.]
In 2016 I bought a six figure collection of dollars from a collector in New Mexico, all in Dansco or older albums. A good 50% or more of the coins had honest to goodness real slide marks on the coins that lowered the value of the collection by half of what it could have been. These were not cleaning lines, they were very clearly limited to the high cheek points of lady liberty on the same spot on every coin that had them. If slide marks are so difficult to make, how did this happen?
A roller line wouldn't blink....[100% correct] and under magnification is "clean", not irregular [100% in disagreement. From this "opinion," I doubt very much that you've seen ANY characteristic on a coin using florescent light and a stereomicroscope.]
Let me be more detailed so as to save you from your condescending proclivities. The metal on a scratch induced mark only has one way to go...and that is up. Because a scratch depth is rarely uniform, the scratch is not clean, with varying heights of "mountain range" on either side of the line and looks entirely different under magnification than a roller mark.
Absolutely, that's why I view this as an educational post, based on the opinions of three long-time professional graders with almost 130 years combined experience.
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that it is good to see these kinds of threads. I stand by that statement. However, let me clearly say, that it is clear to all students which professors teach because they want their students to learn and which are teaching to show how smart they are. Students learn better from the former.
If you wish to use the Socratic method in these threads, consider how your responses will encourage further discussion. Based on your previous responses to both me and others, you are failing in this regard.
And just to head you off at the pass, I am not butt hurt about your condescending words of "duped", "opinion" nor your passive aggressive allusions to my inferior knowledge. I just shake my head when I read some of the comments, but I am a big boy and have dealt with, face to face, much more difficult characters. I talk almost daily with your wordsmithing doppelganger, and love him dearly, and I know that both of you know more about coins than I do. And that is why I am listening...but no students wants to be bludgeoned on the internet in front of their classmates.
And to close, I have most certainly looked at coins under a microscope. I don't remember the light type however, and I'm quite sure your microscope was bigger than mine.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Excellent post CL. I have learned from both types of teachers, but would only grab a beer with the former.
@coinlieutenant I will respond to your
post after I get back from a long ride on this beautiful day. This is the exact type of dish-it-out-take-reply that becomes VERY educational. As you have noted, I love to stir the pot!
Actually not. According to the ANA published standard, a coin can have significant hairlines all the way up to an
MS-63 straight grade. However, in most cases, "significant" indicates a grade of MS-62 and below. There is a valuable chart in the ANA Grading Guide that can help folks develop their own personal standards.
YES! Every line on the image is from the same cause EXCEPT the small curved one at the lower center and the raised die polish in front of the face. As for the dent, you are micro-grading. BUT IMO, THAT IS OK! I prefer to see every "micro-defect" on a coin when I form an opinion. After you see everything, then you must BACK OFF so you will be in line with the majority of "correct" commercial opinions. It is OK to have your personal opinion but you must know the coin's "real" grade. The "dent" is simply a contact mark.
In the obsolete "True" Technical Grading System, there was a difference. However, Mark has posted a perfect reply for modern times. Look again at the gold coin I posted with adjustment marks. Does it deserve a detail grade because it is damaged?
Please don’t use the term “real grade”. That is an illusory term, which can mislead those who don’t know better. Surely, you can come up with a more meaningful and realistic way of saying what you (hopefully) really mean.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Instead of "real grade," How about,
"consensus grade by someone(s) who stand by their Opinion with a bid to buy the coin at stated grade/price"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
How about ”consensus grading opinion by X” ?
I don’t think the rest of what you’d included occurs In enough instances to make it part of the equation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "Please don’t use the term “real grade”. That is an illusory term, which can mislead those who don’t know better. Surely, you can come up with a more meaningful and realistic way of saying what you (hopefully) really mean."
Perhaps the grade in a Heritage Auction is the "real" grade. Oops, Heritage doesn't grade coins anymore. They market slabs that are graded by other folks.
News flash, this comes pretty close:
@Baley said: "[A] consensus grade by someone(s) who stand by their Opinion with a bid to buy the coin at stated grade/price"
Grading is a ranking system based on the appearance of a coin. Unfortunately, there are too many variables in the modern "market" grading system. That's why I can understand how hard it is for even knowledgeable numismatists to understand the meaning of "real." The fact that coins have an "actual grade" would be a better way to express a "real" grade based only on its condition of preservation. That way when I say that many coins graded low MS today have an actual grade of AU. It is not hard to understand. So you can see that IMO the only IMAGINARY THING GOING ON with regard to grading is in the commercial market and auction companies.
@coinlieutenant,
I'm still working on a reply to your "Best
of Post" to me. My reply still needs to be "softened" just a bit before it is posted. 
Likely you are overthinking it. Fire away, Skip.
siliconvalleycoins.com