When is a Problem a Problem?
pmh1nic
Posts: 3,326 ✭✭✭✭✭
This question was raised in my mind as I read the discussion of grading for a nice 1932-S Washington Quarter. To the naked eye the coin has good eye appeal with a decent strike and nice toning. At 10x or more magnification light hairline scratches become visible and it becomes a "problem" coin.
My question is can this definition of being a problem coin, due to those light hairline scratches, change depending on the rarity of a coin? Would those scratches on an AU 1803 Draped Bust Quarter render it a problem coin? Or is problem defined by what PCGS or NGC has to say about a coin?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
2
Comments
The 1803 quarter in your example wouldn’t be a problem coin. But it would be a counterfeit, as the Mint didn’t make any.😉 That aside, many of us believe that especially rare/valuable coins tend to be accorded some latitude.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As you get into the early 1800's and late 1700's coinage the line between damaged/problem becomes rather fuzzy and the waters are murky. That is not really my thinking or definition but it is how some coins are treated from time to time, and that line may be even more fuzzy depending on if you are buying or selling the said coin.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Based on what I've seen entombed in plastic, the rarer the coin, the more leeway for 'problems'.
Dave
Awe shucks!
I'd say, hopefully more precisely, that the rarer the coin, the more incentive to arrive at a Net grade and allow a slab grade because the market prefers it that way.
At first glance, sometimes these pieces look undergraded.. until you take a glass to it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
OH Wait - did you just refer to money being the determining factor? Its a business - Ta Daaaaa
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Related to this (maybe MFeld and others with historical knowledge can chime in), have standards changed over the years that would make it more forgivable that a coin from the 1700's or 1800's in general would be given more latitude? Was it common for collectors back then to wipe or lightly buff coins in a way that is seen as unacceptable today?
To some it is a business, to many it is a hobby, habit or restive pastime. To the latter I feel the rarity of the coin supersedes light cleanings and small scratches(wherein scratches on the features or date become less attractive). So the determining factor is not always money. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
People assess, and judge, issues according to their own perceptions and values. A casual collector will look at an issue and feel it is just part of the character of the coin. A dealer will look at the same coin/issue and compute the problem in dollars. A registry collector will determine the value in points. And all the varying individual judgements in between. Cheers, RickO
Love the comment @ricko made. Spot on!
You say light hairlines with a 10x ... this may or may not be an issue depending. Lots of things can be seen at 10x, and many of them won't be seen otherwise and may not affect the grade (below near Gem).
Parallel, Swirled in a noticeable pattern ... a whole bunch or a light scattering?
From a cleaning or from handling? Both happen.
Light hairlines, to me, would not be the same as scratches. Hard to describe the difference, but like many things, we know it when we see it.
However, back to your question. My take is yes, there is more leniency to older and rarer coins, but I don't always agree. Yet when the surviving examples start to dwindle and grading starts to become more of a ranking, it makes a little more sense I suppose.
It would be hard to consider grading and considering some issues on say a 1815/2 Bust Half quite the same as you would on say a 1962 Franklin.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I can't guarantee that my recollections are accurate. But I believe that the types coins which appear to be given extra leeway these days, have been accorded the same, for as long as the major third party graders have existed.
As far as collectors wiping and buffing coins - I doubt that it was any more acceptable to knowledgeable individuals way back when, than it is these days.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was told one time that you should grade a coin using a 3X lens. I do not know what standard PCGS graders use. The more magnification, the more problems will be found. If you magnify any coin large enough, you can find problems with all coins, although some may be small. If you can't see it with a 3X lens, it is OK.
My uncle found a 1955 circulated double die in about 1957 and wiped it with a tissue. It came back as "cleaned" from PCGS.
At 10x or more magnification light hairline scratches become visible and it becomes a "problem" coin.
Just about every coin becomes a "problem" coin at 10x or MORE magnification. Get a quality 5x loop and go with it.