@scotty4449 said:
Very nice Walker! You can just tell that thing has BOOMING luster! It does have that thing on the sun, but that's about the only flaw I see unless you don't like the toning.
It's a Sunspot.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I've seen the same coin get graded EF45 CAC and EF40 CAC. One of those grades is "flawed". Turns out the EF45 CAC was the product of grade inflation that was corrected by the second submission.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
Not toned blast white is not necessarily full original luster either.
Only if it came straight out of an original roll is it full untouched luster period. Everything else is dipped altered luster technically
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I've seen the same coin get graded EF45 CAC and EF40 CAC. One of those grades is "flawed". Turns out the EF45 CAC was the product of grade inflation that was corrected by the second submission.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
Not toned blast white is not necessarily full original luster either.
Only if it came straight out of an original roll is it full untouched luster period.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. The OP was saying that all toning was a defect which would mean that only blast white coins would even be eligible for the grade. [The broader inference that all blast white coins would be eligible for the grade was not intended nor, I think, a logical reading.]
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
Not toned blast white is not necessarily full original luster either.
Only if it came straight out of an original roll is it full untouched luster period.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. The OP was saying that all toning was a defect which would mean that only blast white coins would even be eligible for the grade. [The broader inference that all blast white coins would be eligible for the grade was not intended nor, I think, a logical reading.]
Yes I didn’t mean your personal comment rather the detractors of toning and promoters of blast white
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
Not toned blast white is not necessarily full original luster either.
Only if it came straight out of an original roll is it full untouched luster period.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. The OP was saying that all toning was a defect which would mean that only blast white coins would even be eligible for the grade. [The broader inference that all blast white coins would be eligible for the grade was not intended nor, I think, a logical reading.]
Yes I didn’t mean your personal comment rather the detractors of toning and promoters of blast white
I've seen the same coin get graded EF45 CAC and EF40 CAC. One of those grades is "flawed". Turns out the EF45 CAC was the product of grade inflation that was corrected by the second submission.
An EF45 CAC should also be an EF40 CAC.
How about an EF45 green CAC should be an EF40 gold CAC?
IMO, the coin was technically overgraded as a 45 but JA liked the speckled toning.
I’m the newbie here and y’all guys are supposed to be the seasoned professionals
I’ll give you a little clue:
All coins are not created equal and so before you can start assigning a grade and detracting for imperfections.
The coin in question must first be categorized into one of probably three different levels. (I don’t work there so I don’t know the exact formula).
The category is easily assigned in the first few seconds based on the level and amount of strike, luster, and eye appeal. If these are mediocre or level 2 then the coin cannot exceed 68 at best. And will most likely go 67 and occasionally with a plus. Then you start detracting down for imperfections.
This coin obviously was level 1 category at first sight, meaning 70 was possible but then detracted down to 68 for the imperfections.
I would say Marks coin was level 2 eye appeal with zero detractions. Or there might have been a little play between toning and minimal hits that equaled out.
There are plenty of coins in every series in CoinFacts at MS 68 with more hits and ticks than the alleged rulebook would allow.
I've seen the same coin get graded EF45 CAC and EF40 CAC. One of those grades is "flawed". Turns out the EF45 CAC was the product of grade inflation that was corrected by the second submission.
An EF45 CAC should also be an EF40 CAC.
How about an EF45 green CAC should be an EF40 gold CAC?
@CoinscratchFever said:
I’m the newbie here and y’all guys are supposed to be the seasoned professionals
I’ll give you a little clue:
All coins are not created equal and so before you can start assigning a grade and detracting for imperfections.
The coin in question must first be categorized into one of probably three different levels. (I don’t work there so I don’t know the exact formula).
The category is easily assigned in the first few seconds based on the level and amount of strike, luster, and eye appeal. If these are mediocre or level 2 then the coin cannot exceed 68 at best. And will most likely go 67 and occasionally with a plus. Then you start detracting down for imperfections.
This coin obviously was level 1 category at first sight, meaning 70 was possible but then detracted down to 68 for the imperfections.
I would say Marks coin was level 2 eye appeal with zero detractions. Or there might have been a little play between toning and minimal hits that equaled out.
There are plenty of coins in every series in CoinFacts at MS 68 with more hits and ticks than the alleged rulebook would allow.
Mic drop!
I think you’re giving yourself a bit too much credit in dropping the mic.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
The mistake you are making with the sun contact mark, is coin photography often picks up a very tiny mark and make it seem a lot worse than when viewed in hand. I own a beautiful ms 65 walker with a minimal tiny cut on libertys arm when viewed in hand, but when I photographed it with my camera it looks like a gouge that is unattractive!. But in reality it is close to a 66 or maybe it’s undergraded.
I understand what you're saying but I'm not in a position to assume anything with respect to what might be. I'm limited to what I can actually see in the photographs. I've taken plenty of photographs of coins and realize the limitations. Even with the best equipment and lighting it's very difficult to capture in 2D a 3D object. I'm approaching this with the idea that details you see in the photographs are actually presented as seen on the coin and saying that if those imperfections are actually on the coin the 68 grade is an overgrade based the ANA and PCGS standards I've referenced.
You actually have the hubris to say that PCGS doesn't understand its own standards?
Hubris has nothing to do with it. I read what they and/or the ANA reference as the standard for a grade and take it at face value. If the standard is fully original luster or no marks or marks that are barely perceptible that's what I go by. Are you saying the luster on that coin is "fully original"? I beg to differ with you.
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
@tradedollarnut said: The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Ok now this is just getting dumb
Please be specific. What in that statement was "dumb"? Do coins come out of striking process with rainbow toning on them? Do you know what causes toning?
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
Fully original in the context of a coin’s luster means undiminished. It has nothing to do with the presence of light toning - although heavy toning can diminish luster as can over dipping.
@pmh1nic said:
Are you saying the luster on that coin is "fully original"? I beg to differ with you.
ANA grading standards (book in hand as I write this) says that an MS67 has original luster. The ANA uses the image below on their website to illustrate an MS67 coin.
If toning is not allowed on a coin with original luster, why do you suppose they chose that example?
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
Nearly all silver coins of any significant age that display blast-white untoned surfaces have been dipped at some point, although often that can’t be proven. Would you argue that blast-white coins that have been chemically treated in this way are original, while toned coins that have been left to their own devices over the years are not? Or are no older coins original, and thus no older coins deserve superb gem grades?
@tradedollarnut said:
Fully original in the context of a coin’s luster means undiminished. It has nothing to do with the presence of light toning - although heavy toning can diminish luster as can over dipping.
We're wasting our time. He's right and the entire coin community is wrong. [Including ANA, PCGS, CAC....]
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Under your interpretation, a coin with any degree of toning would be disqualified from a grade of 68 or higher. If that’s what the description actually means - and I don’t believe that it does - PCGS clearly hasn’t adopted it.
Whether PCGS has adopted it or not is on them. When I read the requirement for the MS-68 grade is luster = "fully original" there is only one way for me to interpret that. I really appreciate a nicely toned coin but it does negate the fully original requirement for the 68 grade.
Now the reality is PCGS, NGC and 99% of the numismatic community doesn't give a hoot about my opinion on this coin or my interpretation of the grading standards. That said don't call me crazy (not that you have) when I interpret "fully original" as meaning the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. If the powers that be want to redefine what those words mean that's on them but don't call me crazy in the process. When the standards for a 68 grade say no marks in a prime focal area we might differ on our opinion of exact where the prime focal areas are but the sun, the field in which the word "IN" is located and the eagle's left wing are in my opinion prime focal areas.
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
@pmh1nic said:
That said don't call me crazy (not that you have) when I interpret "fully original" as meaning the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Under your interpretation, a coin with any degree of toning would be disqualified from a grade of 68 or higher. If that’s what the description actually means - and I don’t believe that it does - PCGS clearly hasn’t adopted it.
Whether PCGS has adopted it or not is on them. When I read the requirement for the MS-68 grade is luster = "fully original" there is only one way for me to interpret that. I really appreciate a nicely toned coin but it does negate the fully original requirement for the 68 grade.
Now the reality is PCGS, NGC and 99% of the numismatic community doesn't give a hoot about my opinion on this coin or my interpretation of the grading standards. That said don't call me crazy (not that you have) when I interpret "fully original" as meaning the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. If the powers that be want to redefine what those words mean that's on them but don't call me crazy in the process. When the standards for a 68 grade say no marks in a prime focal area we might differ on our opinion of exact where the prime focal areas are but the sun, the field in which the word "IN" is located and the eagle's left wing are in my opinion prime focal areas.
Thank you for expounding on my previous comment about the direction of this discussion
@tradedollarnut said:
Fully original in the context of a coin’s luster means undiminished. It has nothing to do with the presence of light toning - although heavy toning can diminish luster as can over dipping.
We're wasting our time. He's right and the entire coin community is wrong. [Including ANA, PCGS, CAC....]
"What we have here...is a failure to communicate!"
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
It is an art that has guidelines which you are interpreting incorrectly. It is laughable that you keep quoting the ANA guidelines as though they are gospel yet you don't interpret their guidelines the same way that THEY do.
I stand by what I said. You have your own standard. That's about as useful as having your own rules of addition. When your rules say that 4+2=3.6, you are in an island.
It's also useless to have your own Sheldon scale. You can call all pcgs 68 cac coins as 65s, how does that help you are anyone else? It just makes you sound uninformed.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
@tradedollarnut said:
Fully original in the context of a coin’s luster means undiminished. It has nothing to do with the presence of light toning - although heavy toning can diminish luster as can over dipping.
We're wasting our time. He's right and the entire coin community is wrong. [Including ANA, PCGS, CAC....]
The fact of the matter is coin grading is not a science but an art. Since that is the case why set standards if the standards aren't going to be applied equally. If the standard for luster is "fully original" the onus is on the company that gave the first 68 grade to a coin with toning. PCGS uses words like "tiny" and "barely visible" in their "standards" for a 68 coin. Tiny and barely visible are not scientific terms. So in this case a coin realizes a 16x premium over 67 coins based on tiny, barely visible issues and terms that are not clearly defined.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
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
@tradedollarnut said:
This one is really gonna blow your mind. Toned, with ticks. Lol
Beautiful coin. By ANA standards, based on toning and contact marks on the reverse in a prime focal area, wouldn't qualify for a 68 grade.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
If the "this coin" is referring to the 1946 WH the toning, the spots on the obverse and the darkened areas on the wing on the reverse would not be original.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
If the "this coin" is referring to the 1946 WH the toning, the spots on the obverse and the darkened areas on the wing on the reverse would not be original.
@pmh1nic said:
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
LUSTER Is not color, per the ANA and the rest of the coin community. You're right, rainbow color is NOT original color. Rainbow color might have original LUSTER. Luster is reflectivity not color.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
LUSTER Is not color, per the ANA and the rest of the coin community. You're right, rainbow color is NOT original color. Rainbow color might have original LUSTER. Luster is reflectivity not color.
Yes. Maybe there is a confusion of “luster” and “surfaces.” Of course, toned silver coins arguably have more “original” surfaces than most untoned coins, and typically when people refer to “originality” they actually mean undipped coins with wholesome patination, not blast-white coins.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
Wrong. There is no mention of color because it should be self evident that the words "fully original" mean the condition of the coin as struck. It's only in the alternative universe of coin grading that fully original can mean a toned 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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
Wrong. There is no mention of color because it should be self evident that the words "fully original" mean the condition of the coin as struck. It's only in the alternative universe of coin grading that fully original can mean a toned coin.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
And, again, this is the PCGS MS68 coin in their photograde guide
Grading is an art, not a science
It's a Sunspot.
Pete
I've seen the same coin get graded EF45 CAC and EF40 CAC. One of those grades is "flawed". Turns out the EF45 CAC was the product of grade inflation that was corrected by the second submission.
Not toned blast white is not necessarily full original luster either.
Only if it came straight out of an original roll is it full untouched luster period. Everything else is dipped altered luster technically
An EF45 CAC should also be an EF40 CAC.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. The OP was saying that all toning was a defect which would mean that only blast white coins would even be eligible for the grade. [The broader inference that all blast white coins would be eligible for the grade was not intended nor, I think, a logical reading.]
Yes I didn’t mean your personal comment rather the detractors of toning and promoters of blast white
Gotcha. We agree!! Hallelujah
People are agreeing with you? That's gonna be a problem.
I feel really weird...
How about an EF45 green CAC should be an EF40 gold CAC?
IMO, the coin was technically overgraded as a 45 but JA liked the speckled toning.
I’m the newbie here and y’all guys are supposed to be the seasoned professionals
I’ll give you a little clue:
All coins are not created equal and so before you can start assigning a grade and detracting for imperfections.
The coin in question must first be categorized into one of probably three different levels. (I don’t work there so I don’t know the exact formula).
The category is easily assigned in the first few seconds based on the level and amount of strike, luster, and eye appeal. If these are mediocre or level 2 then the coin cannot exceed 68 at best. And will most likely go 67 and occasionally with a plus. Then you start detracting down for imperfections.
This coin obviously was level 1 category at first sight, meaning 70 was possible but then detracted down to 68 for the imperfections.
I would say Marks coin was level 2 eye appeal with zero detractions. Or there might have been a little play between toning and minimal hits that equaled out.
There are plenty of coins in every series in CoinFacts at MS 68 with more hits and ticks than the alleged rulebook would allow.
Mic drop!
Not always gonna get it, tho.
I think you’re giving yourself a bit too much credit in dropping the mic.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hubris has nothing to do with it. I read what they and/or the ANA reference as the standard for a grade and take it at face value. If the standard is fully original luster or no marks or marks that are barely perceptible that's what I go by. Are you saying the luster on that coin is "fully original"? I beg to differ with you.
Please be specific. What in that statement was "dumb"? Do coins come out of striking process with rainbow toning on them? Do you know what causes toning?
Fully original in the context of a coin’s luster means undiminished. It has nothing to do with the presence of light toning - although heavy toning can diminish luster as can over dipping.
ANA grading standards (book in hand as I write this) says that an MS67 has original luster. The ANA uses the image below on their website to illustrate an MS67 coin.
If toning is not allowed on a coin with original luster, why do you suppose they chose that example?
You have given a new meaning to the word "original". The original condition and appearance of the coin when struck was brilliant luster. A chemical process has occurred that has changed the chemical make up of surface of the coin altering its original appearance. Words have meaning. Original does not mean "not doctored". As far as how grading is impacted by these changes, strictly speaking no coin with toning can be claimed to have original luster but if the grading services decide to ignore this fact that's on them.
No. You are misinterpreting. If you read the PCGS guidelines they talk about original luster and original color as separate categories. YOU are interpreting luster as including color. ANA does not.
You are free to have your own standard, but that leaves you hopelessly out of step with the market and incapable of understanding it. Did you even look at the ANA and PCGS material I posted for you? You are on an island here.
Nearly all silver coins of any significant age that display blast-white untoned surfaces have been dipped at some point, although often that can’t be proven. Would you argue that blast-white coins that have been chemically treated in this way are original, while toned coins that have been left to their own devices over the years are not? Or are no older coins original, and thus no older coins deserve superb gem grades?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
We're wasting our time. He's right and the entire coin community is wrong. [Including ANA, PCGS, CAC....]
Whether PCGS has adopted it or not is on them. When I read the requirement for the MS-68 grade is luster = "fully original" there is only one way for me to interpret that. I really appreciate a nicely toned coin but it does negate the fully original requirement for the 68 grade.
Now the reality is PCGS, NGC and 99% of the numismatic community doesn't give a hoot about my opinion on this coin or my interpretation of the grading standards. That said don't call me crazy (not that you have) when I interpret "fully original" as meaning the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. If the powers that be want to redefine what those words mean that's on them but don't call me crazy in the process. When the standards for a 68 grade say no marks in a prime focal area we might differ on our opinion of exact where the prime focal areas are but the sun, the field in which the word "IN" is located and the eagle's left wing are in my opinion prime focal areas.
Coins aren't struck with contact marks, either.
That’s not at all what “fully original” means and I think 99% is a bit generous.
Thank you for expounding on my previous comment about the direction of this discussion
"What we have here...is a failure to communicate!"
I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silver coins don't come out of the striking process with any toning. The have no "original color" other than silver that is sometimes referred to as blast white. I understand the market and I understand the inconsistent nature of the market and grading. Someone mentiin grading is not science but art. That's very true and since that's the case don't treat grading as if it's a science. It's not.
It is an art that has guidelines which you are interpreting incorrectly. It is laughable that you keep quoting the ANA guidelines as though they are gospel yet you don't interpret their guidelines the same way that THEY do.
I stand by what I said. You have your own standard. That's about as useful as having your own rules of addition. When your rules say that 4+2=3.6, you are in an island.
It's also useless to have your own Sheldon scale. You can call all pcgs 68 cac coins as 65s, how does that help you are anyone else? It just makes you sound uninformed.
The pcgs rules do not require original color in 68 for silver. Original color is blast white. That is a SEPARATE standard than original luster. You are conflating the two.
Try reading the guidelines I posted and looking at the pictures.
This one is really gonna blow your mind. Toned, with ticks. Lol
The fact of the matter is coin grading is not a science but an art. Since that is the case why set standards if the standards aren't going to be applied equally. If the standard for luster is "fully original" the onus is on the company that gave the first 68 grade to a coin with toning. PCGS uses words like "tiny" and "barely visible" in their "standards" for a 68 coin. Tiny and barely visible are not scientific terms. So in this case a coin realizes a 16x premium over 67 coins based on tiny, barely visible issues and terms that are not clearly defined.
I only used the term blast white because it's a term commonly used for coins without any toning. I'm not conflating anything. ANA does mention the requirement for luster as fully original.
Beautiful coin. By ANA standards, based on toning and contact marks on the reverse in a prime focal area, wouldn't qualify for a 68 grade.
What isn’t original about the luster on this coin?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
He's conflating color and luster UNLIKE the ANA.
Stop quoting ANA standards when you are misinterpreting them. If YOU don't call that a 68, that's fine. Don't pretend that is the ANA standard.
If the "this coin" is referring to the 1946 WH the toning, the spots on the obverse and the darkened areas on the wing on the reverse would not be original.
The term in the ANA standard is "fully original" with respect to luster. There is no mention of color and I've never seen a coin come out of the striking process with rainbow color.
What’s the relation of those to the luster?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Yes, there’s no mention of color because it does not necessarily have any effect on the grade.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
LUSTER Is not color, per the ANA and the rest of the coin community. You're right, rainbow color is NOT original color. Rainbow color might have original LUSTER. Luster is reflectivity not color.
ANA didn’t grade it.
Yes. Maybe there is a confusion of “luster” and “surfaces.” Of course, toned silver coins arguably have more “original” surfaces than most untoned coins, and typically when people refer to “originality” they actually mean undipped coins with wholesome patination, not blast-white coins.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Wrong. There is no mention of color because it should be self evident that the words "fully original" mean the condition of the coin as struck. It's only in the alternative universe of coin grading that fully original can mean a toned coin.
Fully original luster, not fully original.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
299 posts in now. Let's not forget that the person who has put in over 500 posts of word salad out of that 299 still has not seen this coin in hand.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
300!
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......