@pmh1nic said:
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.
Coins aren't "as struck" with contact marks, but they're allowed.
Beautiful '42... and it looks to have been graded around 20+ years ago. I don't see it as being as tough as the '46 in 68. The color on the '42 is outstanding so it could surprise... $100K is not out of the realm of what is possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@pmh1nic said:
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.
Coins aren't "as struck" with contact marks, but they're allowed.
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
What I mean is that you're claiming that toning means a coin doesn't have original surfaces because it wasn't toned when it was struck. Well, contact marks weren't present when the coin was struck, yet they do not preclude an MS68 grade. So- why do you insist toning does?
In short, a coin with contact marks does not have what you define as "original surfaces".
@pmh1nic said:
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
What I mean is that you're claiming that toning means a coin doesn't have original surfaces because it wasn't toned when it was struck. Well, contact marks weren't present when the coin was struck, yet they do not preclude an MS68 grade. So- why do you insist toning does?
In short, a coin with contact marks does not have what you define as "original surfaces".
Actually contact marks can eliminate a coin from receiving a 68 grade depending on where they are located and their size. According to the ANA if there are any contact marks they have to be at most 3 or 4 "miniscule" marks and none in a prime focal area. But beyond that contact marks would be a natural byproduct of the striking/packaging process. The vast majority of coins coming out of the mint will have contact marks. I've been to the mint in Philadelphia and watched the process. Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow 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
@pmh1nic said:
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
What I mean is that you're claiming that toning means a coin doesn't have original surfaces because it wasn't toned when it was struck. Well, contact marks weren't present when the coin was struck, yet they do not preclude an MS68 grade. So- why do you insist toning does?
In short, a coin with contact marks does not have what you define as "original surfaces".
Actually contact marks can eliminate a coin from receiving a 68 grade depending on where they are located and their size. According to the ANA if there are any contact marks they have to be at most 3 or 4 "miniscule" marks and none in a prime focal area. But beyond that contact marks would be a natural byproduct of the striking/packaging process. The vast majority of coins coming out of the mint will have contact marks. I've been to the mint in Philadelphia and watched the process. Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
You have repeatedly made reference to the ANA. PCGS is not the ANA and it's obvious that they don't grade to the standards that you interpret to be those of the ANA. You need not like it or approve of it, but that doesn't change the facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
What I mean is that you're claiming that toning means a coin doesn't have original surfaces because it wasn't toned when it was struck. Well, contact marks weren't present when the coin was struck, yet they do not preclude an MS68 grade. So- why do you insist toning does?
In short, a coin with contact marks does not have what you define as "original surfaces".
Actually contact marks can eliminate a coin from receiving a 68 grade depending on where they are located and their size. According to the ANA if there are any contact marks they have to be at most 3 or 4 "miniscule" marks and none in a prime focal area. But beyond that contact marks would be a natural byproduct of the striking/packaging process. The vast majority of coins coming out of the mint will have contact marks. I've been to the mint in Philadelphia and watched the process. Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
You have repeatedly made reference to the ANA. PCGS is not the ANA and it's obvious that they don't grade to the standards that you interpret to be those of the ANA. You need not like it or approve of it, but that doesn't change the facts.
Correct, PCGS is not the ANA. The fact is ANA was founded in 1891 and has been involved in the grading of coins long before PCGS was in existence. Question for you. How do you think the graders at PCGS estabish their foundation in the "art" of grading? Did they just pull "specifications" out of thin air?
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:
Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
No. And yet, the ANA has on their website, as an example for MS68, a Morgan dollar with just such toning.
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "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
@pmh1nic said:
Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
No. And yet, the ANA has on their website, as an example for MS68, a Morgan dollar with just such toning.
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "fully original".
You might find enough humility to consider if you are correctly interpreting "fully original luster" since the ANA does not have the same color interpretation for silver.
Much spirited intellectual debate there is,................... in this thread.
(Channeling my inner Yoda ).
By ones who have yet to see the subject coin in hand.
Some of the points raised in this thread are magnitudes finer than the work done by the shrunken scientists [in the movie "Fantastic Voyage"] splitting the hairs on a pinhead located at one end of the proverbial needle in a haystack.
@pmh1nic said:
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "fully original".
You also have a picture on their website indicating that toning is acceptable on a 68. Why are you ignoring that?
I'm not ignoring it but the inconsistent with what they state is the standard and the picture is for them to explain. When I read the words "fully original" I'm not think of a coin with surfaces that have oxidized no matter how beautiful that oxidation may appear. That was not the coin's original condition. The toning has diminished the original luster of the coin. Only in the fantasy world of high end numismatics can a coin with toning be considered fully original. I've been around long enough to understand the nuisance these terms have in the numismatic community. That doesn't change my opinion that it's somewhat delusional.
These deviations from the standards have become a slippery slope. One coin that doesn't meet the standard gets the grade which creates the slippery slope that the next that technically doesn't meet the standard gets the grade and so on.
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:
When I read the words "fully original" I'm not think of a coin with surfaces that have oxidized no matter how beautiful that oxidation may appear.
And yet, the ANA chose a picture of just such a coin to illustrate an MS68 example.
I would suggest that you are, perhaps, misunderstanding what the ANA means by "fully original".
@pmh1nic said:
Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
No. And yet, the ANA has on their website, as an example for MS68, a Morgan dollar with just such toning.
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "fully original".
You might find enough humility to consider if you are correctly interpreting "fully original luster" since the ANA does not have the same color interpretation for silver.
I've been married for 48 years. You don't stay married that long without find humility. There is no distinction in ANA standards with respect to silver...
MS-68 • Has attractive sharp strike and full original luster for the date and mint, with no more than four light scattered contact marks or flaws. No hairlines or scuff marks show. Has exceptional eye appeal. If copper, the coin is lustrous and has original 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
@pmh1nic said:
When I read the words "fully original" I'm not think of a coin with surfaces that have oxidized no matter how beautiful that oxidation may appear.
And yet, the ANA chose a picture of just such a coin to illustrate an MS68 example.
I would suggest that you are, perhaps, misunderstanding what the ANA means by "fully original".
It's pretty hard to come up with a definition other than the surfaces are as they original existed when the coin was struck and still stay true to the English language. I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
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:
I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
@pmh1nic said:
I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
Is that about right?
Yes, original surfaces means the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. Anthing that compromises that condition detracts from the 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
@pmh1nic said:
Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
No. And yet, the ANA has on their website, as an example for MS68, a Morgan dollar with just such toning.
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "fully original".
You might find enough humility to consider if you are correctly interpreting "fully original luster" since the ANA does not have the same color interpretation for silver.
I've been married for 48 years. You don't stay married that long without find humility. There is no distinction in ANA standards with respect to silver...
MS-68 • Has attractive sharp strike and full original luster for the date and mint, with no more than four light scattered contact marks or flaws. No hairlines or scuff marks show. Has exceptional eye appeal. If copper, the coin is lustrous and has original color.
I didn't mean to imply there was an exception for silver, just that the coin is silver and everyone (including the ANA) allow for normal "natural" toning of the silver in grades up to 68 or 69.
@pmh1nic said:
I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
Is that about right?
Yes, original surfaces means the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. Anthing that compromises that condition detracts from the grade.
No, YOU are interpreting it to mean that. The ANA does not.
@MasonG said:
So the ANA does not understand their own grading system, then?
What they understand is on them. I clearly understand the words "full original luster" and "luster: fully original". If the ANA, PCGS, NGC or anyone else wants to incorporate toning as acceptable for an MS-68, 69 or 70 be my guest, just don't attempt to twist the meaning of words to mean want they really don't mean by any standard interpretation of the words. If toning, an alteration of the original surfaces is acceptable in these grades, change the specifications, don't do it by a reinterpretation of the language.
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:
I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
Is that about right?
Yes, original surfaces means the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. Anthing that compromises that condition detracts from the grade.
No, YOU are interpreting it to mean that. The ANA does not.
Again, I'm interpretation the words like any person that understands that standard meaning would interpret them. I'd hate to buy a car from you. I'd call and ask about the finish and you'd say "fully original" only to show up and find a rusty hunk of junk.
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
Toning can be “original” or unoriginal. Surfaces and luster can be “original” or unoriginal.
A coin need not be color-free in order to exhibit “original” surfaces and luster. No word twisting required.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@pmh1nic said:
I'd hate to buy a car from you. I'd call and ask about the finish and you'd say "fully original" only to show up and find a rusty hunk of junk.
@pmh1nic said:
I'd hate to buy a car from you. I'd call and ask about the finish and you'd say "fully original" only to show up and find a rusty hunk of junk.
There is no rust on the half dollar in question.
Oh brother, here we go. No, actually I'm not going to go there.
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
@MasonG said:
Not interested in the meaning of words now. I see.
Oh, I'm interested but I've had the discussion regarding oxidation, rust, silver sulfide, toning, damage, etc. on numerous occasions. No offense but there is zero you're going to tell me of any importance that I haven't already heard. If you want to start searching forum post on the issue go back to the prior CU forum from before the switch in 2001.
Actually I'm really not interested.
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:
I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
Is that about right?
Yes, original surfaces means the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. Anthing that compromises that condition detracts from the grade.
No, YOU are interpreting it to mean that. The ANA does not.
Again, I'm interpretation the words like any person that understands that standard meaning would interpret them. I'd hate to buy a car from you. I'd call and ask about the finish and you'd say "fully original" only to show up and find a rusty hunk of junk.
@jmlanzaf said:
I pulled out my 4th edition OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS.
Please note the following:
The ANA makes a distinction between copper and other metals in grades of 67 and above in terms of color - contrary to your prior assertion.
The ANA discusses color and luster separately.
The ANA acknowledges that color can ENHANCE luster (or poor color detract from luster) BUT THEY CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY.
They specifically indicate in the text that "COLOR DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE GRADE OF A MINT STATE COIN."
I don't think I made any reference to the color of silver coins other than to use the common term "blast white" to describe a lustrous coin. With respect to a 68 coin the reference in your copy of the ANA guide is the same as mine which is "full original luster". Now the statements "full original luster" and the statement "color does not directly affect the grade of a Mint State coin" is contradictory. A silver coin cannot have color, regardless of how beautiful that color may be, and also have "full original luster". All toning is an alteration of the original luster of a coin.
BTW, go electronic. Kindle is a beautiful thing.
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
@jmlanzaf said:
I pulled out my 4th edition OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS.
Please note the following:
The ANA makes a distinction between copper and other metals in grades of 67 and above in terms of color - contrary to your prior assertion.
The ANA discusses color and luster separately.
The ANA acknowledges that color can ENHANCE luster (or poor color detract from luster) BUT THEY CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY.
They specifically indicate in the text that "COLOR DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE GRADE OF A MINT STATE COIN."
I don't think I made any reference to the color of silver coins other than to use the common term "blast white" to describe a lustrous coin. With respect to a 68 coin the reference in your copy of the ANA guide is the same as mine which is "full original luster". Now the statements "full original luster" and the statement "color does not directly affect the grade of a Mint State coin" is contradictory. A silver coin cannot have color, regardless of how beautiful that color may be, and also have "full original luster". All toning is an alteration of the original luster of a coin.
BTW, go electronic. Kindle is a beautiful thing.
I've had that book from before Kindle's existed.
ONLY YOU READ LUSTER TO INCLUDE COLOR. THE EFFING ANA WHO YOU KEEP QUOTING does not. So stop pretending to be some kind of expert on the ANA grading standards. You clearly don't understand them as you are now accusing them of being inconsistent with YOUR interpretation.
OMG it's come to this. I almost spit out my coffee when I read "Kindle".
m
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......
@jmlanzaf said:
The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
My ANA grading guide includes four aspects of each grade:
Contact marks
Hairlines
Luster
Eye appeal
So- eye appeal is evaluated as a separate item from luster. And it says a coin with great eye appeal is a candidate for a higher grade than one that's unattractive. Helpfully, PCGS illustrates what they think about eye appeal here:
@jmlanzaf said:
The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
My ANA grading guide includes four aspects of each grade:
Contact marks
Hairlines
Luster
Eye appeal
So- eye appeal is evaluated as a separate item from luster. And it says a coin with great eye appeal is a candidate for a higher grade than one that's unattractive. Helpfully, PCGS illustrates what they think about eye appeal here:
I posted the pcgs guide earlier. It was unconvincing to Mr. ANA. He simply said that they don't use ANA standards. Of course, he doesn't either. He just hasn't figured it out yet.
@MasonG said:
"Luster and color are closely related for most coins because exceptional color will enhance average luster..."
Interesting.
Apparently he doesn't think so. The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
I'm done. Carry on without me. If the ANA can't convince Mr. ANA, no one can.
I haven't been around since 1891 but I have been around long enough to have a pretty good command of the English language. I know what the words original, fully and luster mean. I also have an understanding of the process that results in the toning of a silver coin. ANYONE claiming a toned coin represents the original surfaces of a coin as it was minted is delusional.
The statements in the ANA guide are contradictory. A coin's surfaces cannot be fully original and toned at the same time. If you want to argue that those words have been watered down among the numismatic community to mean those contradictory things have at it. Words have meaning. If you're satisfied with this twisted interpretation that's on you. Hopefully you don't apply the same meaning to those words when buying a used car.
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
@MasonG said:
"Luster and color are closely related for most coins because exceptional color will enhance average luster..."
Interesting.
Apparently he doesn't think so. The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
I'm done. Carry on without me. If the ANA can't convince Mr. ANA, no one can.
I haven't been around since 1891 but I have been around long enough to have a pretty good command of the English language. I know what the words original, fully and luster mean. I also have an understanding of the process that results in the toning of a silver coin. ANYONE claiming a toned coin represents the original surfaces of a coin as it was minted is delusional.
The statements in the ANA guide are contradictory. A coin's surfaces cannot be fully original and toned at the same time. If you want to argue that those words have been watered down among the numismatic community to mean those contradictory things have at it. Words have meaning. If you're satisfied with this twisted interpretation that's on you. Hopefully you don't apply the same meaning to those words when buying a used car.
The good news is we found out who we can buy toners from at a HUGE discount!!!
Actually the majority of the coins I have are toners. I appreciate the process that happens over time that results in the changes that occur with silver coins. What I wouldn't do is make believe the process hasn't occurred and call the surfaces "fully original". That's delusional.
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
The good news is we found out who we can buy toners from at a HUGE discount!!!
Actually the majority of the coins I have are toners. I appreciate the process that happens over time that results in the changes that occur with silver coins. What I wouldn't do is make believe the process hasn't occurred and call the surfaces "fully original". That's delusional.
Consider for 5 seconds that the ANA contradiction goes away, as does any confusion with PCGS/CAC etc. if you simply separate color and luster as two SEPARATE characteristics. The ANA clearly does so. You are the only one who does not. This is not you applying the "English language", it is your stubborn insistence on your own interpretation. Now, you are welcome to it, but to have the hubris to call the ANA inconsistent simply because their definition of luster does NOT include color....never mind, I am NOT getting sucked in again.
Luster:
a gentle sheen or soft glow, especially that of a partly reflective surface.
dictionary.com
Comments
I think it's time to insert the dead horse thingie!
That’s a $100k coin now apparently
Latin American Collection
Coins aren't "as struck" with contact marks, but they're allowed.
Beautiful '42... and it looks to have been graded around 20+ years ago. I don't see it as being as tough as the '46 in 68. The color on the '42 is outstanding so it could surprise... $100K is not out of the realm of what is possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Not sure what you mean by "they're allowed" but contact marks reduce the grade of a coin.
What I mean is that you're claiming that toning means a coin doesn't have original surfaces because it wasn't toned when it was struck. Well, contact marks weren't present when the coin was struck, yet they do not preclude an MS68 grade. So- why do you insist toning does?
In short, a coin with contact marks does not have what you define as "original surfaces".
Actually contact marks can eliminate a coin from receiving a 68 grade depending on where they are located and their size. According to the ANA if there are any contact marks they have to be at most 3 or 4 "miniscule" marks and none in a prime focal area. But beyond that contact marks would be a natural byproduct of the striking/packaging process. The vast majority of coins coming out of the mint will have contact marks. I've been to the mint in Philadelphia and watched the process. Have you ever heard of a coin coming out of that process with rainbow toning?
I never claimed otherwise.
With all due respect, that is moving the goalposts. Previously, you asked:
"Do coins come out of striking process with rainbow toning on them?"
and now, you're asking if they come out of the mint that way.
You have repeatedly made reference to the ANA. PCGS is not the ANA and it's obvious that they don't grade to the standards that you interpret to be those of the ANA. You need not like it or approve of it, but that doesn't change the facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No. And yet, the ANA has on their website, as an example for MS68, a Morgan dollar with just such toning.
Correct, PCGS is not the ANA. The fact is ANA was founded in 1891 and has been involved in the grading of coins long before PCGS was in existence. Question for you. How do you think the graders at PCGS estabish their foundation in the "art" of grading? Did they just pull "specifications" out of thin air?
You'll have to ask them. All I have is their grading standards that say the luster of a 68 has to be "fully original".
You also have a picture on their website indicating that toning is acceptable on a 68. Why are you ignoring that?
You might find enough humility to consider if you are correctly interpreting "fully original luster" since the ANA does not have the same color interpretation for silver.
Much spirited intellectual debate there is,................... in this thread.
(Channeling my inner Yoda
).
By ones who have yet to see the subject coin in hand.
Some of the points raised in this thread are magnitudes finer than the work done by the shrunken scientists [in the movie "Fantastic Voyage"] splitting the hairs on a pinhead located at one end of the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Fun stuff though.
I'm not ignoring it but the inconsistent with what they state is the standard and the picture is for them to explain. When I read the words "fully original" I'm not think of a coin with surfaces that have oxidized no matter how beautiful that oxidation may appear. That was not the coin's original condition. The toning has diminished the original luster of the coin. Only in the fantasy world of high end numismatics can a coin with toning be considered fully original. I've been around long enough to understand the nuisance these terms have in the numismatic community. That doesn't change my opinion that it's somewhat delusional.
These deviations from the standards have become a slippery slope. One coin that doesn't meet the standard gets the grade which creates the slippery slope that the next that technically doesn't meet the standard gets the grade and so on.
I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned it. That streak on the sun is Haley's Comet. It came through in '46.
And yet, the ANA chose a picture of just such a coin to illustrate an MS68 example.
I would suggest that you are, perhaps, misunderstanding what the ANA means by "fully original".
I've been married for 48 years. You don't stay married that long without find humility. There is no distinction in ANA standards with respect to silver...
MS-68 • Has attractive sharp strike and full original luster for the date and mint, with no more than four light scattered contact marks or flaws. No hairlines or scuff marks show. Has exceptional eye appeal. If copper, the coin is lustrous and has original color.
It's pretty hard to come up with a definition other than the surfaces are as they original existed when the coin was struck and still stay true to the English language. I'm not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what I'd like them to mean.
OY Vey
The people who use the term "original surfaces" in their grading standards include the picture of a toned coin to illustrate a particular grade. You say you're not a fan of the verbal gymnastics required to make words mean what you'd like them to mean while claiming that "original surfaces" means "no toning".
Is that about right?
Yes, original surfaces means the surfaces as they were when the coin was struck. Anthing that compromises that condition detracts from the grade.
So the ANA does not understand their own grading system, then?
I didn't mean to imply there was an exception for silver, just that the coin is silver and everyone (including the ANA) allow for normal "natural" toning of the silver in grades up to 68 or 69.
No, YOU are interpreting it to mean that. The ANA does not.
What they understand is on them. I clearly understand the words "full original luster" and "luster: fully original". If the ANA, PCGS, NGC or anyone else wants to incorporate toning as acceptable for an MS-68, 69 or 70 be my guest, just don't attempt to twist the meaning of words to mean want they really don't mean by any standard interpretation of the words. If toning, an alteration of the original surfaces is acceptable in these grades, change the specifications, don't do it by a reinterpretation of the language.
Yes, I believe you think so. On that, we're in agreement.
Again, I'm interpretation the words like any person that understands that standard meaning would interpret them. I'd hate to buy a car from you. I'd call and ask about the finish and you'd say "fully original" only to show up and find a rusty hunk of junk.
Toning can be “original” or unoriginal. Surfaces and luster can be “original” or unoriginal.
A coin need not be color-free in order to exhibit “original” surfaces and luster. No word twisting required.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is no rust on the half dollar in question.
Oh brother, here we go. No, actually I'm not going to go there.
Not interested in the meaning of words now. I see.
Oh, I'm interested but I've had the discussion regarding oxidation, rust, silver sulfide, toning, damage, etc. on numerous occasions. No offense but there is zero you're going to tell me of any importance that I haven't already heard. If you want to start searching forum post on the issue go back to the prior CU forum from before the switch in 2001.
Actually I'm really not interested.
"fully original LUSTER"
LUSTER is NOT COLOR.
Your wife is a Saint.
I pulled out my 4th edition OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS.
Please note the following:
"Luster and color are closely related for most coins because exceptional color will enhance average luster..."
Interesting.
I don't think I made any reference to the color of silver coins other than to use the common term "blast white" to describe a lustrous coin. With respect to a 68 coin the reference in your copy of the ANA guide is the same as mine which is "full original luster". Now the statements "full original luster" and the statement "color does not directly affect the grade of a Mint State coin" is contradictory. A silver coin cannot have color, regardless of how beautiful that color may be, and also have "full original luster". All toning is an alteration of the original luster of a coin.
BTW, go electronic. Kindle is a beautiful thing.
Apparently he doesn't think so. The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
I'm done. Carry on without me. If the ANA can't convince Mr. ANA, no one can.
OMG it's come to this. I almost spit out my coffee when I read "Kindle".
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......
The good news is we found out who we can buy toners from at a HUGE discount!!!
My ANA grading guide includes four aspects of each grade:
So- eye appeal is evaluated as a separate item from luster. And it says a coin with great eye appeal is a candidate for a higher grade than one that's unattractive. Helpfully, PCGS illustrates what they think about eye appeal here:
https://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal
I posted the pcgs guide earlier. It was unconvincing to Mr. ANA. He simply said that they don't use ANA standards. Of course, he doesn't either. He just hasn't figured it out yet.
I'm not sure why PCGS would use ANA's standards anyway. After all, they don't use NGC's standards, either.
Yeah, I don't know. The whole discussion was a waste of time. Once he started misquoting the ANA guide, I should have just taken the "L".
I haven't been around since 1891 but I have been around long enough to have a pretty good command of the English language. I know what the words original, fully and luster mean. I also have an understanding of the process that results in the toning of a silver coin. ANYONE claiming a toned coin represents the original surfaces of a coin as it was minted is delusional.
The statements in the ANA guide are contradictory. A coin's surfaces cannot be fully original and toned at the same time. If you want to argue that those words have been watered down among the numismatic community to mean those contradictory things have at it. Words have meaning. If you're satisfied with this twisted interpretation that's on you. Hopefully you don't apply the same meaning to those words when buying a used car.
Give my best to your wife.
Actually the majority of the coins I have are toners. I appreciate the process that happens over time that results in the changes that occur with silver coins. What I wouldn't do is make believe the process hasn't occurred and call the surfaces "fully original". That's delusional.
Consider for 5 seconds that the ANA contradiction goes away, as does any confusion with PCGS/CAC etc. if you simply separate color and luster as two SEPARATE characteristics. The ANA clearly does so. You are the only one who does not. This is not you applying the "English language", it is your stubborn insistence on your own interpretation. Now, you are welcome to it, but to have the hubris to call the ANA inconsistent simply because their definition of luster does NOT include color....never mind, I am NOT getting sucked in again.
Luster:
a gentle sheen or soft glow, especially that of a partly reflective surface.
dictionary.com