Better way of solving the technical vs market grading rub argument
Joey29
Posts: 458 ✭✭✭
I propose affixing a minus or star symbol to minstate coins that have high point friction or wear that is not serious instead of using AU 59. This could apply to series such as SlQ Saints that have knee rub, maybe Walkers with excessive stacking marks. Not included would be coins with wear or luster loss in the fields. This would in effect create a two tier system for mint state coins that are not truly uncirculated. What do you guys think?
0
Comments
Here's what I think-
Learn how to grade. Buy what you like. Don't buy what you don't like or what bothers you.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Minus and * already exist. Just my opinion but it’s uncirculated or it’s not Too many nits to pick. In the old days they called them sliders. ( the - is a +)
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
I do not believe we need anymore symbols or designations in the system. The focus should be the coin, and your skills should determine the condition - which, in turn, should allow you to make a decision. Cheers, RickO
I think we should use the odd numbers between 50 & 70 for AU and the even ones for MS.
My Saint Set
Cabinet friction is wear caused by sliding against a wooden drawer or felt liner in a coin cabinet. Why is this different than wear caused by sliding against the inside of a pants pocket? And the degree of this wear can and does vary, so we use the grades below 60 to express the degree of wear.
The debate will never end because there is a continuum of price/value and another for condition. Using one scale for both will always disappoint in the end.
I actually like the concept of ancients where different attributes are given a scale of 1-5 like strike and surface and such plus the traditional type grade. Takes longer and most coins aren’t worth the effort but perhaps for coins over a certain value it would be a nice service to offer. Maybe coins $5000 and up?
I’m guessing the difference isn’t the cabinet vs. pants, it’s whose cabinet and pants.
For example, if it’s the US Mint’s cabinet or or employee’s pants, the coin is MS, if it was released to a collector and it’s that person’s cabinet or pants, it’s AU.
I’m with JA on this one. Wear is wear so it’s not MS. What is interesting is that he doesn’t seem to market grade these.
This problem is ongoing and will never be settled satisfactorily. The unsettling factor is whether the coin is for a collection or for resale. If a collection, then does it suit the buyer as to look and grade, but if for resale, then it must suit the purchaser both look and grade and even possibly a sticker. So no definitive answer possible.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I agree with learn how to grade, but there are some nuances, like learn how others grade.
Just drop the words mint state and uncirculated and use all the numbers (with pluses if warranted) and all the confusion about "MS" coins with minor rub, magically goes away.
For some reason everyone refuses to do it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
What do you propose exactly? What do you mean all the numbers?
Somehow the idea that there is a discrete "line" at 60 became engrained in the hobby and we're stuck with the fallacy.
I agree that they should use 59 as well as 57 etc. And calling 60 an up graded coins "MS" even if they have rub and or toning causes way too many arguments with folks who take the term far too literally for the modern coin market.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Welcome. Read all of the posts on this thread and you will have some answers. Quick like. 0-70 The Sheldon scale. 0. Being low grade and 70 applied to “flawless “coins
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Why not do like points on the compass such as WNW?
Just grade it MS 65 +-+ (plus, minus, plus)
Then add a bunch of Nascar stickers on the slab
MS --- Mint State.
AU ---About Uncirculated.
although the delineation from one to the other always seems to be described with "rub" and similar terms, that is incorrect. looking at the PCGS website where the Grading Standards are described this point is crystal clear. moving from MS70 downward to AU58 there is a single mention of the word luster at the AU58 grade. that is significant because the absence of luster or "luster breaks" is what delineates between uncirculated and about uncirculated, not marks/contacts/scrapes/digs/rub or any other description of surface marks.
this is why grading from pictures isn't realistic: the chief characteristic which cannot be displayed in a picture is the luster or the absence of luster in small areas. if people would stop using rub and focus instead on the luster it might be more helpful to newcomers. to see that aspect of a coin it needs to be held in your hand under a light source and rotated.
do yourself a favor, visit the link below and understand what I've posted above. it will help sort things out.
https://pcgs.com/grades
This.
I'm not sure why people are trying to make an unnecessary distinction.
Very good point!
Sight-unseen and without additional information, which would you rather have? 1) an uncirculated coin that later circulated, including, in pants pockets and/or purses or 2) an uncirculated coin that went into a coin cabinet, and sometimes slid in its drawer or lined tray?
Perhaps the distinction is unnecessary, but give me option number 2.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Get the best you can afford that your brain and eyes say: " mine for life". Then, enjoy them as you increase your "stash".
What is to debate ?
Which one has the more obvious friction?
Just fine way it is. One needs learn how grade, look at coins. In the final analysis it’s you who will make or lose money. So take responsibility.
Did you miss the part that said “without additional information”. 😈 You could also ask, which has more circulation marks and/or other negatives.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You need to quantify #1. Would you rather have:
An uncirculated coin that spent a couple days in someone's pants, or
An uncirculated coin that slid back and forth over a drawer 3000 times.
In the end, both coins have whatever high point friction damage they have. Calling one "cabinet friction" doesn't lessen the damage.
Without additional information, I have no preference.
You are assuming that cabinet friction is always less damaging than pocket friction.
Here's another question with no answer: how many coins described as having "cabinet friction" were never in a cabinet but were in a purse or pants or bank tellers drawer?
I’m not assuming the cabinet friction is always less damaging. But I am speculating that it’s less damaging in considerably more instances than the pocket friction/circulation is.
In answer to your question - 39%.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No. I asked for more anyway.
You could ask lots of things. If you don't, you're just guessing when you make your choice.
Seems loss of luster is the key in these high point areas not perceived rub or wear
Either it's Uncirculated or it ain't. Either it has wear (any kind) or it does not. Seems pretty simple to me.
Absolutely this!
Picking nits. Listen carefully to what Mark is saying.
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Wonder how much this will add (weight wise) to my collection
I’ve had my eye on this one for awhile
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Tsk tsk. Now cabinet friction is damage. Thank you for the lessons. Don't collect damaged coins 😥
Who other than you said that. Looks like they are going to war over it 😂
Indeed,buying is what this is all about Buy buy buy. Just remember Marks comments 🤓
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
One thing I know is about 93% of you clamoring for AU59 would have your collections of UNCs decimated. It would also encourage more doctoring as many an UNCs are just dipped AU59s
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The other problem with AU59 is that you would have all coins with "cabinet friction" in the same grade - whether it is a 61 or a 65.
We're going to need AU59.1, AU59.2, AU59.3, AU59.4, AU59.5, AU59.6
That should clear things right up!
That makes an AU58+ = AU58.5
Suddenly, we are on a 700 point Sheldon scale!
Bump
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Still like ms grade with an asterisk denoting grade based on minor wear on the high points. So for example pcgs ms64* on the holder. This could be further refined.
Last time. Wear is wear
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
AU58 is my favorite grade, most of my slabbed coins are AU58.
But the back and forth debate reminds me of lumpers vs splitters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper–splitter problem occurs when there is the desire to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.
Mr_Spud
Some times wear is just oxidized oils and dirt that create smudges on high points.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
What does your comments have to do with my proposal
Peace. To many nits to pick. I will graciously take my leave. Enjoy 🤓🙀
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
Agreed, many of the posters proclaiming the scientific differences on the various threads currently circulating, can't actually grade in the first place so I am confused by their statements of absolutes. Ma'am always said consider the source
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set