Proof Grading and Hairlines - Version 2.0 (PR67 Jefferson Nickels).
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,449 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was thrilled by the positive feedback that I received in the first post, so I decided to do a further post comparing two PR67 Jefferson nickels.
I will preface this by saying that when you get to higher grades, proof grading becomes much more subjective. EVERYTHING BELOW IS MY OWN OPINION.
My next statement may be a bit controversial - the TPGs will get this wrong from time to time (perhaps even consistency as grades change slightly from grading team to grading team). The case in point example will be the PR67 1938 nickel, which I view as a solid 67. It was originally graded PR66. I think the idea that it is worse than the 1942 is somewhat laughable. I will choose the 1938 100/100 times.
Here's the two test coins:
On a side note, these older versions of my slab shots are fun to look at. I can already see where I've improved. 
Here are unedited pics of the obverse and reverse of each coin, along with a description.
1942 5c PR67 PCGS. A wonderful example of the Type One version struck in 1942. Light original blues, greys, greens, and purples meld together to form a stunning light color profile when viewed under light. Hairlines in the obverse and reverse fields, as well as a reverse spot limit the grade to a PR66 (IMO). Exceptionally detailed, this proof exhibits lightly reflective mirrors and fully struck surfaces. 
.
.
1938 5c NGC PR67 (Recut Ribbon, FS-402) One of the best 1938 proof nickels in existence for contrast. Near Deep Cameo contrast graces the obverse devices, while light frost appears on the reverse lettering and Monticello. Exceptionally deep, black mirrors boom on both sides of the coin. Very few extremely light hairlines and a few obverse spots limit the grade to a PR67. Formerly NGC PF66, Formerly ANACS PF66. Exceptionally detailed and contrasted, light golden tones appear at the rims. This proof shows the rucutting work of a mint engraver in 1938, which was done to strengthen the queue of Jefferson's hair. This variety can be distinguished from the FS-403 by the lack of recutting on LIBERTY.
.
.
Now I will mark them up:
Red is for hairlines. Orange is for striations. Green is for spots. Blue is for marks. Yellow is for die polish. Purple will be for spalling.
In areas where I circled a large section of field, it means there are many tiny hairlines in that area that slightly lower the grade from the "perfect" 70.
Some definitions:
Hairlines (red) are marks that appear on a proof coin (or MS coin) that are caused by sliding or contact with something after striking.
Striations (orange) are pre-strike marks, that IMO do not affect grade based on what I've seen from PCGS and NGC. They usually run up to and under the devices.
Spots (green) are something that got onto the surface of the coin and caused a reaction with the metal in a small area.
Marks (blue) are like hairlines, but heavier and more concentrated.
Die polish (yellow) is a mark or series of marks that is on the die and appears on every coin struck from that die. They do not affect grade.
Spalling (purple) is a faint cracking and chipping of the fields due to striking pressure.
Recutting (Cyan) is what mint Engravers did to strengthen details of a die once they wore out or were polished too much. It was generally of low quality in the 36-42 era.
1942:
Obverse video:
https://youtube.com/shorts/WhAkymZ_fbc
Reverse video (these were a bit hard to shoot, sorry for the bad angle):
https://youtube.com/shorts/eIGNY2vXXRI
1938:
Obverse video:
https://youtube.com/shorts/0OKomroUKhQ
Reverse video (these were a bit hard to shoot, sorry for the bad angle):
https://youtube.com/shorts/X54SuDGcmhE
The reason I chose these two coins is due to the fact that they are graded the same, but technically aren't equal. The 1942 has fewer circles on the marked up version, but it's because the hairlines were too numerous to mark. The hairlines are also much more in number, which is why I marked them heavy - they appear as heavy disturbances in the field. This is why I grade the coin a 66. It's number and severity combining to form the overall grade.
This is also where it is so important to know what to look for - I didn't buy the 1942 for it's technical grade, but for it's color and exceptional detail. One can pick and choose a good 67 over a lesser one if they know how to grade and what to look for. This is what CAC does - they simply find the coins that are better. It's why CAC coins bring a premium - the coins are probably simply higher quality.
Strike on these two coins are equal, but I'd argue the 1938 has slightly higher eye appeal. It's a really great coin and I'm a sucker for undipped contrasted proofs (yes, I don't think the 1938 has been dipped - the mirrors simply look too deep for that, and it has a wonderful golden undertone).
Any comments or suggestions are always welcome and encouraged. If you'd like to see a specific coin done, I can see if I can make that happen (it will have to be a coin in my collection).
Coin Photographer.
Comments
Thank you. I do appreciate the time you took to post this and point out all of the conditions you see on each coin.
The spots above Monticello are pretty substantial and distracting, relatively speaking. I prefer cleaner fields but I can see why you like this one.
http://ProofCollection.Net
For proof coinage, I think that both are over graded. The 1942 is no better than a 65 and the 1938 is no better than a 66. Way too many marks and spots for a 67. Without seeing the coins in hand I would be somewhat reluctant to define hairlines in such localized areas, as hairlines are caused by improper cleaning of the coin. But they were probably PMD of some sort.
@FlyingAl ... That is a lot of work, and a very good analysis. I did not see a final conclusion though. Do you agree with the TPG grades? Cheers, RickO
I kind of sprinkled it throughout, I did say I called the 1942 a 66 in my final few paragraphs though. I view the 1938 as a solid 67.
Coin Photographer.
@FlyingAl... Thanks for the reply... Did not recall the mention of 66. Cheers, RickO
@FlyingAl : I am really impress by your deep analysis. I think you has to do a booklet for different years, metals, denominations. Will be a gold selling. Also this will show what I question from long time in grading with the toning and eye appeal. I have also an real anecdote for this which was funy.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Coins don't need to be cleaned in order to acquire hairlines.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hairlines could be acquired during the Mint process easy. Ex.: After polish of the blanks, after milling process, after strike, during the transport, during the packaging and etc.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
How interesting it is that on proof coins:
Hairlines are always (IMO) viewed as a "negative" attribute; and
Die polishing lines are most of the time (IMO) viewed as a "neutral" attribute or even a "positive" attribute.
The above dynamic applies even when a coin with hairlines has much more eye appeal than a coin with die polishing lines.
Anyone care to comment as to why the above dynamic is present?
It's present only in plastic, not inhand, would be my guess.
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
In general, post-production flaws are treated differently and with less leniency than as-struck characteristics. I'm good with that, other than in extreme cases, such as particularly heavy adjustment marks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have both coins in hand and I assure you everything marked is on the coin.
Coin Photographer.
No, No, No FA. Not what I meant at all. I answered SII's question regarding why the dynamic of accepting a coin with die lines and not with hairlines, regardless of which is the better looking coin, in which I suposed that it was for the plastic and not for the looks raw. In no way was I challenging your post. I liked it so much I added it to my collection of Reference Articles(accompanying your 1st post in this regards).
No offense meant.
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
In the future, including/quoting the post to which you're replying, would likely eliminate such confusion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld
I usually do, Mark. I was immediately following his post, so thought none was needed. Evidently, it was.
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
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification! This post also clarifies that you were referring to collectors buying plastic for a certain TPG, rather than marks being on the plastic.
I’m glad you enjoyed the posts!
Coin Photographer.
Thanks for posting these threads, FlyingAl. As someone who’s recently been bitten by the proof bug, I’m finding them extremely helpful.
Mark.
When you stated:
"In general, post-production flaws are treated differently and with less leniency than as-struck characteristics. I'm good with that, other than in extreme cases, such as particularly heavy adjustment marks."
I fully understand how one could agree with your point (most of the times I agree with it); however I would find it perplexing to see a collector or dealer favor a proof coin that has substantial flaws made during the minting process (rendering very unattractive) over a proof coin that is very attractive that has minimal hairlines that are noticeable only when viewed through a loupe when the coin is tilted just so under good lighting.
As with most everything, personal preference, personal standards and things which are "matters of degree" operate to determine what is "better".
For me proof coins with no hairlines that result from overly harsh die polishing (i.e. looking like the devices were polished with a brillo pad) are less desirable than a proof coin minted from fresh dies or appropriately repolished dies that has minimal hairlines.
I share your preference for Proof coins with minimal hairlines over those with “…substantial flaws made during the minting process (rendering very unattractive)”. Regardless of individual preferences, however, grading is at least partly separate from eye-appeal. So as long as mint-made flaws are treated consistently by the grading companies, I don’t have an issue with the practice of being less forgiving for post-production flaws. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a world of grading in which mint-made flaws were treated just like post-production ones.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld Coins don't need to be cleaned in order to acquire hairlines.
I am not sure how the mint might be creating hairlines on proofs. Do you have any examples? Or are there other means by which hairlines are created post mint.
@MFeld "On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a world of grading in which mint-made flaws were treated just like post-production ones."😉
I agree. For me I think that mint created issues should be considered in the grading process. Of course, this means that TPGS grades are overstated if they do not regard mint defects. Collectors want the best examples, regardless of mint irregularities.
OINK