Here's a Details descriptor you don't often see "Artificially Worn".

RLSnapper

Someone wanted that PO01 pretty bad. How can you tell it is AW?

braddick

That is cool.
I am perplexed by how PCGS makes that determination.
(I am grateful they do though.)

Here is another:

ShaunBC5

Gotta get those natural lowballs.
Pocket piece with keys is Ok.
Rock tumbler or any other tool is not Ok.

jmlanzaf

@ShaunBC5 said:
Gotta get those natural lowballs.
Pocket piece with keys is Ok.
Rock tumbler or any other tool is not Ok.

What about 2 gloved robots passing it back and forth 100,000 times?

Goldbully

@ShaunBC5 said:
Gotta get those natural lowballs.
Pocket piece with keys is Ok.
Rock tumbler or any other tool is not Ok.

The graders must have the eyes of a pilot.

Manifest_Destiny

Haven't seen that designation before. I wonder what criteria they use to determine that.

davewesen

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Haven't seen that designation before. I wonder what criteria they use to determine that.

probably many, but for the 2 shown the rim/edge wear needs to be consistent with the obverse and reverse wear.

CaptHenway

IMHO, a coin that worn from natural circulation would have more contact marks from contact with other coins in actual circulation.

Colonialcoin

@braddick said:
That is cool.
I am perplexed by how PCGS makes that determination.
(I am grateful they do though.)

Here is another:

It’s about time. I have never received a Kennedy half in change, silver or clad, as they seldom circulate yet I will see these lowball 64’s or 40% pieces in slabs. Why is it that all the 1964 quarters that I see in the 90% junk bins solid XF or better? Because for the most part they were immediately plucked out of circulation. No way did a Kennedy silver half dollar circulate to the point that it looks like a piece of metal found at a hardware store.

dcarr

@ShaunBC5 said:
Pocket piece with keys is Ok.
Rock tumbler or any other tool is not Ok.

I've got a rock tumbler in my pocket.