An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Yes. And if the problem is so severe that a logical net grade would make the coin look silly at the assigned grade, the coin gets a “details” grade. For example, you should never see a strictly mint state and lustrous coin net graded to XF because it has a problem, but you might see a rough and ugly XF/AU net graded to VF.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Yes. And if the problem is so severe that a logical net grade would make the coin look silly at the assigned grade, the coin gets a “details” grade. For example, you should never see a strictly mint state and lustrous coin net graded to XF because it has a problem, but you might see a rough and ugly XF/AU net graded to VF.
Andy, I recall having expressed very similar sentiments regarding the cutoff point for when a coin with an issue should receive a details grade, as opposed to a straight grade, “net grade”. I even used the “S” word,, as you did! The coin should receive a details grade when the logical net grade would look “silly”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Oh My...I don't recall the title of that thread to read again yet I I remember some things. Additionally, I don't recall any misconduct from any poster in it or here. We are having a normal-back-and forth now, right?. I am trying hard to suppress my normal nature these days as everything was different when I grew up. I hope my "measured" comments below don't offend.
@Rexford said: "He was well aware of who I was at the time. [I'm not. If I recall, someone asked you to ID yourself - and you finally wrote that you were a professional grader for a major TPGS. My name is is Puddentaine, what's yours?] ** And if by “holding his own” you mean spouting ridiculousness about grading approaches to coins he is not familiar with... ** [_I'm not familiar with the way you approach grading and you don't know mine. We don't know his either. Perhaps his grading standards are more strict than others. All I know about your approach is what you wrote
above - that you don't consider a coin's value (!!!) I thought that's what TPGS's claim to do with commercial grades and you ignore the point where a coin's value explodes.]. If by “ducking out” you mean me clearly stating/explaining my stance numerous times in that thread and then leaving once it devolved into said ridiculousness and personal attacks... [_I have no idea what the personal attacks were. Do you consider my good-natured sarcasm to spice up a post a personal attack? Are members who strongly disagree with your posts an attack. Personally, I love to debate the "Pit Bulls" and ignorant newbies of numismatics as long as they bring good points to our discussion. I learn from defending my position. Example: in another silly thread started by @married, I was made to realize something I knew but never thought about - the defects used to reach the lowest Mint State grade of MS-60 are different for ancients modern Proofs, etc]. towards myself, and after which Married has continued to try to bait me in multiple other threads, then sure."
"Foreign graders do not approach coins exceptionally differently than US coins... [I'm out of the loop. I guess the day of US dealers going to Europe and buying XF coins to bring to the US as AU are over] except in that there are different qualities of production, methods of production, and surface issues common to particular types to be aware of. They are grading using the Sheldon scale [I'm sorry but I need to LOL at this statement and cry out FOUL! I don't think you ever read the actual Sheldon Scale in your life! It is on page #41 in my copy published in 1958 (a revision of Early American Cents(1949)], not foreign grading systems, and that coin was well into mint state on the Sheldon scale. [While I disagree, if I were a foreign coin dealer or a foreign coin finalizer for a TPGS, I would also grade it MS and sleep like a baby! That Russian coin is "market acceptable" as a Mint State.].
I think there is a big mistake in conflating “everyone has an opinion” with “everyone has a valid opinion”.
[P L E A S E ... is that really necessary to say? I give the members here a little credit for the obvious] I wouldn’t tell my doctor how to diagnose and prescribe me, because I recognize that he is an expert in his field and I am not. I wouldn’t try to explain card grading to a card grader, or paper money grading to a paper money grader, because I don’t have expertise in those areas. If I tried to argue with any of those people, I think the right and proper thing for them to do would be to “duck out” as well - if not outright tell me off.Oh MY... it seems like he really got to you. I wish I could remember that discussion. I'd like to see what he asked you that you could not/would not/or got tired of defending. I hope I don't EVER give you a reason to duck out on me.
As most of you know, IMO, Net Grading a coin is stupid. It allowed a group of famous seasoned professionals to grade a 1794 1c (a perfect match for the XF image in Photograde) VF, XF, and AU! Each had a reason for the grade they assigned and since they were who they were - famous, long-time, experienced and successful numismatists, who could argue with their opinion except a little nobody (who kept his mouth shut for once. ) holding the grading guide he needed in order to grade the coin correctly. Who knew grading could be made so
complicated?
@GoldFinger1969 said:
JA: “The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a >few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye >appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!”
I hate putting words in people's mouths or twisting things....especially someone with JA's credentials.
But I couldn't help but notice that he says that the obverse abrasions (inlcuding the knee gouge) "...are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster" (I'll have to take his word for it, the photos aren't that great). But is this an admission of net-grading ?
He also says that "the eye appeal is off the charts" -- that's a VERY glowing plug for something that is not that quantifiable. Again, my understanding was that the 1933's had OK-to-Good "eye appeal" and luster, but then again I haven't seen the coin in person and/or via great hi-res pics.
You wonder if that coin would have CAC'd if the date had somehow been hidden.
I wouldn't put too much stock into the grading or stickering of the 1933. Its a unique situation, and no one wants to be the one to say it, so you're gonna need to read between the lines a bit. The 1870-s $3 is a similar situation, but far more obvious.
@Insider3 Ah, so you and he are two peas in a pod. Yeah, it seems that was necessary for me to say. As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. And proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid.
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
@Insider3 said:
As most of you know, IMO, Net Grading a coin is stupid. It allowed a group of famous seasoned professionals to grade a 1794 1c (a perfect match for the XF image in Photograde) VF, XF, and AU! Each had a reason for the grade they assigned and since they were who they were - famous, long-time, experienced and successful numismatists, who could argue with their opinion except a little nobody (who kept his mouth shut for once. ) holding the grading guide he needed in order to grade the coin correctly. Who knew grading could be made so
complicated?
I wouldn't call "net grading" stupid. Net grades are, however, less helpful than a full verbal description. Anyway, the market gets what the market wants.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I just want to say that I appreciate ALL the back-and-forth from the vets. I realize it may be reposting of stuff you have said multiple times over the years, but I DO appreciate you veterans taking the time to explain your stances. Some of the posts probably take 10-15 minutes to think out and put together -- it's not a 15 second soundbite. I appreciate that effort from all of you vets/experts/longtimers.
Regardless of whether I am closer to one POV or another...whether I totally understand what is being discussed or am totally lost....I feel I am learning in bits-and-pieces, which is ultimately the purpose of forums like this. Unlike some of you, I don't have the time to spend doing lots of grunt work to make myself an expert, whether it is spending more time just looking at coins or taking the professional courses (I hope to at some point, but personal and family circumstances prevent me at this time). So your back-and-forths are invaluable from my perspective.
@tcollects said:
this battle needs to be settled with either a slap fight or a dance off
Why not both at the same time?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
What don't you understand? I feel I can explain Rex's position now that he is gone. This is one of those "no one is 100% correct because their are different ways to grade coins. Foe example, in this country, the Copper guys have their very own standards that works for them but not for me. An **educated numismatist **can debate or explain EITHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION - even if they don't agree with it. I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did!
@DeplorableDan said:
I wouldn't put too much stock into the grading or stickering of the 1933. Its a unique situation, and no one wants to >be the one to say it, so you're gonna need to read between the lines a bit. The 1870-s $3 is a similar situation, but >far more obvious.
That's what I thought too, Dan....but I don't have the cognones to tell an acknowledged expert, "Hey, you're going against what you always say, you're making an exception for a one-of-a-kind coin."
I can almost see the wisdom of Net Grading in a literal reading of JA's comments. In a weird sort of way, you can see how some would use Net Grading as a compromise between pure Technical Grading and full Market Grading.
@Insider3 said:
I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I >did!
Insider, in your opinion....is it fair -- or unfair -- to take into account the SIZE of the coins (bigger coins easier to show hits/dings) as well as the actual METAL it is made out of (softer metals easier to mark) ?
@Insider3 said:
I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I >did!
Insider, in your opinion....is it fair -- or unfair -- to take into account the SIZE of the coins (bigger coins easier to show hits/dings) as well as the actual METAL it is made out of (softer metals easier to mark) ?
Do you compensate...or treat 'em all the same ?
I treat everything the same. That said, a coin's size determines a lot.
Small coins are harder to see so harder to grade.
Coins with unusual denominations are harder to grade because you don't see several thousand a week.
Large coins/medals not made of aluminum are heavier than their counterparts. They do more damage to each other while small coins hardly affect each other.
The hardness of a coin's alloy determines how much PMD it will survive. Additionally, a coin's design determines how easily it will show defects and how easily they will happen in normal use.
There is more but I've learned to be relative because on size mark on a small coin will practically disappear on a large coin. Since I come from the "school" of condition away from as made, the amount of design remaining is my main focus when grading non-detailed coins below MS. All the normal factors including eye appeal influence the MS grades.
As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. [What's the definition of MS-60,65,70 in the Sheldon System? I only need you to Post what you remember about the first sentence.] And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. [Yes I do! For example, a foreign coin with a hole in it that is not part of its design is NOT market acceptable!] The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. [Of course the foreign market complains! Their grading is being challenged by people who have not grown up with their system. Nevertheless, it is not wrong for them, it's the way it is and I could care less what they do. I'm not ever going to grade one of their AU Russian Roubles MS - unless it is "market acceptable" in this country as an MS-62!] Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. [I feel sorry you go through that.
I never care what ANYONE (especially outsiders) thinks about my assessment - UNLESS I made a mistake which helps to keep me VERY HUMBLE in spite of the way I post. Self Edit] Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. [Do you admit to doing this?
Whenever my opinion has been overruled in the past...Never mind. I don't ever quake in my boots. No one is perfect and fakes of any kind have become very deceptive. I give it my best shot and wait to see what the millions of eyes checking my decision say.] Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. [You are joking right? I would not tolerate that from an employee Self Edit] and proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. [IMO, you are mistaken. Anyone who has actually read page #41 & 42, of the original Sheldon Scale - including how each grade is defined), knows for a fact that it was outdated by the 1980's] But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! [I posted NET GRADING NOT ALL GRADING. Self edit] Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid. [LOL, what you posted is absolutely correct for the folks who choose to use the word "net" like an adjective as in "net price" rather than incorrectly grading a coin due to some defect. Self edit]
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
[I was going to add what a pleasure it is posting with you (Mark and others) because it is. Yes I was banned but not for discussing coins with my peers. I fully understand why you are ducking out and I really will miss not seeing your posts after you block me. Best Regards!]
Insider your statement Small coins are harder to see so harder to grade makes me realize that maybe the reason there are so many gold stickered Mercury Dimes at CAC is due to the difficulty of grading dimes consistently at the TPG services
As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. [What's the definition of MS-60,65,70 in the Sheldon System? I only need you to Post what you remember about the first sentence.] And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. [Yes I do! For example, a foreign coin with a hole in it that is not part of its design is NOT market acceptable!] The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. [Of course the foreign market complains! Their grading is being challenged by people who have not grown up with their system. Nevertheless, it is not wrong for them, it's the way it is and I could care less what they do. I'm not ever going to grade one of their AU Russian Roubles MS - unless it is "market acceptable" in this country as an MS-62!] Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. [I feel sorry you go through that.
I never care what ANYONE (especially outsiders) thinks about my assessment - UNLESS I made a mistake which helps to keep me VERY HUMBLE in spite of the way I post. Self Edit] Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. [Do you admit to doing this?
Whenever my opinion has been overruled in the past...Never mind. I don't ever quake in my boots. No one is perfect and fakes of any kind have become very deceptive. I give it my best shot and wait to see what the millions of eyes checking my decision say.] Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. [You are joking right? I would not tolerate that from an employee Self Edit] and proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. [IMO, you are mistaken. Anyone who has actually read page #41 & 42, of the original Sheldon Scale - including how each grade is defined), knows for a fact that it was outdated by the 1980's] But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! [I posted NET GRADING NOT ALL GRADING. Self edit] Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid. [LOL, what you posted is absolutely correct for the folks who choose to use the word "net" like an adjective as in "net price" rather than incorrectly grading a coin due to some defect. Self edit]
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
[I was going to add what a pleasure it is posting with you (Mark and others) because it is. Yes I was banned but not for discussing coins with my peers. I fully understand why you are ducking out and I really will miss not seeing your posts after you block me. Best Regards!]
@Walkerlover said:
Insider your statement Small coins are harder to see so harder to grade makes me realize that maybe the reason there are so many gold stickered Mercury Dimes at CAC is due to the difficulty of grading dimes consistently at the TPG services
Later dates of these dimes are so common in 66 on up that without a close examination (too time consuming when cranking out coins for most graders) it is difficult to separate the 66 to 68 range using a 75-100W bulb without magnification. I have the luxury of time, magnification, and fluorescent light when grading small coins. I don't burn my eyes out due to glare.
As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. [What's the definition of MS-60,65,70 in the Sheldon System? I only need you to Post what you remember about the first sentence.] And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. [Yes I do! For example, a foreign coin with a hole in it that is not part of its design is NOT market acceptable!] The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. [Of course the foreign market complains! Their grading is being challenged by people who have not grown up with their system. Nevertheless, it is not wrong for them, it's the way it is and I could care less what they do. I'm not ever going to grade one of their AU Russian Roubles MS - unless it is "market acceptable" in this country as an MS-62!] Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. [I feel sorry you go through that.
I never care what ANYONE (especially outsiders) thinks about my assessment - UNLESS I made a mistake which helps to keep me VERY HUMBLE in spite of the way I post. Self Edit] Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. [Do you admit to doing this?
Whenever my opinion has been overruled in the past...Never mind. I don't ever quake in my boots. No one is perfect and fakes of any kind have become very deceptive. I give it my best shot and wait to see what the millions of eyes checking my decision say.] Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. [You are joking right? I would not tolerate that from an employee Self Edit] and proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. [IMO, you are mistaken. Anyone who has actually read page #41 & 42, of the original Sheldon Scale - including how each grade is defined), knows for a fact that it was outdated by the 1980's] But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! [I posted NET GRADING NOT ALL GRADING. Self edit] Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid. [LOL, what you posted is absolutely correct for the folks who choose to use the word "net" like an adjective as in "net price" rather than incorrectly grading a coin due to some defect. Self edit]
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
[I was going to add what a pleasure it is posting with you (Mark and others) because it is. Yes I was banned but not for discussing coins with my peers. I fully understand why you are ducking out and I really will miss not seeing your posts after you block me. Best Regards!]
I think you are missing his sarcasm.
I hope so! I figured that was the reason he was no longer employed by a TPGS!
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
YIKES! You guys must know that word applies to two different things. One is a grade below MS and the other is the coin's history. A coin's grade depends on its history but its history does not determine its grade. Did I make sense?
An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Yes. And if the problem is so severe that a logical net grade would make the coin look silly at the assigned grade, the coin gets a “details” grade. For example, you should never see a strictly mint state and lustrous coin net graded to XF because it has a problem, but you might see a rough and ugly XF/AU net graded to VF.
Is an MS-65 with a wipe that is net graded to an MS-64 worth the same amount of money? If you had a choice between the problem coin that is net graded and another MS-64 with no problems, which would you choose? If one major TPGS net grades that coin and the other major TPGS "details" it to make a point that the other service screwed up, which service is protecting the customer? Would a new collector with a Photograde book understand (and learn how to grade) why the VF coin is not graded XF/AU - just like the PCGS Photograde image on his computer or his grading guide? Is it any wonder why I believe "Net" grading is folly. I'm dealing with this net grading fiasco while training a new grader. I'm writing a column in Numismatic News about it.
BTW, I had to agree with the notion planted into his skull that ALL GRADING IS NET GRADING...but...LOL!
An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Yes. And if the problem is so severe that a logical net grade would make the coin look silly at the assigned grade, the coin gets a “details” grade. For example, you should never see a strictly mint state and lustrous coin net graded to XF because it has a problem, but you might see a rough and ugly XF/AU net graded to VF.
Is an MS-65 with a wipe that is net graded to an MS-64 worth the same amount of money? If you had a choice between the problem coin that is net graded and another MS-64 with no problems, which would you choose?
If it's a minor wipe, I could conceivably choose the 64. It would depend on the overall quality and eye appeal of the pieces. If the wipe is a little more severe, I might prefer the other coin. And if it's a major wipe, bordering on "no grade" territory, the coin would probably get net graded something less than 64.
As for the relative value of the two pieces, more or less the same answer. I wouldn't know which coin I valued higher until I saw them in hand, but they should at least be in the same ballpark.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Insider3 said:
I'm writing a column in Numismatic News about it.
Let us know when it is out, I3 !!
I write about two columns a month in numismatic news. IMO, all collectors should read Numismatic News and Coin World. When I was an active collect, the dealer would have copies for sale on the counter with images of a new "discovery coin on the front page and since he never read the papers, we would often cherry-pick the same coins out of his inventory!!!
PS Most of what I'm writing has already been written in CU discussions.
Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways [LOL, yeah, yeah, the excuse given to me by some of the best graders in the country was "we are learning more about the series"], and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU.
GRRRRrrr....[Self edit of my original response for preservation of my posting privileges. Mr. Rexford is truly a grading genius]... so I'll just say that IMO Mr. Bowers is more correct than Mr. Rexford.
@Rexford said: in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used >to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and >not AU.
Rex, WHY are they "truly" MS -- is it because you believe the "appearance" of wear/friction/rub is in fact not actual wear/friction/rub but caused by something else (i.e., die not filled) ?
Or do you believe that the most minute traces of wear/friction/rub may come from non-circulated means (i.e., sliding in a velvet pouch)....or just that MS grades can tolerate a very minute amount of legitimate verified wear/friction/rub ?
Sorry if this has been asked before but I feel it's super-critical and it's something I have wrestled with so I'm trying to nail down the answer as specifically as I can.
Maybe it's just me -- it probably is -- but the more I LEARN about this MS vs. AU debate....the less I seem to actually KNOW.
Comments
If I add a star or PQ, am I up to 38?
@jmlanzaf
I don’t see why not!
Once you decide that aesthetic qualities can be made to fit onto a numerical scale, there’s really no limit.
More numbers imply even more exactness!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Yes. And if the problem is so severe that a logical net grade would make the coin look silly at the assigned grade, the coin gets a “details” grade. For example, you should never see a strictly mint state and lustrous coin net graded to XF because it has a problem, but you might see a rough and ugly XF/AU net graded to VF.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, I recall having expressed very similar sentiments regarding the cutoff point for when a coin with an issue should receive a details grade, as opposed to a straight grade, “net grade”. I even used the “S” word,, as you did! The coin should receive a details grade when the logical net grade would look “silly”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Oh My...I don't recall the title of that thread to read again yet I I remember some things. Additionally, I don't recall any misconduct from any poster in it or here. We are having a normal-back-and forth now, right?. I am trying hard to suppress my normal nature these days as everything was different when I grew up.
I hope my "measured" comments below don't offend.
above - that you don't consider a coin's value (!!!) I thought that's what TPGS's claim to do with commercial grades and you ignore the point where a coin's value explodes.]. If by “ducking out” you mean me clearly stating/explaining my stance numerous times in that thread and then leaving once it devolved into said ridiculousness and personal attacks... [_I have no idea what the personal attacks were. Do you consider my good-natured sarcasm to spice up a post a personal attack? Are members who strongly disagree with your posts an attack. Personally, I love to debate the "Pit Bulls" and ignorant newbies of numismatics as long as they bring good points to our discussion. I learn from defending my position. Example: in another silly thread started by @married, I was made to realize something I knew but never thought about - the defects used to reach the lowest Mint State grade of MS-60 are different for ancients modern Proofs, etc]. towards myself, and after which Married has continued to try to bait me in multiple other threads, then sure."
[P L E A S E ... is that really necessary to say? I give the members here a little credit for the obvious] I wouldn’t tell my doctor how to diagnose and prescribe me, because I recognize that he is an expert in his field and I am not. I wouldn’t try to explain card grading to a card grader, or paper money grading to a paper money grader, because I don’t have expertise in those areas. If I tried to argue with any of those people, I think the right and proper thing for them to do would be to “duck out” as well - if not outright tell me off. Oh MY... it seems like he really got to you. I wish I could remember that discussion. I'd like to see what he asked you that you could not/would not/or got tired of defending. I hope I don't EVER give you a reason to duck out on me.
As most of you know, IMO, Net Grading a coin is stupid. It allowed a group of famous seasoned professionals to grade a 1794 1c (a perfect match for the XF image in Photograde) VF, XF, and AU! Each had a reason for the grade they assigned and since they were who they were - famous, long-time, experienced and successful numismatists, who could argue with their opinion except a little nobody (who kept his mouth shut for once.
) holding the grading guide he needed in order to grade the coin correctly. Who knew grading could be made so
complicated?
I wouldn't put too much stock into the grading or stickering of the 1933. Its a unique situation, and no one wants to be the one to say it, so you're gonna need to read between the lines a bit. The 1870-s $3 is a similar situation, but far more obvious.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@Insider3 Ah, so you and he are two peas in a pod. Yeah, it seems that was necessary for me to say. As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. And proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid.
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
this battle needs to be settled with either a slap fight or a dance off
I wouldn't call "net grading" stupid. Net grades are, however, less helpful than a full verbal description. Anyway, the market gets what the market wants.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I just want to say that I appreciate ALL the back-and-forth from the vets. I realize it may be reposting of stuff you have said multiple times over the years, but I DO appreciate you veterans taking the time to explain your stances. Some of the posts probably take 10-15 minutes to think out and put together -- it's not a 15 second soundbite. I appreciate that effort from all of you vets/experts/longtimers.
Regardless of whether I am closer to one POV or another...whether I totally understand what is being discussed or am totally lost....I feel I am learning in bits-and-pieces, which is ultimately the purpose of forums like this. Unlike some of you, I don't have the time to spend doing lots of grunt work to make myself an expert, whether it is spending more time just looking at coins or taking the professional courses (I hope to at some point, but personal and family circumstances prevent me at this time). So your back-and-forths are invaluable from my perspective.
So I thank you.
Why not both at the same time?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
What don't you understand? I feel I can explain Rex's position now that he is gone. This is one of those "no one is 100% correct because their are different ways to grade coins. Foe example, in this country, the Copper guys have their very own standards that works for them but not for me. An **educated numismatist **can debate or explain EITHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION - even if they don't agree with it. I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did!
That's what I thought too, Dan....but I don't have the cognones to tell an acknowledged expert, "Hey, you're going against what you always say, you're making an exception for a one-of-a-kind coin."
I can almost see the wisdom of Net Grading in a literal reading of JA's comments. In a weird sort of way, you can see how some would use Net Grading as a compromise between pure Technical Grading and full Market Grading.
FYI....the thread that we had the in-depth discussion in late-December/January 2024 regarding wear, rub, friction...involving some of you....is here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1099004/is-cac-grading-compared-to-pcgs-as-strict-as-pcgs-compared-to-ngc-or-anacs/p7
Insider, in your opinion....is it fair -- or unfair -- to take into account the SIZE of the coins (bigger coins easier to show hits/dings) as well as the actual METAL it is made out of (softer metals easier to mark) ?
Do you compensate...or treat 'em all the same ?
.
Smitten with DBLCs.
I treat everything the same. That said, a coin's size determines a lot.
There is more but I've learned to be relative because on size mark on a small coin will practically disappear on a large coin. Since I come from the "school" of condition away from as made, the amount of design remaining is my main focus when grading non-detailed coins below MS. All the normal factors including eye appeal influence the MS grades.
Note: My original reply did not post so I edited out much of this reply.
@Rexford said:
As an ex-grader I’ve never read the Sheldon scale in my life. Surrreee. [What's the definition of MS-60,65,70 in the Sheldon System? I only need you to Post what you remember about the first sentence.] And now, like this Married fella, you also claim to know what is “market acceptable” or not “market acceptable” for world coins as well. [Yes I do! For example, a foreign coin with a hole in it that is not part of its design is NOT market acceptable!] The market complains about the technicality of TPG grading on world coins all the time, since traditional foreign grading systems are quite different from ours - they focus on apparent detail, not wear. The market calls weakly struck, unworn hammered coins VF. The TPGs call them MS. [Of course the foreign market complains! Their grading is being challenged by people who have not grown up with their system. Nevertheless, it is not wrong for them, it's the way it is and I could care less what they do. I'm not ever going to grade one of their AU Russian Roubles MS - unless it is "market acceptable" in this country as an MS-62!] Must be the market influencing them! But I’m sorry, I’ll defer to the foreign coin market expert - you know better. Oh man, I remember shaking in my boots in the grading room thinking about how the market would react to my grades. [I feel sorry you go through that.
I never care what ANYONE (especially outsiders) thinks about my assessment - UNLESS I made a mistake which helps to keep me VERY HUMBLE in spite of the way I post. Self Edit] Oh, this coin is counterfeit? Well, it sold in public auction twice recently, so the market must think it’s ok . . . better slap a grade on it. [Do you admit to doing this?
Whenever my opinion has been overruled in the past...Never mind. I don't ever quake in my boots. No one is perfect and fakes of any kind have become very deceptive. I give it my best shot and wait to see what the millions of eyes checking my decision say.] Oh, this one has a plugged hole? But the market won’t notice it! Better give it a number. [You are joking right? I would not tolerate that from an employee Self Edit] and proofs and business strikes are approached differently? What a novel idea! Wish I knew that when I was grading! Perhaps I would have had I been more familiar with the 1949 version of the Sheldon scale, silly me. The original Sheldon scale is the only applicable one, after all, and not outdated whatsoever. [IMO, you are mistaken. Anyone who has actually read page #41 & 42, of the original Sheldon Scale - including how each grade is defined), knows for a fact that it was outdated by the 1980's] But never mind, we’ve just learned that all grading is “stupid” anyway! [I posted NET GRADING NOT ALL GRADING. Self edit] Every grade on every coin below a 69/70 is in a sense a net grade from the grades above, so if net grading is stupid, then all grading is stupid. [LOL, what you posted is absolutely correct for the folks who choose to use the word "net" like an adjective as in "net price" rather than incorrectly grading a coin due to some defect. Self edit]
Yeah, I’m done here as well, and I’ll throw in a block too. Weren’t you banned from this forum a while back anyway?
[I was going to add what a pleasure it is posting with you (Mark and others) because it is. Yes I was banned but not for discussing coins with my peers. I fully understand why you are ducking out and I really will miss not seeing your posts after you block me. Best Regards!]
Insider your statement Small coins are harder to see so harder to grade makes me realize that maybe the reason there are so many gold stickered Mercury Dimes at CAC is due to the difficulty of grading dimes consistently at the TPG services
I think you are missing his sarcasm.
Later dates of these dimes are so common in 66 on up that without a close examination (too time consuming when cranking out coins for most graders) it is difficult to separate the 66 to 68 range using a 75-100W bulb without magnification. I have the luxury of time, magnification, and fluorescent light when grading small coins. I don't burn my eyes out due to glare.
I hope so! I figured that was the reason he was no longer employed by a TPGS!
YIKES! You guys must know that word applies to two different things. One is a grade below MS and the other is the coin's history. A coin's grade depends on its history but its history does not determine its grade. Did I make sense?
Is an MS-65 with a wipe that is net graded to an MS-64 worth the same amount of money? If you had a choice between the problem coin that is net graded and another MS-64 with no problems, which would you choose? If one major TPGS net grades that coin and the other major TPGS "details" it to make a point that the other service screwed up, which service is protecting the customer? Would a new collector with a Photograde book understand (and learn how to grade) why the VF coin is not graded XF/AU - just like the PCGS Photograde image on his computer or his grading guide? Is it any wonder why I believe "Net" grading is folly. I'm dealing with this net grading fiasco while training a new grader. I'm writing a column in Numismatic News about it.
BTW, I had to agree with the notion planted into his skull that ALL GRADING IS NET GRADING...but...LOL!
If it's a minor wipe, I could conceivably choose the 64. It would depend on the overall quality and eye appeal of the pieces. If the wipe is a little more severe, I might prefer the other coin. And if it's a major wipe, bordering on "no grade" territory, the coin would probably get net graded something less than 64.
As for the relative value of the two pieces, more or less the same answer. I wouldn't know which coin I valued higher until I saw them in hand, but they should at least be in the same ballpark.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Let us know when it is out, I3 !!
I write about two columns a month in numismatic news. IMO, all collectors should read Numismatic News and Coin World. When I was an active collect, the dealer would have copies for sale on the counter with images of a new "discovery coin on the front page and since he never read the papers, we would often cherry-pick the same coins out of his inventory!!!
PS Most of what I'm writing has already been written in CU discussions.
This appeared in "BEST OF" in answer to one of my posts.
@Rexford said:
Standards on many series have morphed over time in different ways [LOL, yeah, yeah, the excuse given to me by some of the best graders in the country was "we are learning more about the series"], and it is difficult to generalize the entirety of those changes, but in my view it is clear that the distinction between AU and MS is generally more, not less, technical than it used to be, and that often coins that were called AU in the “old days” and would be called MS today, are truly MS and not AU.
GRRRRrrr....[Self edit of my original response for preservation of my posting privileges.
Mr. Rexford is truly a grading genius]... so I'll just say that IMO Mr. Bowers is more correct than Mr. Rexford. 
null
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Rex, WHY are they "truly" MS -- is it because you believe the "appearance" of wear/friction/rub is in fact not actual wear/friction/rub but caused by something else (i.e., die not filled) ?
Or do you believe that the most minute traces of wear/friction/rub may come from non-circulated means (i.e., sliding in a velvet pouch)....or just that MS grades can tolerate a very minute amount of legitimate verified wear/friction/rub ?
Sorry if this has been asked before but I feel it's super-critical and it's something I have wrestled with so I'm trying to nail down the answer as specifically as I can.
Maybe it's just me -- it probably is
-- but the more I LEARN about this MS vs. AU debate....the less I seem to actually KNOW. 