No CAC due to roller marks

ProofCollection

Question for the experts on the forum. My CAC submission had a note that CAC for this coin was denied due to roller marks. I'm curious if it's "fair" to deny CAC based on roller marks and if these are really roller marks? I ask because I noticed that several 1902-S Morgans have identical marks. Are these marks PMD or part of the minting process?
Here's my coin:

And here are some coins with similar marks from coinfacts:

SurfinxHI

It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Your example has some pretty strong ones.

ProofCollection

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

SurfinxHI

I gave you mine. Pretty strong marks. And yes, they are part of the minting process. You can find threads on it if you search around.

Rexford

Roller marks are as made. They are on the planchets before striking and may appear on the high points of the devices when those areas do not get fully impacted by the dies.

There is an argument that roller marks could keep a coin from gem as they are a form of planchet/striking imperfection, but in general they do not have an effect in grades below gem, or must be extreme to do so. I do not think this is a valid complaint for a 63PL coin. Yours are pretty strong, but not strong enough that they should move a coin down to a 62 in my opinion, if it is otherwise a 63. However, CAC is free to devise whatever standards they please.

PerryHall

Does CAC reject early US coins with mint made planchet adjustment marks? If not, they are being inconsistent.

shish

Yes, they are roller marks, yes it is fair to deny CAC based on roller marks. Perhaps now that you understand how they are made, that they are part of the minting process, and that the CAC graders consider them when grading you can apply this knowledge in the future.

One can certainly make an argument as to whether roller marks should effect the grades of coins. However, most numismatists I've met agree that they do effect the value of coins. The most common reason why is they would prefer an example without roller marks.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

CAC rejects a lot of coins without "reducing" their grades. They can think a coin's numerical grade is accurate, just not solid or high-end for the assigned grade.

MFeld

@PerryHall said:
Does CAC reject early US coins with mint made planchet adjustment marks? If not, they are being inconsistent.

Planchet adjustment marks are more common on early coins, which were made with different equipment. So I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to hold more modern coins to a higher standard.

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

Morgan13

I think your answer has been pretty well explained.
I had a bust half (sold) that was beautiful and original except for the roller marks.
The coin was a 63. I believe it would have graded much higher if it were not for the roller marks.
I think an argument can be made for maybe a 64 or 65 grade because it is "as made" but I don't think I'd win that argument.

Grading standards are grading standards and each tpg has their own.
Now I avoid purchasing those coins all together.

Cougar1978

Good display on what they look like.

It’s his shop, examination. I don’t care for roller marks either. Pass on that material.
Hey shop it around the bourse and see what they offer.

ProofCollection

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

lermish

@ProofCollection said:
Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable.

That is not necessarily correct. JA has made comments that in some cases he would limit a coin's maximum grade (or not sticker) based on mint made issues. He mentioned some of the poorly struck O Morgans as an example. Even though as struck, he did not think any of the coins with poor/no breast feathers on the reverse deserved a gem grade, regardless of the rest of the coin.

His reasoning (if I recall correctly) was, if you bought an otherwise beautiful MS67 coin for full/premium price with awful reverse definition, would you be happy with that coin at that price?

EDIT: I just saw your wording "some". Yes, some are. I've had multiple planchet flaws/shattered dies sticker. But I think the grade makes a big difference with how much leeway is given.

jom

@PerryHall said:
Does CAC reject early US coins with mint made planchet adjustment marks? If not, they are being inconsistent.

@MFeld said:

@PerryHall said:
Does CAC reject early US coins with mint made planchet adjustment marks? If not, they are being inconsistent.

Planchet adjustment marks are more common on early coins, which were made with different equipment. So I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to hold more modern coins to a higher standard.

Here's a PCGS VF30 with a CAC sticker with some adjustment marks:

jom

coinkat

Roller marks are part of the production process. As others have suggested... CAC can handle roller marks as they deem appropriate but there should be some level of consistency with that application. And the subjectivity of grading may not always lead to a consistent application of a standard for roller marks.

I would not loose sleep over this as thoughts and opinions change over time.

Coin Finder

How are roller marks made?

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

I would not make that assumption.

AUandAG

I agree with JA on this. Roller marks, even though they are as struck, reduce the eye appeal on MS coins. Like fingerprints, I shy away from them.
bob

ProofCollection

@AUandAG said:
I agree with JA on this. Roller marks, even though they are as struck, reduce the eye appeal on MS coins. Like fingerprints, I shy away from them.
bob

Yes, but let's remember the original goal of the sticker is to identify problem free coins that are solid for the grade. Is a coin with roller marks problem free? The verdict here seems to be 'no.' But on the same hand the argument is made the double dies, die breaks, and die polishing marks are or can be considered 'problem free' and be stickered. This is where there seems to be an inconsistency.

JBK

@ProofCollection said:

Yes, but let's remember the original goal of the sticker is to identify problem free coins that are solid for the grade. Is a coin with roller marks problem free? The verdict here seems to be 'no.' But on the same hand the argument is made the double dies, die breaks, and die polishing marks are or can be considered 'problem free' and be stickered. This is where there seems to be an inconsistency.

Those things are die varieties, not imperfections on a planchet or coin.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@AUandAG said:
I agree with JA on this. Roller marks, even though they are as struck, reduce the eye appeal on MS coins. Like fingerprints, I shy away from them.
bob

Yes, but let's remember the original goal of the sticker is to identify problem free coins that are solid for the grade. Is a coin with roller marks problem free? The verdict here seems to be 'no.' But on the same hand the argument is made the double dies, die breaks, and die polishing marks are or can be considered 'problem free' and be stickered. This is where there seems to be an inconsistency.

A coin can be "problem-free" and still not qualify for solid for the grade or better. Additionally, roller marks tend to be more distracting and more undesirable than die breaks and die-polishing. And to me, at least, the category of doubled dies don't even seem to be a good comparison.

PeakRarities

It all comes down to the degree of the as-made "defect" and the subjectivity of eye appeal. I don't believe it would be possible for CAC to define, in black and white, what the threshold is. John is not a big fan of planchet flaws or strike-throughs, but it depends on the issue, the grade, placement, and most importantly, whether or not he feels comfortable buying the coin at his CAC bid.

TomB

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the roller marks were the straw that broke the camel's back for this coin. They not only appear on the obverse, heavily and essentially across the diagonal length of the coin, but also seem to be on the reverse throughout the eagle's body. JA's line in the sand might preclude a choice uncirculated (MS63PL) coin from having this feature. Please consider that his note of "roller marks" was bonus information for you to get insight into his thinking and that it might not be an exhaustive explanation of why the coin didn't pass CAC evaluation.

However, I do know that roller marks aren't always a problem and my guess is that their placement and severity in combination with the series and grade goes a long way to making them acceptable or not. Below is the reverse image of a RE half dollar I own that has a CAC sticker on it and there is no way those marks were missed.

Lastly, you mention "Striking problems like double dies..." but doubled dies aren't striking issues at all. They are die production issues that have nothing to do with striking.

ProofCollection

@TomB said:

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the roller marks were the straw that broke the camel's back for this coin. They not only appear on the obverse, heavily and essentially across the diagonal length of the coin, but also seem to be on the reverse throughout the eagle's body. JA's line in the sand might preclude a choice uncirculated (MS63PL) coin from having this feature. Please consider that his note of "roller marks" was bonus information for you to get insight into his thinking and that it might not be an exhaustive explanation of why the coin didn't pass CAC evaluation.

All good points. My question is, if cracked out and submitted to CACG, would my coin come back Details graded? Or what would it come back as?

However, I do know that roller marks aren't always a problem and my guess is that their placement and severity in combination with the series and grade goes a long way to making them acceptable or not. Below is the reverse image of a RE half dollar I own that has a CAC sticker on it and there is no way those marks were missed.

After a quick search I was able to find several examples of CAC stickered coins with planchet problems, and of course your example prove that these issues aren't always a problem. I guess my beef is that there is additional unstated criteria for a sticker that I would argue CAC has an obligation to state if they are going to charge for their evaluations. So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

Lastly, you mention "Striking problems like double dies..." but doubled dies aren't striking issues at all. They are die production issues that have nothing to do with striking.

OK fair enough, but I guess the distinction I intended is that it's associated with the mint production process.

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@TomB said:

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the roller marks were the straw that broke the camel's back for this coin. They not only appear on the obverse, heavily and essentially across the diagonal length of the coin, but also seem to be on the reverse throughout the eagle's body. JA's line in the sand might preclude a choice uncirculated (MS63PL) coin from having this feature. Please consider that his note of "roller marks" was bonus information for you to get insight into his thinking and that it might not be an exhaustive explanation of why the coin didn't pass CAC evaluation.

All good points. My question is, if cracked out and submitted to CACG, would my coin come back Details graded? Or what would it come back as?

However, I do know that roller marks aren't always a problem and my guess is that their placement and severity in combination with the series and grade goes a long way to making them acceptable or not. Below is the reverse image of a RE half dollar I own that has a CAC sticker on it and there is no way those marks were missed.

After a quick search I was able to find several examples of CAC stickered coins with planchet problems, and of course your example prove that these issues aren't always a problem. I guess my beef is that there is additional unstated criteria for a sticker that I would argue CAC has an obligation to state if they are going to charge for their evaluations. So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

Lastly, you mention "Striking problems like double dies..." but doubled dies aren't striking issues at all. They are die production issues that have nothing to do with striking.

OK fair enough, but I guess the distinction I intended is that it's associated with the mint production process.

If you were in John's shoes, how would you put that into words? Please take a look at my earlier comment and try to imagine having to articulate that threshold. If I had to guess, I think CACG would net your coin to a 62. They will detail a coin with a significant planchet issue, but I don't think that would be the case with your coin.

ProofCollection

@DeplorableDan said:

@ProofCollection said:

@TomB said:

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the roller marks were the straw that broke the camel's back for this coin. They not only appear on the obverse, heavily and essentially across the diagonal length of the coin, but also seem to be on the reverse throughout the eagle's body. JA's line in the sand might preclude a choice uncirculated (MS63PL) coin from having this feature. Please consider that his note of "roller marks" was bonus information for you to get insight into his thinking and that it might not be an exhaustive explanation of why the coin didn't pass CAC evaluation.

All good points. My question is, if cracked out and submitted to CACG, would my coin come back Details graded? Or what would it come back as?

However, I do know that roller marks aren't always a problem and my guess is that their placement and severity in combination with the series and grade goes a long way to making them acceptable or not. Below is the reverse image of a RE half dollar I own that has a CAC sticker on it and there is no way those marks were missed.

After a quick search I was able to find several examples of CAC stickered coins with planchet problems, and of course your example prove that these issues aren't always a problem. I guess my beef is that there is additional unstated criteria for a sticker that I would argue CAC has an obligation to state if they are going to charge for their evaluations. So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

Lastly, you mention "Striking problems like double dies..." but doubled dies aren't striking issues at all. They are die production issues that have nothing to do with striking.

OK fair enough, but I guess the distinction I intended is that it's associated with the mint production process.

If you were in John's shoes, how would you put that into words? Please take a look at my earlier comment and try to imagine having to articulate that threshold. If I had to guess, I think CACG would net your coin to a 62. They will detail a coin with a significant planchet issue, but I don't think that would be the case with your coin.

I don't think you have the articulate a threshold as the current criteria does not articulate a threshold either although supplementary information about A, B, and C coins helps, it's all still subjective. I would suggest that he needs to communicate the caveat for "severe" or "significant" planchet and "other" mint production issues (if there are any others that would preclude a coin from stickering, I don't know if this is the case).

PeakRarities

@ProofCollection said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@ProofCollection said:

@TomB said:

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

So what would be the forum's verdict on this one? Not accounting for roller marks I think it's a solid 63 or low end 64. But is JA saying no CAC because it's not graded 62 or is he saying no CAC because any roller marks at all are a problem? With his note being only "roller marks" I would assume that any coin with roller marks is out. I would be curious if CAC also impairs coins because of die breaks and die polish marks. Striking problems like double dies obviously do not affect CAC eligibility so clearly some mint production problems are acceptable. I also agree that collectors prefer or are OK with some of these things and are not with others.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the roller marks were the straw that broke the camel's back for this coin. They not only appear on the obverse, heavily and essentially across the diagonal length of the coin, but also seem to be on the reverse throughout the eagle's body. JA's line in the sand might preclude a choice uncirculated (MS63PL) coin from having this feature. Please consider that his note of "roller marks" was bonus information for you to get insight into his thinking and that it might not be an exhaustive explanation of why the coin didn't pass CAC evaluation.

All good points. My question is, if cracked out and submitted to CACG, would my coin come back Details graded? Or what would it come back as?

However, I do know that roller marks aren't always a problem and my guess is that their placement and severity in combination with the series and grade goes a long way to making them acceptable or not. Below is the reverse image of a RE half dollar I own that has a CAC sticker on it and there is no way those marks were missed.

After a quick search I was able to find several examples of CAC stickered coins with planchet problems, and of course your example prove that these issues aren't always a problem. I guess my beef is that there is additional unstated criteria for a sticker that I would argue CAC has an obligation to state if they are going to charge for their evaluations. So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

Lastly, you mention "Striking problems like double dies..." but doubled dies aren't striking issues at all. They are die production issues that have nothing to do with striking.

OK fair enough, but I guess the distinction I intended is that it's associated with the mint production process.

If you were in John's shoes, how would you put that into words? Please take a look at my earlier comment and try to imagine having to articulate that threshold. If I had to guess, I think CACG would net your coin to a 62. They will detail a coin with a significant planchet issue, but I don't think that would be the case with your coin.

I don't think you have the articulate a threshold as the current criteria does not articulate a threshold either although supplementary information about A, B, and C coins helps, it's all still subjective. I would suggest that he needs to communicate the caveat for "severe" or "significant" planchet and "other" mint production issues (if there are any others that would preclude a coin from stickering, I don't know if this is the case).

But how would you communicate that caveat with a broad generalization? Say for instance, a coin is superb for the grade, no notable distractions, and the defect is minor enough so he stickers the coin.

Then take a similar coin that already has one or two notable distractions, and would otherwise be of sticker quality, but that same defect is the "straw that breaks the camel's back".

I wouldn't even know where to begin If someone put a gun to my head and told me to write definitions for that. Each and every coin will be its own unique scenario, and pragmatically it would have to be approached as such.

bretsan

Here’s an example of a CACG coin that I recently crossed. This was graded MS64 by NGC and MS63 by CACG. I was hoping it would grade MS 63+ but the roller marks and/or weak obverse strike may have prevented this.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

I find your above paragraph highly offensive.

JA is forthright. Even if he wanted to, in many/most cases, he wouldn't have any way of knowing in advance whether a given coin had a chance of stickering, until he saw it. Additionally, he doesn't happily take your money by keeping criteria hidden or obfuscated. The criteria are simply not as well defined or as precise as you'd like them to be.

Lastly, regarding your comment copied below - even if you were told "no extreme planchet issues" that still wouldn't be sufficiently clear for you to know the probability of your coin stickering.

"So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

I find your above paragraph highly offensive.

JA is forthright. Even if he wanted to, in many/most cases, he wouldn't have any way of knowing in advance whether a given coin had a chance of stickering, until he saw it. Additionally, he doesn't happily take your money by keeping criteria hidden or obfuscated. The criteria are simply not as well defined or as precise as you'd like them to be.

Lastly, regarding your comment copied below - even if you were told "no extreme planchet issues" that still wouldn't be sufficiently clear for you to know the probability of your coin stickering.

"So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm sorry to have offended you but clearly he is not forthright. No one said he'd have to know anything in advance. All he has to do is state the complete criteria that he uses and clearly planchet quality is one of the criteria that until now, I did not know about, and I consider myself to be fairly well informed on these things.

You are wrong in your assertion that it wouldn't be sufficiently clear to know the possibility of my coin stickering. Had I known that mint production quality issues such as roller marks affect a coin's eligibility, I wouldn't have submitted it. I recognize that those marks are a significant attribute of the coin, but I naively believed that mint issues would not be a factor because this has never been communicated. If I had TomB's coin, I would give it a shot because clearly those marks are not as big of a factor on his coin, but I still would have appreciated knowing that the roller marks could be a disqualifying reason, and I think all customers deserve that knowledge, don't you?

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

I find your above paragraph highly offensive.

JA is forthright. Even if he wanted to, in many/most cases, he wouldn't have any way of knowing in advance whether a given coin had a chance of stickering, until he saw it. Additionally, he doesn't happily take your money by keeping criteria hidden or obfuscated. The criteria are simply not as well defined or as precise as you'd like them to be.

Lastly, regarding your comment copied below - even if you were told "no extreme planchet issues" that still wouldn't be sufficiently clear for you to know the probability of your coin stickering.

"So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm sorry to have offended you but clearly he is not forthright. No one said he'd have to know anything in advance. All he has to do is state the complete criteria that he uses and clearly planchet quality is one of the criteria that until now, I did not know about, and I consider myself to be fairly well informed on these things.

You are wrong in your assertion that it wouldn't be sufficiently clear to know the possibility of my coin stickering. Had I known that mint production quality issues such as roller marks affect a coin's eligibility, I wouldn't have submitted it. I recognize that those marks are a significant attribute of the coin, but I naively believed that mint issues would not be a factor because this has never been communicated. If I had TomB's coin, I would give it a shot because clearly those marks are not as big of a factor on his coin, but I still would have appreciated knowing that the roller marks could be a disqualifying reason, and I think all customers deserve that knowledge, don't you?

It's not nearly as simple as "All he has to do is state the complete criteria that he uses ...". The "complete criteria" that you seek doesn't apply to each and every coin in a cookie-cutter fashion. Based on your posts, you know more than enough about coins to know that.
And when it comes to grading, there's usually not a black and white line that allows for objectivity and consistency to the degree that most of us would like. You sometimes profit from that and yet you complain about it at the same time.

Manifest_Destiny

JA came up with the perfect business. He literally has people waiting in line to pay him to say whether or not he likes their coin.

jesbroken

As said, if 2 identically graded coins came with one coin with and one coin without, which coin would you choose? If you skip the one with roller marks then you would agree with JA as it not being solid for the grade.
But, please remember that when you pay someone for their opinion, it will not necessarily be the opinion you wanted, but you got what you paid for, nonetheless.
I, for one, do not feel a need for a formal expert opinion above the 4 top grading companies, as I feel they are expert enough and would never send a coin to CAC to begin with.
Jim

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

I'm not contesting JA's ultimate right and authority to sticker how he pleases, but rather I'm arguing that he should be more forthright in communicating his criteria that customers can use to avoid wasting money when their coins have no chance of stickering and happily taking our money by keeping this criteria hidden or obfuscated.

I find your above paragraph highly offensive.

JA is forthright. Even if he wanted to, in many/most cases, he wouldn't have any way of knowing in advance whether a given coin had a chance of stickering, until he saw it. Additionally, he doesn't happily take your money by keeping criteria hidden or obfuscated. The criteria are simply not as well defined or as precise as you'd like them to be.

Lastly, regarding your comment copied below - even if you were told "no extreme planchet issues" that still wouldn't be sufficiently clear for you to know the probability of your coin stickering.

"So the criteria isn't just "problem free and solid for the grade," rather it's "problem free and solid for the grade and no extreme planchet issues."

I'm sorry to have offended you but clearly he is not forthright. No one said he'd have to know anything in advance. All he has to do is state the complete criteria that he uses and clearly planchet quality is one of the criteria that until now, I did not know about, and I consider myself to be fairly well informed on these things.

You are wrong in your assertion that it wouldn't be sufficiently clear to know the possibility of my coin stickering. Had I known that mint production quality issues such as roller marks affect a coin's eligibility, I wouldn't have submitted it. I recognize that those marks are a significant attribute of the coin, but I naively believed that mint issues would not be a factor because this has never been communicated. If I had TomB's coin, I would give it a shot because clearly those marks are not as big of a factor on his coin, but I still would have appreciated knowing that the roller marks could be a disqualifying reason, and I think all customers deserve that knowledge, don't you?

It's not nearly as simple as "All he has to do is state the complete criteria that he uses ...". The "complete criteria" that you seek doesn't apply to each and every coin in a cookie-cutter fashion. Based on your posts, you know more than enough about coins to know that.
And when it comes to grading, there's usually not a black and white line that allows for objectivity and consistency to the degree that most of us would like. You sometimes profit from that and yet you complain about it at the same time.

So you're saying that on some coins planchet quality doesn't matter? I'm not saying it isn't subjective. After all, PCGS's criteria are very well stated and published and they are very open about when they do and don't apply: Strike, Luster, Surface Condition, Eye Appeal and all of these are subjective. Why can't JA do the same and why shouldn't he be held to the same standard? It was different when he reviewed coins for free, but now he charges. His third criteria beyond "solid for the grade" and "problem-free" could just simply be "and JA likes it" and then it would be transparent that being solid for the grade and problem free might still not be good enough.

@jesbroken said:
As said, if 2 identically graded coins came with one coin with and one coin without, which coin would you choose? If you skip the one with roller marks then you would agree with JA as it not being solid for the grade.

No doubt one coin is preferable over another just like a coin with heavy toning vs no toning, but that doesn't mean the grade is wrong.

But, please remember that when you pay someone for their opinion, it will not necessarily be the opinion you wanted, but you got what you paid for, nonetheless.

I'm OK with whatever the opinion is. The problem is when that that person doesn't give you enough information to keep you from wasting your money on paying for an opinion that you can predict if you knew what they based their opinion on.

Rexford

@jesbroken said:
As said, if 2 identically graded coins came with one coin with and one coin without, which coin would you choose? If you skip the one with roller marks then you would agree with JA as it not being solid for the grade.

That is false. I can dislike a coin without feeling that it is graded inaccurately.

jesbroken

Tough world we now live in when someone's opinion is labeled "False" because someone else disagrees.
Jim

Rexford

@jesbroken said:
Tough world we now live in when someone's opinion is labeled "False" because someone else disagrees.
Jim

It’s not a valid opinion. “If you skip the one with roller marks then you would agree with JA as it not being solid for the grade” is a false statement, as proven by the fact that I can dislike a coin (and thus skip it) without feeling it is incorrectly graded.

Cougar1978

The op coin would pass on. A sticker is not going to change my opinion a coin is not acceptable.

I consider it a problem coin (would pass on it) with the roller marks whether straight graded or not. Even if stickered lol. Why all this convo lol - Take your loss, learn your lesson, and move on.

Does CAG allow one specify minimum grade on form? The 1892-0 downgrade from NGC 64 to CACG 63 about $160 drop on MV (looking at CDN CPG). Adding his fees to the $160 MV drop wow that’s way more than my table fee ($150) at a recent show. Well I guess it shows me where CACG was on that one.

messydesk

@jesbroken said:
Tough world we now live in when someone's opinion is labeled "False" because someone else disagrees.
Jim

An "if P then Q" statement is an assertion, not an opinion. Rexford's counterexample stated shows "if P then not Q", which proves the assertion false.

gonzer

@Coin Finder said:
How are roller marks made?

Would some of the more knowledgeable folks care to answer Coin Finder's query?

Manifest_Destiny

@gonzer said:

@Coin Finder said:
How are roller marks made?

Would some of the more knowledgeable folks care to answer Coin Finder's query?

TomB

For those who would like to read up on roller marks (aka planchet striations) there is an excellent discussion of them in the thread below. I could summarize it, but sometimes just pointing to something already written works quite well.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13722250

Elcontador

@MFeld said:

@PerryHall said:
Does CAC reject early US coins with mint made planchet adjustment marks? If not, they are being inconsistent.

Planchet adjustment marks are more common on early coins, which were made with different equipment. So I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to hold more modern coins to a higher standard.

I'm with Mark on this. I've seen plenty of pre 1815 coins and many straight graded coins of this era would be bagged if they were Seated or later coinage. You have a mix of the number of people who want these coins, combined with planchet and striking issues of a prior era, combined with more things being done to these coins over time. And the powers that be have to make a call re which are market acceptable.

If you don't agree with these standards re a particular coin, don't buy it. I spent 8 years looking at Heraldic Eagle Bust Dollars before finding one I like, and am in my 10th year looking for a Flowing Hair Dollar that I like and can afford.

WinLoseWin

@gonzer said:

@Coin Finder said:
How are roller marks made?

Would some of the more knowledgeable folks care to answer Coin Finder's query?

Below is a particular post in that thread linked by TomB above that covers it well.

That thread is worth reading to understand this part of the minting process. It is titled "This Morgan dollar Has Me Intrigued. (I am not sure what to make of it.) "

.
.

This was posted by CaptHenway on May 9, 2024 8:57PM. He later quotes Roger B. in the same thread that goes into even more detail.

.
.

@CaptHenway said:
Short version. If you punch a planchet of precise diameter out of a planchet strip of precise thickness you can produce planchets of precise weight. In an attempt to make planchet strip thickness precise, the Mint would roll down planchet strip to just slightly more than what was needed and then put it on a drawing bench, which held the strip flat. The leading edge of the strip was mechanically tapered (hammered?) and fed through a rectangular "gate" in a block of steel firmly attached to one end of the bench, A clamp attached to a powered chain was attached to the tapered end and as the chain retracted the entire strip was pulled through the gate. THis gave the strip the precise thickness of the gate.

HOWEVER, if metal fragments attached themselves to the gate they could leave long, parallel scratches in the planchet strip as it went through. (These used to be called "roller marks," but rollers do not develop long and parallel RAISED lines on them which could leave such marks.) Depending on where the long parallel scratches fell under the relief on the dies, they would be more or less flattened out. The higher the relief, the less pressure on the surface of the coin.

pointfivezero

@Coin Finder -

This thread is a slippery slope so I'm just spectating from the flatlands.

With that said, Dr. G provided one of the best explanations I've seen of these scratches in this video. The entire video is fascinating but the "strip scratch" discussion starts at the 12:15 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAYVVRcXqpc&t=255s

Edit to add - one must click on the "watch on YouTube" link to play the video:

Tim

MsMorrisine

where's the cap'n?

they are even before minting, they are even "pre-blanking"

a 70 with zero "as made" is sought but not if it's a modern mint one? for everyone thinking a 70 is 100% in every way, even for moderns, you're ruling out "as made" defects in the least. even for moderns that means it's a hit to the number despite not being a hit on the coin.

in the end, I don't think as made imperfections should nuke a coin that's got the right number. think coins that aren't fb or fs. cac can do what they want, but do they deny a sticker to a 66fb if cac thinks it's a 66 that's not fb?

MFeld

@MsMorrisine said:
where's the cap'n?

they are even before minting, they are even "pre-blanking"

a 70 with zero "as made" is sought but not if it's a modern mint one? for everyone thinking a 70 is 100% in every way, even for moderns, you're ruling out "as made" defects in the least. even for moderns that means it's a hit to the number despite not being a hit on the coin.

in the end, I don't think as made imperfections should nuke a coin that's got the right number. think coins that aren't fb or fs. cac can do what they want, but do they deny a sticker to a 66fb if cac thinks it's a 66 that's not fb?

In answer to your question, yes. They don’t ignore designations when assessing coins for stickers.

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@AUandAG said:
I agree with JA on this. Roller marks, even though they are as struck, reduce the eye appeal on MS coins. Like fingerprints, I shy away from them.
bob

Yes, but let's remember the original goal of the sticker is to identify problem free coins that are solid for the grade. Is a coin with roller marks problem free? The verdict here seems to be 'no.' But on the same hand the argument is made the double dies, die breaks, and die polishing marks are or can be considered 'problem free' and be stickered. This is where there seems to be an inconsistency.

It doesn't have to be a problem to not, in CAC 's opinion, be solid for the grade.

jmlanzaf

.

Rexford

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).

Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.

For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.

These are planchet rolling marks?

In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.

Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.