Change to Nomenclature needed when grading?
Carterofmars
Posts: 75 ✭✭✭
It seems that luster is the absolute most important aspect when determining MS from about UNC. If there's any disturbance to the luster of a minted coin, then it's not mint state, no matter how that disturbance occurred- rub, friction, wear.
It seems to me that it's more important to not think in terms of circulated/uncirculated as having been or not having been used in commerce, but think in terms of that mint state- is that luster in tact, absolutely.
Might it be better to do away with the term about uncirculated and replace it with about mint state instead? Get the words uncirculated and circulated out of the nomenclature entirely?
Is this reasonable?
0
Comments
MS and UNC. are the same thing, a coin without wear.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.
If MS is used then the coin is graded. If Unc. (uncirculated) is used , it's in a "details" holder. Such as : "Cleaned/uncirculated details". So, they're interchangeable outside the holder but have specific meanings in the holder.
Corrected the mistype.
Thank you. Your post makes much more sense to me now.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.
I'm not following.
Actually, I think I get it. TPG do make that distinction by labeling the holder 'uncirculated' rather than MS-60, MS-63, MS-whatever.
Correct?
They could have used MS Details, but UNC was the term of art prior to the establishment of TPG grading.
UNC, BU, GEM BU ( very, very, very roughly MS60 MS63 MS65).
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I haven't used nomenclature in a sentence since I was in the military. I salute you. And yes, correct. The distinction between MS and uncirculated(details grade) is used in the grading process. (Ungradeable and uncirculated details is usually a mint state coin with some issue like cleaning, residue, etc., ). On the flip side is mint state. An uncirculated specimen without issues. Those get a grade.
I think your whole thesis is flawed. If you over dip a coin and impair the luster, it will still be "uncirculated" (details). It doesn't become circulated.
Luster breaks are useful in determining if rub or wear has occurred. But to say that luster is absolutely the most important aspect overstates it.
It is true that "circulated" and "uncirculated " should not be taken literally. There are AU coins that never circulated and there are MS67 coins that circulated. But we all know what is meant by the term.
And a lusterless weak strike or struck through is still mint state/uncirculated.
Not exactly. ANACS will use a MSxx (usually 60) grade on their details holders. I imagine a coin could be called something like "MS66 details, filed rims," as a testament to the coin's otherwise gem condition, but that strays into the gray area of wondering how the 66 should be used to infer value. Without the numbers, the terms are equivalent. Uncirculated implies a mint state numerical grade and a mint state numerical grade implies uncirculated (NGC MS62 $2.50 Indians notwithstanding). Problem coins could just as easily say simply "MS details". Of course, AU coins also can have MS (or Unc) details, but I digress. Problem free coins in slabs are comfortably referred to as "unc" or "circ" as those terms are more economically spoken. Some bulk graded hoard coins are actually slabbed with the more general "Unc" or "BU" grades. I don't think "mint state" is ever effectively used without a number except when describing the difference between MS and AU.
The bottom line is that there's room for both terms.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The OP raises a valid point. As the person who started third party grading at ANACS let me think about it and post something later.
How about standard nomenclature across the boards?
It shouldn't become uncirculated but become 'Almost Mint State'. Of course it doesn't become circulated.
ANA Grading indicates levels of luster preserved from MS-70 all the way down to MS-60. But wouldn't it be better, when TPGing, to use something like a AmScope ZM-4NT Microscope to determine if luster was disturbed? It would definitely show at that magnification. Might it be better to look at luster, and if damage is seen, label it Almost Mint State? If luster is impaired then it's not Mint State, to my thinking.
That's why I think dropping the circulated/uncirculated might be good idea. Creates confusion.
Yes, weak strikes... Almost Mint State. The 'mint' failed to produce a truly mint coin.
As a collector who only buys US coins when they are slabbed I have come to rely on the numerical grade (or lack) and my own eyes rather than any nomenclature when judging the appearance and value of a coin. And to view these grades in a relative sense rather than an absolute sense. I see judging coins much as I judge art, relying on experts to HELP protect me from fakes and overpaying, ultimately buying simply what appeals to me.
PS I also collect foreign and medals, which are often raw, but that’s another story.
You have it wrong. A coin can have impaired luster and still be uncirculated. That is what the lower mint state grades are for. A coin cannot, however, have wear and still be uncirculated. That is what the about uncirculated grades are for.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
The debate about whether a coin’s surface appears disturbed because it entered circulation or some other cause will never end IMO. Experts can get closer to making an educated guess, but there will always br disagreements, particularly between buyers and sellers. Frankly I’m not sure it really matters, which is why I try to buy very attractive AU coins.
Most, not all, of the fuss about grades and nomenclature is really about purchase or sale price. The old chestnut “buy what you like” is still the best advice, modified to add - look at lots and lots of coins and study so as to refine what you like.
This is why my thinking leans towards just labeling such a coin 'About Mint State (AMS)' instead of considering it circulated, if the luster is disturbed. That eliminates the need for all of these levels of MS. If the luster is damaged, then AMS. Obvious Contact/bag marks don't apply. If the luster is deemed impaired, under microscopic magnification by a TPG, then it's not MS period. It's About Mint State'. Below About Mint State, XF/EF and down, is truly Circulated.
Even the ANA Grading Page is ambiguous. This should be simplified a little.
If I may...
MS-Perfect – The perfect coin. Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint. No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are no noticeable hairlines, scuff marks, or defects. Eye appeal is attractive and outstanding. If copper, the coin is bright with full original color and luster.
• Contact Marks: None visible under magnification.
• Hairlines: None visible under magnification.
• Luster: Very attractive. Fully original.
• Eye Appeal: Outstanding.
MS-Average – Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. Small scattered contact marks, no more than five in total and not in the focal areas. No more than three small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design no more than five in total. Overall eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.
• Contact Marks: No more than five small contact marks outside the major prime focal areas.
• Hairlines: No more than three small patches of hairlines may show.
• Luster: Average and attractive.
• Eye Appeal: Pleasing. Anything below outstanding and better than poor.
MS-Below Average– Unattractive, dull, or washed-out mint luster may mark this coin. There may be more than five detracting contact marks, or damage spots, but no trace of circulation wear. There could be a heavy concentration of hairlines or unattractive large areas of six or more scuff marks. Rim nicks may be present, and eye appeal is very poor. Copper coins may be dark, dull, and spotted.
• Contact Marks: Six or more heavy marks in all areas.
• Hairlines: May have noticeable patch or continuous hairlining overall.
• Luster: Impaired.
• Eye Appeal: Poor.
Almost Mint State/Details (Also AMS-Details:) Detail/describe the feature that prevents an MS designation.
Then...
EF-45 (Also Choice Extremely Fine-45) – Has light overall wear on the coin’s highest points. All design details are very sharp. Mint luster is usually seen only in protected areas of the coin’s surface such as between the star point and in the letter spaces.
EF-40 (Also Extremely Fine-40) – Has only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding (EF-45), still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show. All design elements show clearly.
VF-35 (Also Choice Very Fine-35) – Surfaces show light overall wear with minor blemishes. May have one or two small rim nicks. All details show clearly.
VF-30 (Also Choice Very Fine-30) – Light even wear shows on the surface; design details on the highest points begin to soften, but all lettering and major features are bold.
VF-25 (Also Very Fine-25) – Entire surface shows light signs of wear and softening of design elements. Major features are strong and clear. Some of the minor details blend into the design.
VF-20 (Also VeryFine-20) – Moderate noticeable wear on the higher parts of the design. Minor details are beginning to flatten. Surfaces are attractive and free of serious blemishes, erosion, nicks, or scratches.
F-15 (Also Fine-15) – Shows moderate even wear through the surface. Entire design is bold and clear with traces of flattening.
F-12 (Also Fine-12) – Moderate to considerable even wear. Entire design is bold. All lettering, including the word LIBERTY (on coins with this feature on the shield or headband), is visible, but may only show parts of the letters. Twenty cent coins with raised letters in LIBERTY are an exception.
VG-10 (Also Very Good-10) – Even wear throughout the entire coin. Parts of the rim may be flat but still discernable. Some of the letters in LIBERTY are readable.
VG-8 (Also Very Good-8) – Well worn. Major design elements are visible, but with faintness in areas. Head of Liberty, wreath, and other major features, as applicable, are visible in outline form, without center detail. LIBERTY is mostly worn away.
G-6 (Also Good-6) – Heavily worn, but with clean attractive surfaces and no major blemishes. May have a few rim nicks and scratches. Rim is very weak but basically complete.
G-4 (Also Good-4) – Heavily worn. Major design elements are visible, but with faintness in areas. Head of Liberty, wreath, and other major features, as applicable, are visible in outline form, without center detail. Rims may be incomplete in spots.
AG-3 (Also About Good-3) – Very heavily worn, with portions of the lettering, date, and legends worn smooth. The date is barely readable. Rims merge into the lettering.
Fair-2 – Most of the design details are worn completely smooth. Much of the legend and date are merged into the field. Rims are flat or missing. May have serious nicks, dents, and defects.
Poor-1 – Only the basic coin type is identifiable. Date and mintmark must be strong enough to be readable. Entire surface is worn and may be disfigured by numerous blemishes.
**
3 MS grades and 1 AU grade would not nearly be enough to reflect the numerous tiers of quality within the two grade levels. Not to mention it would mess up set registries, and, in turn, profits for the grading companies.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
That's the point. There are too numerous tiers. Why do you think there's a plethora of TPG companies? What good are slabs if there's a chance, they could be rendered obsolete by a future TPG company? And the reason in my opinion there are what six grading companies out there is because the standard for grading is too convoluted. It is.
I mean common, TEN flavors of MS?
Are there ten flavors of vanilla ice-cream? And, if there were, would anyone be able to truly taste the difference?
You ever watch shows like Bar Rescue or that Ramsey guy? The first thing they do to save a failing restaurant or bar is toss out the 30lbs menu and replace it with a simplified trimmed down version.
Complicated bad, simplified good.
I think the number of grades that are in use now is just the right amount. Sure, reducing the number of grades would eliminate a lot of the disagreement over grading, but at the same time, it would drastically increase the gray area in pricing. Whether it is displayed on the holder or not, there is always the matter of a coin being "better" or "worse" than others in the same grade. Having fewer grades, which would lead to more variety in quality at any given grade level, would simply exacerbate that dilemma.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
accidentally clicked quote instead of edit
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
The market will determine the price.
The main service TPGs provide is giving an expert opinion on the grade of collectors' coins. Why would they adopt an oversimplified grading system if it means that their experts' grading acumen would be wasted?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Those arguments actually underscore the problem. Grading does not exist for the benefit of the graders, but for the collector.
Like it or not, it exists for both.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I wonder what impact my three tier MS grading system would have on MS65's at 2500.00 and an MS66 at say 18,000.00. What would that look like? I think eye appeal will be amplified exponentially in importance. A buyer will look for MS-Average and the ones with better eye appeal will command higher prices. > @MFeld said:
Therin lies the problem. Imo
The problem for YOU. why should we all charge the status quo because you don't like it.
It's just one man's opinion, this isn't a pissing contest. Isn't it interesting to think of different ideas, to challenge dogma? Brainstorming is a good thing.
Don't take this too seriously. It's a hobby. It's supposed to be fun.
I wouldn’t fret if the 50, 53 and 61 grades were dropped.
Maybe we can squeeze an MS-Above average in there?
I'm adding an MS- Above Average designation, so four tiers in the MS category... so four tiers rather than ten.
MS-Perfect – The perfect coin. Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint. No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are no noticeable hairlines, scuff marks, or defects. Eye appeal is attractive and outstanding. If copper, the coin is bright with full original color and luster.
• Contact Marks: None visible under magnification.
• Hairlines: None visible under magnification.
• Luster: Very attractive. Fully original.
• Eye Appeal: Outstanding.
MS-Above Average- Show three in total and not in the focal areas. No more than three small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design no more than three in total. Overall eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.
• Contact Marks: No more than three small contact marks outside the major prime focal areas.
• Hairlines: No more than three small patches of hairlines may show.
• Luster: Above Average and very attractive.
• Eye Appeal: Very Pleasing. Anything below outstanding and better than poor.
MS-Average–Shows a pleasing quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. Small scattered contact marks, no more than five in total and not in the focal areas. No more than three small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design no more than five in total. Overall eye appeal is pleasing. If copper, the coin has attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.
• Contact Marks: No more than five small contact marks, Three outside the major prime focal areas.
• Hairlines: No more than three small patches of hairlines may show.
• Luster: Average and attractive.
• Eye Appeal: Pleasing. Anything below outstanding and better than poor.
MS-Below Average– Unattractive, dull, or washed-out mint luster may mark this coin. There may be more than five detracting contact marks, or damage spots, but no trace of circulation wear. There could be a heavy concentration of hairlines or unattractive large areas of six or more scuff marks. Rim nicks may be present, and eye appeal is very poor. Copper coins may be dark, dull, and spotted.
• Contact Marks: Six or more heavy marks in all areas.
• Hairlines: May have noticeable patch or continuous hairlining overall.
• Luster: Impaired.
• Eye Appeal: Poor.
Almost Mint State/Details (Also AMS-Details:) Detail/describe the feature that prevents an MS designation.
Asking AI ChatGPT4 to analyze my proposal...
A 4-tier system could simplify things. Here are some points in favor of simplifying the mint state grading system to just four tiers:
Ease of Understanding:
Reduced Subjectivity:
Market Clarity:
Efficiency in Grading:
Here’s how your proposed 4-tier system could align with the current 10-tier system:
MS-Below Average:
MS-Average:
MS-Above Average:
MS-Perfect:
However, it's essential to consider potential drawbacks as well:
Loss of Detail:
Market Adjustment:
Perceived Value:
In conclusion, while a 4-tier system could simplify the grading process and make it more accessible, it would also entail some trade-offs in terms of detail and market adjustment. The decision to adopt such a system would depend on balancing these factors against the goals and preferences of the coin collecting community.
https://chatgpt.com/share/5dbdc8f5-fab5-4d4b-af5c-7f4ced88a0aa
Do they even use coins on Barsoom?
The OP makes some sense, but changing the nomenclature would be impossible, at least as long as we're on the 70 point scale.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Are you in luck and do I have some great news for you!
https://www.ngccoin.com/specialty-services/ngcx-10-point-grading-scale/
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
It is my understanding that the Official ANA Grading Guide, as originally written by Abe Kosoff with help from others in 1976-77, used "Mint State" because Sheldon did.
ANACS used "MS" when I started its grading service in 1979 (as an addition to the existing Authentication Service) because the Official ANA Grading Guide used it. I was too busy quietly adding grades to what we could use (specifically MS-63, MS-67 and AU-58) to worry about the terminology.
I actually preferred "Mint State" to "Uncirculated" because in those days "Brilliant Uncirculated" was considered better and that caused millions of coins to be dipped or otherwise cleaned to make them "Brilliant," often to the detriment of the coin. In my mind "Mint State" did not care if the coin was brilliant or toned, and I like nicely toned coins.
The bottom line is that all the TPG's copied what we were doing, and it is now the standard. It is too late to change things now.
TD
For me it's just an exercise in simplification. In my life experience, I've seen that very often the more a thing is complicated the more difficult it is to meaningfully, productively, and consistently put it into daily practice. When I see five or six grading companies and people deliberating which is too strict vs too lax, I'm thinking there's a problem in the grading standard shared by those TPGers.
Just my thinking. Comes from my career- 30 years in technology attempting to find root causes of problems.
I'd be impossible to shake up the industry today? It seems to me that this John Albanese is bucking the trend, to most collectors chagrin it seems.
A grading standard is not the same thing as a grading scale. Each grading company has their own slightly different grading standards, leading to different grades. However, you are saying the problem lies in the grading scale, which it does not.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
A system can be no simpler than the requirements it is to implement. The requirements of the hobby/industry have become having 18 different grades for uncirculated.
JA is simply doing what he's always done -- re-baselining grading standards to where they were with other grading services when he helped start them.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Interesting thread.. Eye appeal is king. I have seen Au58 coins I like better than MS63 coins... So In August of 2016, Rick Snow introduced a new grading system called PDS. His system considers the planchet, die and strike. He feels a lot of coins are over graded. These ideas are hitting on that from a different angle. I like the discussion. I think it might help a new breed of collectors understand grading better...
Interesting. I'm going to check out that PDS system. Considering the planchet. Thanks.
PDS=Philadelphia Denver San Francisco.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled