Grading: Luster. Strike. Marks. (Toning) (Eye Appeal). Which is most important to you?

braddick

Out of all the characteristics that make up the qualities of a Graded Coin, which one means the most to you? How about the least? If the luster is booming and the tics are minimal, but the strike is somewhat weak, do you try to avoid that coin?
Or, the strike is strong and the marks are very few and far between but the coin is lackluster, does this bother you?
How about blazing, headlight luster, strong strike but the coin has many hits. Pass?
Color- Important?
What qualities do you look for when you hunt for your coins?

kranky

Eye appeal first.
Luster
Strike
Marks
Toning last.

Of course, it's hard to totally separate these since a coin with great eye appeal probably isn't covered with distracting marks.

andy007

Eye appeal is by far the most important characteristic to interest me in a coin from the start, why even bother buying something that has no appeal to the owner's eye. Luster and strike I would consider a tie for second, and beautiful toning doesn't hurt either. Also, I can deal with marks, as long as they are not too deep or situated in a very distracting position on the coin.

I have found myself to sacrifice a few too many hits in return for super lustrous surfaces, a San Diego commem that I bought comes to mind here. It is a solid MS64, which is easily found for this commem, but the luster just screams off the coin, and I had no choice but to take that one home with me. I also picked up a baggy Walker that is a MS63 but again, the luster and strike are incredible.

I'm also willing to buy a beautifully toned coin even if it is a coin with an average to below average strike. It all depends upon that certain coins individual qualities, if one characteristic(be it toning, luster, strike) is exceptional for the series/date/grade, then that may make up and surpass any shortcomings elsewhere.

Russ

Since I collect proofs, the order is probably going to be a bit different then somebody who collects business strikes.

Eye appeal - love them DCAMs.
Marks - they are far more obvious on proof coinage.
Strike - because of the contrast, a weak strike sticks out like a sore thumb.
Luster - a given on most proofs
Toning - don't want any

Russ, NCNE

BigD5

For something I'm buying for me, it's toning and eye appeal. I can get along fine if it's pretty, and I like the "look". That can get me in trouble sometimes, as I knowingly end up purchasing a seemingly overgraded coin, now and then. Still pretty though. I think more seasoned collectors put most weight on strike, luster and marks. I'm referring to ms coins here. I can get along fine with ms/63's, if they're pretty, where more finicky buyers will have to have a 65 quality piece, and nothing less.

DHeath

Strike 1st, then eye-appeal, luster, marks and toning. Russ is right about proofs. Since almost all proofs are well struck, remove it from consideration for them, but otherwise the list remains the same. Boy, the last two are tough though. Would I prefer a beautifully toned coin with marks, or a mark free coin with neutral toning?

Veep

Luster and eye appeal go hand-in-hand for me as #1. Number, severity and lcoation of marks usually comes next and then strike. In fact, I like luster so well that I really have slow myself down to be sure that I take the other factors into account.

For certain coins, it all has to be there.

Veep

jhar

I say eye appeal is the most important to me. However all of the other charecteristics affect the eye appeal of the coin, so it is the sum of the parts that makes the coin.

Dave99B

That's super easy, Braddick...

Eye appeal first, then toning (often one in the same in my book).

Some of my favorite coins are only MS61 or MS62, but have wonderful, original rich color....

Marks would be dead last....


Dave

PS If they're white, I don't want 'em! Send 'em to IWOG.

Catch22

Marks, Luster, Toning, Eye appeal, strike...or at least that is defining the way a coin moves away from being mint state. I prefer a method of defining technical merit rather than adding any subjective reasoning for grading opinion. A weakly struck coin has nothing to do with the way it left the mint. A weakly struck coin absent any other distractions is certainly as "mint state" as a fully struck coin. Not to say a well struck coin isn't worthy of a pricing premium.

If grading was based on purely technical merits that are consistently measured then the market could determine for itself any premium for the subjectively pleasing aspects of a mint state coin. Two coins grading ms-65 could sell for different prices based on aesthetics. This would certainly be consistent with "buy the coin, not the slab."

1. Marks- We can assume marks weren't present when coined.
2. Luster- We can assume the coin was created with luster.
3. Toning- We can assume the coin was free of toning when created.
4. Eye appeal- A result of some combination of environmental process.
5. Strike- The only factor not created after leaving the coinage process.

Perhaps this is a pipe dream, but the less subjectivity and the more objectivity involved in grading, the better.

mdwoods

Eye appeal is the most important, however that varies from individual to individual. What gives a coin good eye appeal? Lack of eye grabbing hits, luster, good strike, toning last on list of importance. I just returned a FH SLQ graded PCGS MS66FH. The only hit on an otherwise gorgeous coin went right across the mouth of Miss Liberty. To me the location of the hit ruined the eye appeal of the coin. It had luster, clean mark free surfaces, and minimal toning. Mark

Fairlaneman

Booming Luster with Tone (Original) a few ticks and somewhat weak strike (just somewhat, not mushy) would be the choice out of the options you gave. Lack Luster coins just plain do not get it at all along with very Baggy coins.

Strike and Luster preferable with tone catches the eye first. Then the coin is checked for hits in the main focal points. Last the coin is checked for hairlines or slide marks. If many hairlines are found it does not matter how pretty the coin looks as it will be handed back to the dealer.

Moderate Tone is all important. Will take a Toned Coin any day over a White Coin.

WWBillman

This is a very tough question. Eye appeal would have to rank at the top of my list. To me eye appeal is based on some of the other factors; luster, color, & marks. So for me it would be;

1. Eye appeal
------ A. Color
------ B. Luster
------ C. Marks
2. Strike

Depending on the individual coin or series I do mix up color, luster, & marks whereas their order of importance is constantly changing.

A huge dig or two in a main focal point can kill a coin regardless of the color or luster.

Ugly color can kill a coin regardless of luster or hits.

Luster can be one of the easiest to of these three to compromise a bit on. Some of the older classic coins it is easier to accept and expect a deterioration in the luster to some degree.

The strike "usually" takes a backseat to everything else but is still a very important consideration.

Was that just a long winded way to say nothing?

byergo

1. Eye Appeal
2. Toning
3. Everything Else
4. Strike (who cares?)

nwcs

To me, I notice luster most up front. It's a big part of the eye appeal for me. The cleanness of the fields is the next thing with strike right behind it. I'm actually OK with marks and even small luster breaks. But the marks can't be hideous.

michael

EYE APPEAL as if it has monster eye appeal and the "look" then as far as the other variables it has what is considered the best or better in each respective category! or if one category is deficient or just choice the others can carry it off with higher much higher than average attributes in their respective categories!

oh that was a super great thread!!!!!!! and boils down to the real nitty gritty of the art of grading coins!

sincerely michael

Elcontador

Nice thinking, Pat.

I tend to grade more technically than most. Eye appeal is first, though. If the coin is ugly, I don't want it.

I pay close attention to strike, contact marks, and on 19th Century Unc. silver, hairlines. If a coin has booming luster, but is weakly struck, I don't want it. Ditto if the coin has booming luster but IMO an excessive amount of contact marks / hairlines for the grade.

Luster itself is not that high on the list for me re most of what I collect, because a 150 year old coin isn't going to look like it was minted yesterday. If it does, that can lead to other problems.

Attractive color is nice if I can get it without paying a huge additional premium.

Ronyahski

Eye appeal...eye appeal...eye appeal...toning (gotta have the look)

Luster (helps with the look)

Marks (don't distract too much from the look)

Strike (not many seem to care if a star is mushy, can still have the look)

Market grading rules the roost, and I tend to agree with it.

crito

being detail oriented and a variety collector, strike always comes first in my book. A flashy or colorful coin with hits in the diagnostic areas is worthless to me. When I'm buying coins to resell, though, eye appeal reigns supreme, for sure.

roadrunner

At least someone agrees with me. NWCS. As a mint state coin buyer I got to have LUSTER first. If it's not up to par then I usually don't go much farther. It can be toned and still have great luster. In fact I prefer it like that. Next are relatively clear fields, especially those coins with large obverse fields like Barbers and Seated coins. I prefer marks hidden in the figures than prominently displayed in the big fields. Deep down, we all consider eye appeal, strike, marks as we scan a coin. I think luster and clear fields are the biggies. Usually,
nice luster and clean fields means eye-appeal to me. I'd rather have a booming luster coin under average original toning with clean fields over a blasty white dipped out coin or a pretty toned piece with hidden field marks. I always lean to luster and clean fields.

roadrunner

danreller

1. Eye Appeal. If it doesn't "look good" I can't enjoy the coin.

2. Luster. I like the cartwheel effect on my coins and it is a good indication that the coin has been handled, stored and preserved well over time.

3. Strike. Being a Type Collector I like examples that show detail. I think a weakly struck coin that has few marks is still lower ranking than a well struck coin with some marks.

4. Marks. This can rank higher depending on the severity of the marks. Deep gouges that are on cheeks for example can severly lower the appeal in my opinion. Slight marks even though there are many can still render a coin quite attractive.

5. Toning. I've seen some spectacurarily toned coins that I must say place them high in the Eye Appeal category, however, this is the exception rather than the rule for me. I am usually suspect of most toned coins.

Dan

KoinKollector

1. eye appeal
2. strike. im a sucker for fully struck seated dimes
3. luster, marks, toning

matteproof

Eye appeal, COLOR, Lustre, Marks, Strike.

matteproof

tjkillian

I, for one, prefer a well-struck coin. Eye appeal would come second. Third would be luster. Marks would be a distant fourth and I really don't care whether a coin has toned or not. Generally any coin from the 18th or 19th century will have at least some toning.

Strike is everything, especially the coins I like: Indian Cents and Seated Liberty coinage.

Tom

shylock

WWBillman said it right about eye appeal being a product of all the other technical points. And I think it's a little different in every grade. For me an eye appealing coin in MS65 starts with MS66 type original flowing lustre, with all the other technical points well balanced and just shy of jumping it to MS66. The marks have to be barely noticable at first glance or in well hidden areas of the design.

lordmarcovan

1. Eye appeal. Far and away the most important factor to me. (Actually, I think eye appeal is the sum of the other factors. Perhaps this is what jhar was saying.) Eye appeal overrides technical grade, in my book. I would rather own a beautiful MS62 coin with terrific eye appeal than a drab or ugly MS63, even if there was a big difference in value.
(Unfortunately, I don't always practice what I preach here, though- I'm often guilty of "buying the holder". I imagine that happens to many of us.)

2. Toning and luster, tied for second place. For toning, I usually prefer little or none, but it does depend on the coin. If toning is present, I want it to be evenly-distributed, preferably peripheral rather than over the entire coin. The only time I will prefer a toned coin over a lustrous untoned example is when bullseye, or "target" toning, with nice colors, is present. I love the colors one sees on "rainbow" Morgan dollars, but hate that that toning is usually asymmetrical or streaky, and I really dislike that "textile" pattern one sometimes sees, though it is interesting. Toning should not obscure a coin's luster, which is why I believe the two go hand-in-hand.

3. Marks. Really, it depends on what I find distracting or not. I think most people agree on what is a bad mark and what is less bothersome. As long as it isn't too heinous, I don't object to a little pinpr*ck or micro hairline here and there, if we're talking about an older coin.

4. Strike. As long as it ain't too mushy, I don't care. Merc dimes? A non-FB example looks pretty much as as good as one with full bands, in my opinion- as long as the criteria above are equal. Ditto for Standing Lib quarters. Full heads are great, but as long as Liberty doesn't look like her head was steamrolled, a flat head's OK by me, too. Strike is a consideration for me, but not nearly as much as luster and toning (or the lack thereof).

It looks like WWBillman and I are pretty much "reading from same page". Bill, I think you said it very well, and far more succinctly than I have.

I'm with Russ on those proofs. There is very little that can beat DCAM contrast in my book, especially on a "non-modern" like my icon coin (which is only a technical CAM, but looks DCAM on the reverse). But I haven't yet owned a lovely, pastel-rainbowed, target-toned 19th century UNC. I could lose my head there...!

MAULUMALL

I o peal.I bought this
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1373395817
Probably paid toooo much but I just liked the way it looked.
It's wierd because the face looks much nicer in hand.I think i'm gonna send it to NCS to get a well deserved bath.

lordmarcovan

LINK to Maulumall's coin.

Classic example of an inexpensive coin with nice eye appeal, even as-is. Not sure if I'd NCS it or not.

MAULUMALL

Thanks lord.It has some hazing,especialy under the chin that I think NCS could do something about.I have gotten a couple inexpensive PL morgans lately that I think just rock.This one isn't PL but she shore is purty.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1369395689
(I gotta learn to do the linky thingy)

dorkkarl

eye-appeal, which to me IS the overall grade, made up of:

mintstate coins:
#1 marks in primary focal area
#2 luster
#3 strike
#4 marks on the rim, hidden, etc.
#5 toning - actualy not relevant to me unless it is artful toning

on circulated coins:
#1 toning - circulated coins should look natural
#2 strike - 1st thing that makes the difference between a "nice" coin and an "average" one
#3 marks in primary focal area - gee, circulated coins are gonna have em!
#4 marks on the rim, hidden, etc.
#5 luster - not expected on circ's

K S