Why can't Mint State coins grade lower than "60"?
Petescorner
Posts: 1,220 ✭✭
As I understand it, a "Mint State" coin is one that has not been circulated and also can't grade lower than "60" on the Sheldon scale. Because of this, coins that are graded MS-60 or MS-61 are often coins that are far less appealing than AU-58s or even AU-55s. So, why is it that a coin can't be a technical "Mint State" and because of problems in the minting process grade lower than 60?
For example, my father (Danglen) once obtained a roll of Virginia State quarters where the dies were so clogged that the coins looked like they were completely worn down, except that the devices proved that they had never been circulated (see attached image.) In my opinion, these coins look far worse than any AU or even EF State quarters on the market, yet the ones he sent off for grading came back certified as "MS-60." Why couldn't they be MS-35?
Anyone think this would be a more accurate grade?
edited to add reverse image
For example, my father (Danglen) once obtained a roll of Virginia State quarters where the dies were so clogged that the coins looked like they were completely worn down, except that the devices proved that they had never been circulated (see attached image.) In my opinion, these coins look far worse than any AU or even EF State quarters on the market, yet the ones he sent off for grading came back certified as "MS-60." Why couldn't they be MS-35?
Anyone think this would be a more accurate grade?
edited to add reverse image
0
Comments
Just my opnion
Byron
My first YOU SUCK on May 6 2005
In theory, every coin that leaves a die should be perfect from a standpoint of MARKS and WEAR. It has never been circulated and therefore has no wear. The marks/scratches come along the second it is ejected from the die and travels the shoot to the bin below with other freshly made coins. Other marks/scratches may occur later in life from mishandling by collectors or bankers/tellers, etc. Yet the coin has yet to see circulation.
Coins that grade less than 60 have seen circulation. This means that the metal has been worn, usually by human hands. The degree of wear constitutes the numeric grade assigned.
Your father's coins, while lacking some detail because of filled dies, have not been in circulation. The missing detail is because of a mint snafu, not wear from normal circulation.
Hope this helps.
njcoincrank
intocoins, the ones he had certified are ANACS "MS-60." They are noted on the holder "clogged die."
edited to add: but they are not "net" graded on the holder.
Die state and struck-through specimens that have no wear are tough to grade. I collect buffalo nickels, and the worn reverse dies of the 20's give a hard lesson in grading compared to other series.
I just want to have a grade that says "Oh, puh-leeze" when it comes to lack of definition that is still 'mint state'.
Not quite sure we understand the Sheldon grading system the same.
My understanding is that, in theory a MS-70 was worth seventy time that of a PO-01. Now we know that theory is flawed, because the higher the grade the lower the survival rate. But I believe that was Dr. Sheldon's reason behind the 1-70 scale.
But as Dennis Miller says "hey that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
njcoincrank
jom
value in desribing other classic coins, but is nearly worthless for modern coins.
The 1966 quarter for instance often rolled off the die with very little detail be-
cause the dies used were heavily worn and poorly aligned. A well struck coin in
VG would show more detail. This would have been a very exceptional coin in
the 1800's but typical for '66 quarters. Some moderns were rolled in drums
that looked like cement mixers to knock off wire rims before release. Brand new
Ikes out of a bag often look like VF. We may end up with some grades like MS-30!
<< <i>As I understand it, a "Mint State" coin is one that has not been circulated and also can't grade lower than "60" on the Sheldon scale >>
if you are using "ms" synonymous with "unc", then that is not correct. and unc coin definitely can grade below 60, for example if it is very poorly struck in comparison to normal strikes off the same die pairing.
the phenomenon whereby a market-graded au-58 is worth more than a market-graded ms-61 is valid, but ought not to be the case w/ eac grades (the real sheldon scale).
what i'm trying to say is that, contrary to popular notion, slabed & market-graded coins are in fact NOT graded by the sheldon scale. the just use his numbering system. eac-graded coins are (supposedly) graded off the sheldon scale.
K S
Karl, you got me on that one. I never knew there was a difference between Unc and MS.
Also, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "eac." Could you explain what this is? Thanks!
My Website
"Everything I have is for sale except for my wife and my dog....and I'm not sure about one of them."
"eac" is the acronym for "early american coppers". search the forum for the acronym, you should find plenty to read.
K S
MS has become (if not always intended) synonymous with UNC and essentially is a coin that has no wear.
Below MS grades are used describe coins that have wear or some other issue that precludes them from being assigned the MS designation.
The corroded cent example IS NOT a good example; it is corroded, therefore it has a problem in the numismatic sense, and if it were encapsulated, more than likely any grade assigned would be a net-grade. Any grade assigned therefore is a "details" grade.
The definition MAY NOT fit every single circumstance, but for all intents and purposes, it has been considered sufficient to categorize coin grading.
As for the Sheldon scale, if we used it as a 70 point scale for each class descriptor (G,F,VF,AU,MS), AU-70 would be a possibility.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>MS has become (if not always intended) synonymous with UNC and essentially is a coin that has no wear. >>
i don't think such is the case. i looked through every price guide i have, & not even one of them mentions columns of prices for "unc-60", "unc-63", "unc-65", they list ms-60, ms-63, ms-65. it seems that only in day-to-day conversation do the terms get interchanged. properly speaking, "uncirculated" is not equivalent to "mint-state".
strictly speaking "corrosion" does NOT have a problem in the numismatic sense. it is a fact of life. numismatists accept the phenomeon as such. if it were a "problem" to numismatics, you could not collect, for example, most ancient greek & roman coins. nearly every '93 lib-cap for example, is corroded, but there numismatic value is not lessened in the slightest. the alleged "problem" w/ corrosion arises when the business aspects are important, ie. it is difficult to convince the novice collector that that disgusting, flaky, corroded old '93 lib-cap really is a nice coin - when compared to the others of its ilk. therefore, it is more difficult to market across a spectrum beyond the numismatic market.
K S