grades and wear percentages(a new way of looking at wear)

1907Quarter

Let's say that grade PO01 represents the lowest grade where a coin is identifiable and that uniform even wear brings it to that stage(imagine slice cross sections from the top).An MS coin has no wear and therefore no cross sections. The difference between these two grades(each coin is different, with varying profiles and heights of devices) can be represented by a fairly flat cylinder of wear of height "h". Would our scale of 1-60 be a good representative coefficient h/x in describing how much wear the coin has worn down?

dorkkarl

no.

for example, some varieites of 1806 bust halves were struck right off the dies w/ less detail than other varieities graded "vf-20" . ie. your formula doesn't take into account the incredible variation in the amount of initial detail.

modern coins are not so susceptible to this, take roosevelt dimes for example. the "f-t" full-torch coins start out w/ more detail then the worthless 1's that don't get slaped w/ a "f-t"

K S

Baley

just to clarify, non-FT roosies are not "worthless", but they are worth less.

MrEureka

A more precise and completely feasible process (probably just for mint state coins) would be to use a high power microscope to measure the percentage of the surface area on which the metal flow is uninterupted, i.e., remains "as struck". The resultant measurement would not REPLACE the grade, but it could serve some interesting purposes.

cladking

An experienced collector can generally make a fairly good guess about the
amount of metal worn off a coin. This does get much more difficult as the
grade approaches Poor.

cladking

ttt- This thread doesn't deserve to die with so little comment.

Coin Finder

I agree Cladking. In theory a scale from 1 to 60 "layers" seems improbable. Scratches on a coin may go down 5 layers to use an example, but the overall coin could lose many grade levels because of this. This theory also assumes that every coin is struck the same or struck evenly which is not the case. A weakly struck coin could not be subject to the same layer thickness because some details would already be missing and the layers would be thinner than its well struck counterpart.

The overall idea is very interesting I must say. You are trying to convert a subjective (such as wear and eye appeal= grade) into a quantifiable formula of macro layer grading.

Tbig

fcloud

You could change the system, but the coins will continue to sell at what the market will bear. There are coins that do not sell at what is on their holder because they are dogs or premiums. Some sell too low and some sell at a higher margin because they are top end. The market grading system now in place works fine, and changing the rules won't really change anything.

A worn out coin is a worn out coin, and a weakly struck coin without the detail will continue to look like a worn out coins and its value will be relative.

cladking

<< <i>

A worn out coin is a worn out coin, and a weakly struck coin without the detail will continue to look like a worn out coins and its value will be relative. >>



AG, G, and VG coins which were weakly struck certainly just look worn out, but
what about the AU's? These obviously are just poor strikes with slight wear.
Some collectors will find such coins most undesirable. In any case wouldn't the
appearance of the coin be much better described by a two number grade; one
to describe how the coin likely looked new and the other to describe it's current
appearance. Perhaps along the lines of VF-61. (VF-30-61).