Capped Bust Halves..Where is the line drawn between "Cabinet friction" or "Wear"

stman

OK, so many of us know the grading company's will slab a Capped Bust Half as mint-state with obvious friction on the high points.
Where is the line drawn in your opinion between "Friction" and wear? Just curious what folks think. There are slabbed grades up to 65 and perhaps 66 that have friction on the high points. I believe if the coin has full cartwheel luster and full field luster that if it only has a slight bit of friction on the very highest point (and I do mean very slight friction) and more-so if it's only on one side then it might qualify for full mint-state.

Or do you feel if the coin has any type of friction at all it is AU?

Bear

I have looked at a number of MS-65 specemins. There is almost always a barely perceptable

cabinet friction impacting the luster on the breast and top of the cap. I guess one could say

this was market acceptable.

pursuitofliberty

stman ...

Cabinet friction, slidemarks, roll contact, collector handling ... all of these are (as bear so eloquently stated), "market acceptable". But in a truely physical sense, they are "wear", which for this porpose we'll call the removal of some minute amount of surface.

It's a fine and often clouded line between what is superior quality AU58 and easily acceptable MS63/4. I have many examples, both ways.

This minute "wear" no longer seems the undermining determination (IMHO) between AU and MS grades ... only how the minute wear occured. If it was deemed from "circulation in commerce", then it's a 58 or less ... if it's deemed from a general storage and handling issue (to an extent), then it's a MSnn. Of course, I am speaking of minute "wear".

stman

Tough subject isn't it? I wanted to get some discussion going. But how do we know for sure how the friction was caused?


I understand the "Market acceptable" point you folks are referring to, but I'll bet some of the serious Bustie collectors don't agree with the market acceptable part. Just a hunch.

FrattLaw

<< <i>But how do we know for sure how the friction was caused? >>



I guess that's the $69,000 question, but there should be a way to tell. Wouldn't circulation wear effect other parts of the coin other then just the highest points. If there's no wear or trace of such on the fields wouldn't that point to cabinet friction? And if a coin has truly never been in circulation, wouldn't it deserve a MS grade even if there is some friction on the high points. I'm not sure if market acceptability defines this or not.

Michael

pursuitofliberty

st,

I hope it get's more discussion. It's a fine line ...

I've got some quite a few coins I bought as "sliders" back in the old days. No questions asked; both the knowledgable dealer who sold them to me and myself agreed ... they were Choice AU's or "sliders". Now, years later, as I finally send some of these in to PCGS, more as a preservation effort than anything, I find more than a few have come home in middle grade MS holders.

Gradeflation??

Nothing against PCGS here ... I'm a fan ... but I'll bet if I sent all of them in again, some different one's might become MS, and some of these MS's might become AU's again. I suppose if I kept sending in the really nice 58's, most would eventually be in MS jackets.

Somewhere though, it is obvious it is not from circulation. And IMHO, the older the coin, the higher the potential grade for these little points of friction.

stman

Frattlaw, I pretty much agree with what you said. But there are many and I mean many of these coins in Mint-state holders that have more than just friction. Is this the case of the grading company pricing our coins again?

291fifth

Wear is wear.

uncleb

There should be no line drawn. The whole point of having an AU58 grade is to account for coins with "cabinet friction." This is why many early AU58s look better than todays MS62, because the graders overlook the obvious wear and give them MS63s.

ziggy29

<< <i>There should be no line drawn. The whole point of having an AU58 grade is to account for coins with "cabinet friction." This is why many early AU58s look better than todays MS62, because the graders overlook the obvious wear and give them MS63s. >>

It's also why it often takes an MS-62 bid or higher to get the nicest of these "early AU58s."

Years ago, I cracked an 1869 Indian cent out of an NGC AU-58 holder -- not to resubmit, but so I could display it with the rest of my coins in that series. Well, recently I've submitted a few of my better date Indians back to NGC -- mostly to burn some submissions I had lying around -- and this same 1869 came back MS-62. I also had an 1859 recently, which I graded as a very nice AU-55, come back as MS-61. They're very nice coins, totally original, lustrous and virtually mark-free with attractive color. They may be worth the money implied on the label, but they aren't mint state.

It's also why I feel like I'm in a race against time in building my type set. Each year I suspect more and more of the really choice, early 58s are being bought by folks cracking them out looking to hit 63 or 64 with the next submission. And all too often, they are...

Baley

"cabinet friction" is just on the high points, and the fields retain full luster, and don't have the "greying" or "subdued luster" or tiny nicks that happen when a coin is carried in a pocket with other coins and/or touched repeatedly with fingers. IMO cabinet friction alone does not preclude an MS grade, but will knock the MS grade down a point or three. Severe enough, and the coin can go into AU realm, however this depends on the total appearance of the piece. So, in sum, I think the line is generally drawn (for coins that are a judgement call, those that are not obviously MS or AU) by close examination of the fields and luster. (among other factors, obviously)

OKbustchaser

Wear is wear. If the high points of the coin are worn--regardless of how the wear occurred--it is not a MS coin...period. As for deciding that since no wear is visable in the fields it must have be "cabinet friction" not circulation that caused the wear, that's bull, too! If there is wear in the fields then the coin can by definition be no better than XF--not even AU.

Jim

Baley

Wear is wear. If the high points of the coin are worn--regardless of how the wear occurred--it is not a MS coin...period. As for deciding that since no wear is visable in the fields it must have be "cabinet friction" not circulation that caused the wear, that's bull, too! If there is wear in the fields then the coin can by definition be no better than XF--not even AU.

Yep, that's what we always hear when we're selling our coins. Different story when buying them though

Jim, please offer to sell me your otherwise MS65 bust halves that have the tiniest, barely detectable friction on the high points! You know, the ones with sharp strikes, full field luster, splendid toning, superb eye appeal!
I will pay you the full AU58 money!

OKbustchaser

The problem is that the grade guides are out of wack. If an AU 58 costs X dollars that is the price of an AU-58, not the price of a MS-65, dispite what the guide says.

My point is that grades should guide the market--not the other way around.

Jim

Baley

and my point is that you have to grade the whole coin. It's ridiculous to have to assign the exact grade of AU58 automatically to any otherwise gem coin that has a touch of "rub" on just the very highest points... you know, the little areas of the coin, especially a coin with low or no rims.. especially a 170 to 200 year old coin... that actually touch a surface (because of gravity) when ever the coin is set down.

the numerical grade system and conventions breaks down in a lot of places, and this is one of the biggest.... especially, as others have noted, when you have to pay MS62 or 63 or even 64 money to obtain a coin with spectacular eye appeal that grades AU58 on a "technical" basis.

EVillageProwler

Nice thread by STMAN. Complicated and contentious too.

The concept of the grading system is supposed to reflect the value of the coin. I agree with Baley that you have to look at the whole coin to price it properly, and consequently to grade it properly.

To say that a coin is technically this grade or that is not so important when you realize that this entire industry is built around imprecision. Remember that grading is just an opinion, values of collectibles is totally subjective, does AU mean "almost unc" or "almost un-worn", and what does "mint" state really mean? There are so many more commonly accepted "opinions" that would falter to scientific scrutiny or technical assessment.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this as a whole, but I think this debate is excellent for its educational content. JMHO.

EVP

majorbigtime

"Cabinet friction'," slider", "commerical unc", whatever. They all s/b AU as far as I am concerned.

Uncirculated means "new", either it is or it is not. I don't beleive any coin can be "slightly pregnant" when it comes to being circulated or mint state.

EVillageProwler

Uncirculated means "new", either it is or it is not.

That's a reasonable OPINION. Many other reasonable people will think that "uncirculated" means "not circulated".

Some issues are best addressed in black-and-white terms, whiles others fit grey-area analyses better. Which is this, and why?

EVP

jom

This debate become very interesting when you consider MANY of these "friction" coins are far and away nicer than many BU MS60 stuff.

So do we do with these types of coins whose EYE APPEAL far outweights any technical "problem" it might have with rub?

1) We can technically grade it AU58 and then price it at MS62 money which is really what it is worth. At that point all the Greysheet followers whine that the seller is asking too much.

2) Grade it MS62 (or more) and price it as such. Then the technical grader junkies whine the coin is over graded.

So...what do you do? If you go the route that they should only be worth LESS than MS60 money then send them to me. I'll buy them all day and twice on Sunday at those prices.

jom

Gemini

I am more tolerant and less critical of coins that may have some slight surface imperfections that date back to the old horse and buggy days and because of the crude way and rough treatment that these early coins received while being transported.... if there is full mint luster a few minor hits or a rub would not deter me at all from buying that coin.....I would still consider the coin as being uncirculated....

Nysoto

MS - definately no luster breaks in field, a small amount (hard to define) of "rub" is acceptible, as they all will have some detectable rub.

I just bought two PCGS MS62 bust halves, green label holders. Some 61's and 62's can be nice, depending on why they are graded this way. Some are very late die states, with certain features not struck well, these are fine if you collect by die variety. Both of mine are later states with original toning and subdued luster, they could probably be dipped and upgraded, but I like them original.

Bill

stman

Now we're getting there. When I thought of starting this thread I knew (and hoped) there would be a few differences of opinion.

I used to have the train of thought that "wear is wear" and if it moved any metal whatsoever, it wasn't unc, new whatever. Don't know if my change of heart is a good thing or not. I also feel it's on a case by case basis, and nothing is set in stone. The over-all "Look" is a big issue as well these days.

I believe as others have stated these old classics are given some slack by the collector and the grading services due to the old time storage, minting and striking issues etc. etc. Thanks for the replies, and please bring on some more. Including pics to help state your case, if you wish.

pursuitofliberty

st,

It ended up being a very good thread so far.

I never really stated my opinion. I like you, have seasoned with age and realize that there are some points on any design that are going to see minute "friction" except in the most stellar of grades, which in the case of many 18th and 19th Century coins is nearly impossible. Providing this friction is minimal, and not really "wear" (when defined as from rubbing, carrying, exchanging), but just minor contact friction on the highest points, AND the assigned grader and the potential owners can be reasonably sure that this is not from circulation, then I believe the MS grades should be given.

Unfortunately, I also believe (but do not always agree) that it is more likely that the older or more desireable the coin (as I stated earlier), the higher the grade can be from these tiny imperfections.

This is a point were the grading of a coin sometimes is more an opinion of value than of it's truely technical merit. I believe this feeds off of itself, causing what we see as "market-grading", which then has "market-pricing" from the sheets/guides, which creates a viscious circle where a coin has to be market graded to be properly market priced. It creates the area where many buyers and sellers are then valuing the holder as much as the coin.

ziggy29

<< <i>This is a point were the grading of a coin sometimes is more an opinion of value than of it's truely technical merit. I believe this feeds off of itself, causing what we see as "market-grading", which then has "market-pricing" from the sheets/guides, which creates a viscious circle where a coin has to be market graded to be properly market priced. It creates the area where many buyers and sellers are then valuing the holder as much as the coin. >>

Yep. I think it takes on more prominence because of the TPGs and whether they should be technically grading or market grading, or some of both, when assigning grades. I think jom posted very well on that based on the dilemma here and that either way, something is funky (you'd either have to give 60-something grades to AU coins or give a gem with a trace of rub a grade lower than an MS-60 with terrible eye appeal). The numerical scale just doesn't give any way to show the very real overlap in market values between very high-end AU and low-end MS coins.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I have some choice AU coins that came back slabbed 61 or 62. To me the rub is fairly apparent even if slight. So I wonder if the graders missed it (unlikely if I can detect it) or they just decided it was worth more than "AU money" so they label it 61 or 62 because they think that's closer to what the market will decide the coin is worth.

Bottom line is, for what I'm trying to do with my type set, if I insisted on paying no more than what any pricesheets list under AU-58 (or even MS-60), I'd either be very frustrated as I found *nothing* of premium quality or else I'd have some very mediocre coins for the grade. In the end, the fact that the very PQ slabbed AU-58s I'm going after are routinely selling for MS-61 to MS-63 money tells me that the market knows what it's doing despite the slabbed grade and the pricesheets.

uncleb

<< <i>So, in sum, I think the line is generally drawn (for coins that are a judgement call, those that are not obviously MS or AU) by close examination of the fields and luster. (among other factors, obviously) >>



I don't recall any grading guide saying the proof of circulation is the presense of luster or original fields. These are additional, qualitative attributes that exist irrespective of the wear/no wear question. At the highest levels of preservation, even this is subjective, so why complicate it with outside factors?

I have no problem whatsoever dropping a "gem" to AU58 because there is a very small amount of wear at the highest points. That's what the grade is for. Besides, just because a coin is AU58 does not mean it is any less desirable that any MS coin. Many AU58s are more attractive than MS coins, certainly so when compared to MS60s and MS61s. These circulated coins should be valued more than their technically uncirculated counterparts, but the HOLY and REVEREND price guide publishers can't understand that concept. They rule on the theory that uncirculated is always more valuable than circulated, which is obviously not true. This misunderstanding, in concert with a collector base who is only concerned with outdoing the next guy and a dealer base that promotes gems with all the associated puffery, is what drives market grading.

Worsening the situation is that it is so progressive. What should be AU58 are now MS62-3. The AU58s are now really only AU55s. Forget the prospect of seeing a truly useful grade - AU53 - used properly. And, just in the last year or two I've seen a whole lot of mid-range XFs as AU50s.

Julian

This is an extremely interesting thread. I handled a collection, along with Britt Simons, Penn Valley Coin Exchange, in 1975. Britt had assisted the owner assembling the collection. We were going to auction the collection, but instead sold it intact to Ira & Larry Goldberg, who owned Superior, at the time.

This collection became one of the anchors for the 1975 ANA auction. I went out to LA to examine the coins, again, and actually made myself ill, because of the internal conflicts over whether the gorgeous bust halves were uncirculated or not.

The bottom line is, that for the most part, the value of the coin lies in its attractiveness. Its eye appeal. I have seen many early halves, that while technically not uncirculated, are more valuable than uncirculated coins. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Do not be blinded by the technical grade of a coin. If it is beautiful, or even attractive, to you, go ahead and try to add it to your collection. These coins are nearly 200 years old. None of us has been with the coin since it was struck, so we will never be sure what happened to it since the day that it was struck.

stman

<< <i>I went out to LA to examine the coins, again, and actually made myself ill, because of the internal conflicts over whether the gorgeous bust halves were uncirculated or not. >>



Heh, also part of what I was trying to get across in a less than obvious way.

OKbustchaser

What Byron said.

Jim

ziggy29

<< <i>This collection became one of the anchors for the 1975 ANA auction. I went out to LA to examine the coins, again, and actually made myself ill, because of the internal conflicts over whether the gorgeous bust halves were uncirculated or not. >>

I can understand that. But I'd also think that if, for example, the internal conflict was as to whether the coin was technically MS-64 or AU-58 (as we'd call them today), you wouldn't be agonizing over whether or not you'd pay them "MS-64 money" or "AU-58" money. If the coins were that gorgeous and had much better eye appeal than many low-end "Unc." coins (to use 1975 lingo), you'd likely be trying to decide whether to offer what is today MS-64 money or what is today (say) MS-62 money -- at least in today's market. If it's clearly more desirable by eye appeal than most technical 60 or 61 coins, why shouldn't it sell for more?

stman

<< <i>What Byron said. >>



Agreed, man I'm making myself sick now.

pursuitofliberty

Mr. Reed (Byron, I believe), makes a good point that defines some of the "gradeflation" concerns I've heard over the last four-five years. I've seen them too, and not just in Bust material.

But I also like what Julian has to say. I have always paid strong money for attractive coins ... it's the only way to get them. However I would be hesitant to pay strong money for an attrctive coin in a 63/4 holder (that is, pay strong "63/4" money) for a coin that I felt was truely 58 and would be viewed as such by most serious collectors, which in a since may be what started this thread. Especially if the spread from 60 to 63/4 was huge.

astrorat

There is a bit of confusion (not necessarily here, but in the hobby at large) about the difference between market grading and technical grading.

Technical grading states that ANY removal of original metal through circulation, cabinet friction, or other means reduced a coin to a non-mint state grade, period.

Market grading is a bit of a misnomer as it is not actually grading, but rather pricing. TPGs market grade coins. Why are bust halves (and many other coins . . . just check out SL quarters!) with cabinet friction/light circulation in MS holders? From a technical standpoint it is just wrong. From a market standpoint, they are in MS holders because the TPG is stating that in the present market, the coin should sell for MS money. This is very common with really attractive AU-58 coins in 63 holders.

In the "old days", the same thing happened, but without the plastic. You would see a really nice AU-58 (even though the grade was not "official" back then), but you would have to pay very strong AU money (i.e. MS money) to get the coin.

Lane

DHeath

Although the grading scale will never change, I always thought it made sense to extend AU through 63, specifically to technically accomodate sliders. If the purpose of the label is to accurately describe the technical merits of the coin, AU-63 is quite a bit more accurate. JMO

EVillageProwler

What STMAN said.

Baley

Although the grading scale will never change, I always thought it made sense to extend AU through 63, specifically to technically accomodate sliders. If the purpose of the label is to accurately describe the technical merits of the coin, AU-63 is quite a bit more accurate. JMO

what DHeath said

the trouble comes when an AU coin has to have a lower "score" than an unc. coin. (and therefore a lower price)

All this would be solved if, as Don says, AU "grades" extended past 60,
then the number would reflect 'eye appeal' and not just 'wear'

Stuart

Here's an example which I think illustrates some points that many of us are making in this very interesting thread.

It's an 1835 Capped Bust Half in PCGS AU-58 which appears to be a Gem Mint State coin except for some slight discoloration and perhaps the slightest perceptible bit of rub on the highest relief points of the coin.

EVillageProwler

From appearances, Stuart's coin would fetch 62 - 63 money all day long! Quite a conundrum to the AU58 technical grade = AU58 price rule.

Myqqy

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Personally, I still think that rub or friction on a bust half leaves it as an AU, since it no longer is as minted. But if an AU coin is gorgeous, then price it as such- if collectors like its eye appeal more than many low MS coins, then they will undoubtedly pay more.

Stuart

EVP: We have seen that truly experienced collectors who value eye appeal are paying very strong prices for high-end AU-58 coins such as the 1835 Capped Bust Half. By "high-end" AU-58's I am referring to true near-gem sliders, with only the slightest trace of wear.

These coins are very highly sought after, are very beautiful, and I feel are a compelling bargain while many others prefer to compete against strong competition offering very high prices for top pop highest grade coins.

It makes for a very interesting contrast in collecting preferences and tastes...

EVillageProwler

Stuart,

I couldn't agree w/ you more about the value of these gem-quality AU58 specimens. I chase 'em myself from time to time.

EVP

sliderider

If they're regrading sliders as mid-MS these days, I'd be cracking out as many as I could find.

uncleb

<< <i>[the trouble comes when an AU coin has to have a lower "score" than an unc. coin. (and therefore a lower price) >>


Why does this need to be so? The current scale sux, such that it values uncs and ununcs in continuum. [The forgoing was my entry into the "Who can use the most U's in a sentence contest."]

Why not UNC1- UNC10 and CIRC1-CIRC10, or whatever number of divisions? It would work for Proofs (not a grade anyway) and Business Strikes. Lets see.. PRCIRC05 vs. BSUNC70FBC, hmm . . . ??????

uncleb

<< <i>If they're regrading sliders as mid-MS these days, I'd be cracking out as many as I could find. >>


That's been the game for some time. The trouble is that the real winners have already been found and gone the crackout route. Most of those left are low-end by the old standards. You'd be wasting your money on slab fees only to get the same grade back. Still, it doesn't hurt to take an extra look at the old plastic for fresh meat.

Julian

Market grading is a bit of a misnomer as it is not actually grading, but rather pricing. TPGs market grade coins

Lane has got it exactly right.

In essence, each $ is a grade. But more than a grade, it is an agreement between two people what the coin is worth. TPG's offer their appraisal of a coin, at a point in time.

Only purchase coins that you like and can afford.

Do NOT purchase coins strictly, even primarily, as an investment.
Coins should primarily be purchased as a collectable.

They have proven to be good investments in the past, but the ones that have realized those profits have become experts in the field that they are collecting.

Numismatic properties are not financial tools.

ziggy29

<< <i>Still, it doesn't hurt to take an extra look at the old plastic for fresh meat. >>

And you'll still probably pay MS-61 or MS-62 money for the best of them, anyway, if not more.

Baley

I think I see the rub! Yes! I think I see some definite "rub" on the highpoints!!





Yup, that's a "circulated" coin allrightie!

I had it "re-holdered"

DHeath

billboat

Great reverse die crack!!

ziggy29

Baley, that 1837 bust half is sweet. One day, maybe I'll find its twin sister.

MacCrimmon

Who has my 1832 Bustie????

The truest AU-58 (technically) coin of that era I have ever seen (of course, that was in 1983). It had the slightest grey on the high points and just a hint on the cheek, but it was bathed in the frostiest silver lustre you'll ever see and nary a mark anywhere.

I'm quite sure that it resides in an MS64 PCGS holder today. It had the wildest rainbow crescent on the obverse......I'm sad!!

Anyone here have it?? I wish I still did?

dorkkarl

cabinet friction = wear. too much emphasis is placed on wear though, when the overall appeal of the coin is so much more important. it comes back to the same old scenario where frequently, an au-55 w/ knockout luster & superb surfaces is a nicer coin then a ms-62 with "cabinet friction".

K S