What is the highest grade a coin with a finger print should have?

Bustman

I've seen finger prints on coins graded as high as MS68. I dusted off some of the old grading guides, and none suggest a limit on the highest allowable grade with a finger print. Any thoughts?

my3cents

chances are - the TPG put it there

questor54

MS100FP on the new scale.

Russ

It depends on how decorative the print is. Some people's fingers have very artistic swirls.

Russ, NCNE

tjkillian

Imagine a MS-67 Walking Liberty Half Dollar with a clear print of FDR's thumb and it could easily be proven to be his thumb print? Would it increase the value of the coin or decrease it?


Hmmmm

Tom

Bustman

Okay, all the comedians are out tonight. How bout some real answers.

questor54

MS100FP - I was serious.

Doesn't is make you feel strange to see the grade MS100?

ms70

<< <i>MS100FP - I was serious.

Doesn't is make you feel strange to see the grade MS100? >>



STOP IT. You're scaring me.

stman

IMO, no coin should be graded "Gem" with fingerprints on them. They've been mishandled, they're nasty, and make some of us feel dirty.
The only time I might tolerate a partial print or a couple lines would be on an old original looking Bust half that are tough to find that haven't been abused. Of course the dealers will usually say the print is not "Obtrusive" but, well you know the rest.

I see prints on common date toned Morgans, and on expensive classics as well. Some of the "astute" collectors don't mind mottled prints.
Myself, I just haven't become "astute" yet I guess, I'll take a couple more marks ticks etc. before some mottled mess of a coin with prints.

LeeG

Toning on a coin is not a part of the grade of the coin. Does toning effect the grade on a coin? Yes, i.e., * or a "Bump". The majority of toning is a positive influence on the overall eye appeal, grade, of the coin. Shouldn't be, but is. A print is a negative as far as eye appeal goes. Grade should go down for negative or "Ugly" effect.

Bear

I believe it depends. Over time, some prints are well hidden in the

overall toning of a coin. Such a coin could grade 67. At ther other extreme

would be a destinct and detracting print, which would cause a grade of less then 65.

FatMan

MS64, I feel a print should exclude a coin as being graded gem. But that is my opinion. Certainly the TPGs feel otherwise. I have seen many gem graded coins with prints.

coinlieutenant

I dont feel it should preclude a gem grade, but should limit the coin to an extent. If the coin has blazing luster and surfaces etc, why would a print hold it back past a reasonable level?

veryfine

It depends. I know my answer is one of the stock responses in these message boards, but it's very true in this case.
IMO, a fingerprint on a heavily toned coin is not as distracting as a dead center colorful print on an otherwise pristine white coin. In addition, a fingerprint on the reverse of a coin is much less annoying than on the obverse. It also depends on the clarity, color and size of the print.
It is truly amazing to me how some collectors express disgust at the though of a fingerprint, yet a bagmark on Liberty's lip is peachy keen!
A bagmark or "minor scratch" is a gash or indentation cutting below the surface, resulting in the displacement of metal. A fingerprint is the result of a human being holding a coin with his oily fingers. Goodness gracious! How horrible! Someone actually holding a coin 100 years ago and leaving a print. How shortsighted of him. He should have used plastic gloves. Give me a break.
Nobody likes to see fingerprints, but a print on the reverse or well-hidden on the obverse is perfectly acceptable up to MS-64 or maybe even MS-65, in my humble opinion.

ModernDollarNut

<< <i>Text >>



As an earlier thread outlined, it is common for finger prints to show up after encapsulation as part of the inevitable toning process that capsules slow but don't stop. Finger prints are transfers of moisture, oils, salts and some acids that will etch their presence into the coin's surface sooner or later.

The point is PCGS probably downgrades if they see a print on a coin and most of us would not sub a printed coin unless it was attractive or important inspite of the print.

So now, most coins with prints wind up on eBay and some, oh unspeakable horror, some such moderns benefit from cracking and careful dipping ("conservation") to improve their appearance and marketability either raw or re-holdered. The tragedy is an ugly print on a nicely toned modern..... Just my opinion. Rob

pursuitofliberty

Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins

Third Edition (page 29)

Fifth edition (page 34)

"Fingermarks - MS63 and below"

fountainheadgold

au58

Coxe

I do not agree that AU58 is applicable as it is not genuine wear. Its surfaces are not altered, as with tools, so it should be gradable. I think it comes down to the question of market grading and whether it should be admissable at all in grading. On one hand, technical grade should be it and the market should add/deduct a premium based on eye appeal and other presentation properties of the coin. On the other hand though, the sight unseen trading world depends on grading to relate an effective market value a lot of the time.

My personal opinion is a gem or superb gem with a fingerprint should be MS64. I could see MS65 if it was a tiny fractional print near the rim, far from any area of focus.

jcping

MS62. How can a finger print coin still be called as Choice

veryfine

Why is a fingerprint considered more damage than a coin that was banged around, shaken and stirred in a mint sewn bag?
If fingerprints preclude a gem mint state grade, then a coin with scratches, nicks and cuts visible to the unaided eye should be considered damaged and ungradable.
Why is a fingerprint worse than environmental oxidation? Just because the acidic reaction originated from a human finger as opposed to a cardboard album?
Where am I wrong here?
Some of you feel it shouldn't even achieve mint state status? So let me get this straight; if you saw a pcgs certified MS-63 1893-s Morgan dollar or MS-64 1901-s Barber quarter with a reverse fingerprint, you wouldn't pay full price for it? HUH?

Heywood

I was thinking of the exact same question when I saw a toned Frankie with a thumb print on the reverse. It was graded MS-66 FBL, and was an otherwise good looking coin.

I just couldn't get past the print, especially since the jump from 65 to 66 was for significant $$

I would max that one out at 65

Should the location, size and color matter?

KAJ1

63-64

291fifth

In my mind, never higher than MS63 and often lower.

morgannut2

<< <i>I believe it depends. Over time, some prints are well hidden in the

overall toning of a coin. Such a coin could grade 67. At ther other extreme

would be a destinct and detracting print, which would cause a grade of less then 65. >>



Well said---

coinguy1

I think the question posed in this thread is an excellent and very difficult one.

I have certainly seen numerous MS67 and MS68 coins with (at least partial) prints. That aside, my subjective opinion is that those who answered less than MS67 are being too tough, and that those who answered less than MS65 are being way too tough. Here's why:

If a coin is otherwise perfect, I see no reason that a print (depending upon its size, location, appearance, etc.) should automatically count as a grading deduction of more than 3 points. Think about ticks, abrasions, bag-marks, slide-marks, hairlines, stains, spots and numerous other types of imperfections, many of which result in deductions of just one point on the grading scale. In a number of cases, prints aren't any worse than some of the flaws just mentioned, or if so, certainly not 3 times worse or more.

I see many coins which I believe are properly graded, but which, for a variety of reasons I don't like, so I pass on them. Perhaps a hit or flaw is in the wrong place and too distracting, maybe the color is original, but not to my liking, etc. Coins with prints often fall into that category.

Next time you see a coin and think it's over-graded, ask yourself if it's really over-graded, or if instead, there is simply something which bothers you (more than others would be bothered) and you are being too tough on it.

Bustman

Mark,
I agree that an automatic 3 point deduction would be a bit harsh. I think I posted this thread because I remember reading somwhere that a coin should not be graded any higher than 64 if it had a finger print, which I don't agree with. Just as we assess the severity of a hit, a planchet mark, luster, etc.... a print should be judged on an individual basis. A tiny, barely visible print in the devices should not receive the same consideration or point deduction as a Fred Gwynne size thumb print across Miss Liberties face. However, I would never buy an MS68 coin with a print. I'd probably draw the line at MS66.

coinguy1

Bustman, that was a good post and thanks for an excellent topic/thread.

mozin

The grade on a coin with a fingerprint makes no difference to me. I simply pass on the coin anyway.

TommyType

I think some double standard is being displayed here!

Many will proudly state that they will NEVER buy a cleaned coin, and they love the "crusty" coins.

Yet they claim a finger-printed coin is completely undesireable to them. They won't look at it, and you might as well throw it away as far as they're concerned.

As for the question at hand, (how to grade them), I think it's alot like toning: Some toning is distracting, and might lower to grade....some is neutral....and some enhances the grade. Finger prints are similar....except that I can't imagine a case where the grade is enhanced.