Options
Do you agree or disagree?
JoeLewis
Posts: 1,904 ✭✭✭✭
Would you agree with the following statements?
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
-Joe
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
-Joe
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
0
Comments
There is gray area in all the others.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
2. Agree (has anyone ever tried to argue for a high end P-01?)
3. Disagree. It's a heckuva nice AU58 - nothing more.
4. Meh....leaning towards disagree. Weak strike does come into play with Southern Gold, some Buffs, early Bust stuff. It makes a difference.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Would you agree with the following statements?
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it. >>
1. Qualified agreement. Personally if you can see ANY flaws under reasonable magnification, it's not a 70.
2. No. There's clearly a line between PO1 and FA02 just as between F15 and VF20.
3. It depends. In reality, I'd prefer technical grading where these would be "AU58." But IF we treat market grading as a given, I would agree with giving very choice AU coins that are worth MS money an AU numerical grade of 60+, though I don't think any coin that's technically AU would ever go as high as 67 or be worth 67 money. For starters, I'd like AU61, AU62 and AU63 since that's where the market value of most choice AUs really is. IF we use market grading I like the AU-60something concept, but in reality I'd prefer these coins be graded technically.
4. Yes, I agree 200%. And I hate that it's often relative to the condition rarity of a coin. If a Morgan is MS-63 quality, it's MS-63 quality whether it's an 1884-O or an 1884-S. It's not a 64 because it's a dirt-common '84-O and a 58 because it's a condition rarity '84-S.
2. agree
3. disagree/ a rub or wear is never a "mint state" coin. Maybe a 59.9 would be more a suitable.
4. disagree/ that is why we have MS60 to MS70 to determine the quality, luster, and mint strike.
<< <i>Would you agree with the following statements?
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
[there's no such thing as "ms-70", it's a moit point]
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
[disagree]
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
[disagree, au-58]
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
[agree]
-Joe >>
2. Agree
3. Disagree. A circulated coin is never better than AU.
4. Disagree. The coin presents its own grade. You can call it anythign you wish. (Same as in poker.)
<< <i>Would you agree with the following statements?
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69. >>
Agree. Of course, I'm one of those people who thinks that "70's" don't exist at all, and your #1 follows from that.
<< <i>2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02. >>
Disagree. I've certainly seen at least one. Certainly worn down to that level (and calling it any higher would not be correct; it matched Sheldon's identifiable as to variety criteria, but that was it; its wear was it's only "problem" (I don't consider wear to be a problem, actually). So it was "choice" and that seems to be the same as "high end."
<< <i>3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair. >>
Disagree. AU58 is the numerical grade for coins that would be MS63 (real MS63, not commercial MS63) or above but have just a touch of rub. By the time the AU58 grade was invented, numerical grades had ceased to have any real correlation to price. Numerical grades, are, IMO, best interpreted to be abbreviations of descriptive grades and should be considered categories. It doesn't really matter if we use numbers, Greek letters, or Egyptian hieroglyphics for the abbreviations. Thinking that 67 to 58 i just too much of a drop for a touch of wear is thus to me a misunderstanding of what numerical grading is all about. In fact, if you want to expand out a description, I would see no problem with calling a coin "AU58 for a touch of rub; otherwise surfaces and marks of an MS67 coin." It's understandable, and gives more information. Perhaps instead of merely "buy the coin, not the label" we even need the catchphrase "buy the coin, not the grade" where the mere numerical grade is not precise enough for all coins which match that grade.
<< <i>4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it. >>
Agree.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
2-yes
3-no
4-yes
.....................................................
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
<< <i>I msut respectfully disagree with all 4. Regards and Respectfully, John Curlis >>
Gee, no reason to be rude about it
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
<< <i>
2. Agree (has anyone ever tried to argue for a high end P-01?) >>
Good point. If anything, with the new lowball stuff, conceivably someone could be bragging about a coin being a low-end P01!
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Couldn't have said it better, myself. More consistency re grades would mean that more people would know what to expect from an MS 65 in any series. And if no MS 65 exists for a particular coin, so be it.
Example 1: I have this 'thing' about friction / rub on Miss Liberty's rt. knee on Standers being ignored by the TPGs. As far as I am concerned, if the knee shows friction, the coin should be downgraded.
Example 2: Compare a 24 S Buff in MS 65 with a 38 D. It's frightening.
Example 3: If we did this, an MS 65 CC Morgan would truly would be an exceptional coin, rather than the many hideous 85 CCs I've seen in 5 holders (you know, the ones where Miss Liberty's face looks like she has a bad case of zits or, worse, leprosy).
Example 4: Many Seated and Barber coins minted in New Orleans would be downgraded because they are rarely struck as well as their Philadelphia counterparts. A well struck New Orleans coin would go for a strong premium.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>Would you agree with the following statements?
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
-Joe >>
1) Agree.
2) Disagree.
3) Disagree.
4) Disagree.
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
[there's no such thing as "ms-70", it's a moit point]
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
[disagree]
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
[disagree, au-58]
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
[agree]
-Joe >>
Whats the point Dorky Poo? You just quoted his post without comment, so I guess we are to infer that if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything; so thereby you disagree with the OP on every point because apparently you had nothing nice to say so it must be bad.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
1. There is no such thing as a "low-end" MS70. It would just automatically be an MS69.
Disagree. I have held PCGS MS70 coins side by side and found one much nicer then the other.
2. There is no such thing as a "high end" P01. It would just automatically be a F02.
Disagree. Same reason as above.
3. An MS67 coin that has the slightest rub should be given a grade of AU67 (for lack of better terminology.) AU58 is too much of a numerical drop to be fair.
Disagree. I feel a coin is mint state or not. This would be like net grading.
4. MS65 should mean roughly the same thing for any coin. Making excuses for coins that are made of soft metal, or coins that are always weakly struck is just confusing. Some coin series may not have one single coin graded above MS63, but so be it.
Disagree. I think each series needs to be considered individually.
If so, then that's cool. I've really never thought of it that way. To be honest with you, I've always thought of the grading scale as being a continuum, and it just seemed weird that a slight rub could knock a coin down seven points.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
peacockcoins
<< <i>Although a high end, PQ MS65 might be an MS66, a PQ, high end PO1 would be a 0.5, if there were such a thing, instead of a FA2. >>
Then why wouldn't the high end MS65 be called an MS65.5?
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
<< <i>I need to see pictures so I can guess the grade
I agree with this statement- no pics= no grade= No definitive answer.