Options
POLL: Cabinet Friction or Weak Strike?
gecko109
Posts: 8,231 ✭
I recently posted this coin in another thread. A fellow forum member asked the grade (PCGS 63) then wondered about the "flat spots" on miss liberty's features. Im embarrassed, but I have to admit that the combination of luster and frost on this coin blinded me to these flatter spots, all on high points. Is this a result of cabinet friction, or is it a weak strike that caused this? And just how much "cabinet friction" is required to turn an MS coin into an AU coin. I personally think that this may be the case for my beautiful half.
0
Comments
<< <i>That coin is strictly uncirculated. Circulation significant enough to removed a coin from MS status is accompanied by friction/loss of luster in the fields. I rarely see a coin called AU that doesn't have significant luster lost in the fields - tho I do recall an AU58 1873-CC seated dollar where this was the case [it had parallel friction lines across Miss Liberty that caused the downgrade]. >>
there appears to be a significant loss of luster to the right (the viewer's right) of Miss Liberty. And it doesn't seem to just be Mint chatter.
Yes.
<< <i>That coin is strictly uncirculated. Circulation significant enough to removed a coin from MS status is accompanied by friction/loss of luster in the fields. I rarely see a coin called AU that doesn't have significant luster lost in the fields - tho I do recall an AU58 1873-CC seated dollar where this was the case [it had parallel friction lines across Miss Liberty that caused the downgrade]. >>
so you could have an UNC coin, dip the crap out of it and turn it into "AU"?
I guess it'd be a bodybag in that case.
in any event, it just looks like ALOT of flatness
So, while I agree it is technically an AU58 if we are going to be super strict about these things, convention and hobby consensus call it mint state.
Senior Numismatist
Legend Rare Coin Auctions
Bottom line: For what it's worth, I agree with TDN.
<< <i>That coin is strictly uncirculated. Circulation significant enough to removed a coin from MS status is accompanied by friction/loss of luster in the fields. I rarely see a coin called AU that doesn't have significant luster lost in the fields - tho I do recall an AU58 1873-CC seated dollar where this was the case [it had parallel friction lines across Miss Liberty that caused the downgrade]. >>
Normal wear always starts from the high points down.
While the wear on this coin quite probably is from handling and "cabinet friction" over a long time, it's still wear.
Older coins are generally given a pass on this type of wear but this example might be a liner anyway.
of imperfect photography. If you hold the coin under a bright light, are the flat spot lusterous? Does the luster roll
over those spots just as it does the fields? If so, you have a weakly struck 63. If there is loss of luster on
those flat spots, then you have a 58. Whenever you are trying to decide between AU and MS, that is the question
you should be asking as you are tilting and rotating the coin under lighting.
When making this subjective call of circulation vs strike/bagginess, etc, which happens to always be on the obverse of the coin, I look at the reverse. I've always felt if a coin was circulated, both sides of the coin would show breaks in luster. Figured it hard to hold and circulate a coin around to other parties on 1 finger. Why is it always the observe that appears circulated when the reverse could pass as a no question UNC ? Do coins always turn up "heads" when holding in your hands so your thumb breaks that luster while the reverse lays on the 2nd finger with little to no damage ?
The point of putting a UNC in your pocket for a day and it being or looking circulated is an interesting experiment. I would have thought it might look no different or worse than the bagginess of being in the old mint bags that were thown around on railcars, wagons, bank floors, etc. Will try that out.
<< <i>Difficult call. Beautiful coin either way and would love to have in my SLH collection.
When making this subjective call of circulation vs strike/bagginess, etc, which happens to always be on the obverse of the coin, I look at the reverse. I've always felt if a coin was circulated, both sides of the coin would show breaks in luster. Figured it hard to hold and circulate a coin around to other parties on 1 finger. Why is it always the observe that appears circulated when the reverse could pass as a no question UNC ? Do coins always turn up "heads" when holding in your hands so your thumb breaks that luster while the reverse lays on the 2nd finger with little to no damage ?
The point of putting a UNC in your pocket for a day and it being or looking circulated is an interesting experiment. I would have thought it might look no different or worse than the bagginess of being in the old mint bags that were thown around on railcars, wagons, bank floors, etc. Will try that out. >>
Most US coins are lens shaped. They are bowed out toward the front. Since
the reverse rim takes most of the wear (being highest) on one side, the portrait
or device is taking the wear on the other side.
There are many forces which combine to make "normal wear" but jingling around
in a pocket is a major one. When this is the sole source of wear there will be a
little damage in the fields but the luster will be intact in the fields long after it is
broken on the high points.
Ray
Today, this coin is MS61 or 62......a stretch to 63 imo. Standards today indicate that an AU58 coin usually has obvious major open breaks in the field and very obvious flat spots on the high point. Note that the reverse doesn't show flat high points and sports full field luster. Miss Liberty's right knee doesn't show the plateaued give-away marker that most AU58 and 55's have. Forget the breast as a wear spot on this one as well as her right arm. While those areas do appear flattish and discolored, they aren't rubbed down.
These high points are always the first to discolor with oxidation due to the loss of slight luster on the highpoints (hence back to the strict definition of AU58 again). If we went by the standard of the slightest loss in luster on the highpoints, then most every seated half currently graded 64 or lower (and most every bust half below MS67) would not be technically unc. The coin is STILL perceived the same technically as it was 30 years ago, but market perception and labeling of its assigned grade HAS changed.
I have a MS67 seated half that shows the same slight "flatness" on the breasts as this coin, and most every MS seated half shows this trait. Study a proof for comparision and you'll see the difference. It is mostly strike but likely friction as well. My MS67 half has the tiniest amount of contact friction on the high points as probably most every seated half and dollar do below MS69 grade. Yes, nearly every high grade MS seated half has minute high point contact, even in MS67 grade. This is not a typically rounded area except on the most perfectly well struck coins (I had an 1851-0 half in 63 that did have perfect rounded/pointed knee, leg, breasts, etc...and was the only MS coin in my collection that was like that...it was struck almost like a proof in 3D).
TDN boiled it down in few words, yes, yes, yes.....market would call this MS today regardless of the technicalities I've described. It's odd to show a reverse with no obvious friction yet the obverse to be loaded up with rub. Exceptions are out there, but the rule usually works. In the 1980's I was "insane" on signs of hi-point rub to that point that if any high points were slightly darkened I would reject the coin as rubbed...hence AU. Needless to say I rarely found a MS bust half that qualified and I rejected a ton of seated quarters and halves with dark high points. Today I see those coins in 64-66 holders!
roadrunner
While I disagree with your views about the Fed and the CPI (
roadrunner
This is a real challenge. The fields appear to be devoid of typical light circulation hairline scratches, which makes me lean towards strictly mint state. However there are some apparent scratches on the reverse at 1:00 which one may interpret as circulation vs coin vs coin mint contact.
I'd have to see the coin in hand, and rotate it in light to carefully examine the obv high point apparent luster breaks, to make a definitive and informed decision on the grade.
I am leaning towards mint state, with a weak strike on some high points, and voted that way in the poll.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"