If hairlines in the fields only cost early proof coins a couple of points, what about proof-like w/
jdillane
Posts: 2,365 ✭✭✭
I had an 1821 CBH that was an EDS with proof-like surfaces and lghtly frosted devises. Our friends at PCGS 55'd her, despite the fact that there was not even a hint of rub. Having seen TPG Seated proofs in 63 with more hairlines, I wonder if a case can/should be made to treat proof-like, like proof.
0
Comments
Do you have a pic of the coin?
Edit: Does PCGS use the PL designation for this series? I know there are many series, mainly moderns, that PCGS won't designate as PL.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
Edited to add: Well, my Canon Powershot S1 Is apparently has a CCD malfunction. So no pics unless my OCD forces me to Best Buy PDQ to pick up another while I await Canon's assistance. Apparently they are very good about cust srvc issues.
Someone takes a proof coin, or a high grade MS coin...say a seated Lib half or dollar... and puts some light hairlines on it from a light cloth rub, it gets knocked down to a low Proof or low MS grade, say a 61-63.
Now if someone takes an AU coin and puts some light hairlines on it from a light cloth rub, it gets put in a Genuine or Problem slab.
Makes no sense.
What really surprised me was that an obviously MS bustie with proof - like surfaces would be subjected to a 55.
Aside, I went to Best Buy but decided to wait for Canon to address my camera malfunction instead of splurging on a second camera.
<< <i>Any hairlines on a coin would mean it was circulated, so it should be a MS 58 or less.
That is not a valid assertion. While some hairlines reflect circulation, the hairlines I speak of were likely the result of a custodian who thought wiping a choice unc coin would make it look better, perhaps to remove accumulated dust and the like or toning.
Have you noticed NCS coins graded Unc Details - Improperly cleaned? Or, a Proof 63 SLH replete with hairlines?
Now, some like to debate whether an unc coin that slid back and forth in a coin collector's cabinet, acquiring a trace of rub, is still unc. But, your assertion is one I haven't previously encountered. I suppose if you tried to make an analogy between hairlines and rub, you might get a few converts but I am not one of 'em!
<< <i>
<< <i>Any hairlines on a coin would mean it was circulated, so it should be a MS 58 or less.
That is not a valid assertion. While some hairlines reflect circulation, the hairlines I speak of were likely the result of a custodian who thought wiping a choice unc coin would make it look better, perhaps to remove accumulated dust and the like or toning.
Have you noticed NCS coins graded Unc Details - Improperly cleaned? Or, a Proof 63 SLH replete with hairlines?
Now, some like to debate whether an unc coin that slid back and forth in a coin collector's cabinet, acquiring a trace of rub, is still unc. But, your assertion is one I haven't previously encountered. I suppose if you tried to make an analogy between hairlines and rub, you might get a few converts but I am not one of 'em! >>
I agree. Hairlines don't necessarily mean circulation. I've seen many proof and bus. strikes with hairlines but were still uncirculated because there was no wear on the coin.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
<< <i>I had an 1821 CBH that was an EDS with proof-like surfaces and lghtly frosted devises. Our friends at PCGS 55'd her, despite the fact that there was not even a hint of rub. Having seen TPG Seated proofs in 63 with more hairlines, I wonder if a case can/should be made to treat proof-like, like proof. >>
I think the key is how collectors and the market value such coins rather than a consistent grading standard, and hairlines aren't viewed as problematic to the value of proofs like they are for business struck coins.
A wise collector once told me that the TPGs don't grade coins they value them, and I think it is quite apropos to the topic at hand....Mike
be it a business strike or proof.
With that logic than any US coin from any era, once placed in the palm of our hand or in your fingers would be AU58. Same comment for any US coin with a mark on it since that's no diff than a hairline. Since a large majority of 19th century proofs were kept on boards for display and picked up hairlines, we would have to consider all of them as circs. The only exception would be those PF69 specimens that remained in their original envelopes/papers and never received a hairline from contact with an abrasive object (ie the paper they were wrapped in). Ever tried to put some rub on a BU Lincoln cent plucked from change? It takes a massive amount of rubbing to show up as wear. The hairlines can show up by just placing the coin down on a hard surface and spinning it.
Hairlines or other marks are considered on all coins, PF or MS. It just happens that most cared for proof coins didn't pick up bagmarks or scratches quite as easily as their MS brethren did. But either of them can get hairlines, scratches, etc. Hairlines are most obvious on PL coins. A very PL MS coin will be down graded just like a proof coin if there are lots of hairlines. If they are easily seen, it hurts more. No matter what the types of non-mint made distractions appear on a coin, they generally affect the grade the same way regardless whether PF or MS. If you can see them, they distract.
If PCGS assigned an AU55 grade more than likely the coin was circulated and lacks full luster or has impaired proof-like surfaces from excessive handling. It also probably has some rub on it even if it's just a break in the fragile proof-like surfaces of the fields. I've seen many bust halves that appeared proof like due to irridescent toning (or cleanings) but in fact had luster showing in the protected devices, but little remaining on the rest of the coin. Hairlines alone won't drop a PL MS coin to AU55 grade unless it was horribly scrubbed or something. Scrubbing can be considered as wear if it takes metal off. And in those cases, the coins should be body bagged. Most bust halves, even up to MS64 or MS65 grades have rub on them, even the PL ones. If you want to get technical most 19th century PF67 or lower coins have high point scuffing or scraping from incidental contact. It's really no different than wear or rub, it still distracts. Should those be considered AU?
It's very unusual to find a MS64 or lower CBH with zero rub and full luster. Maybe 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 50 MS62 to MS65's could meet that requirement. I would be shocked to find a technical AU55-MS61 CBH without rub. They almost do not exist. Finding any CBH, regardless of grade, w/o rub is very hard. It's like finding a MS FH standing quarter with 100% complete head, shield, leg/drapery, pedestal, and eagle feather detail. Very hard to non-existant. Because of those facts the TPG's still grade less than fully struck slq's full head as well as rubbed bust halves as choice to gem unc.
We could call all the nice bust halves AU, but then we'd need 10 pts of AU detail (50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59) to describe all the various qualities of high grade busties as 50,53,55,58 wouldn't cover it.
roadrunner
I will say that another look is warranted particularly after roadrunner's remarks as trace rub and the hairlines would explain the 55. But I suspect if I am going to find the rub, it will be on the reverse. The obv is the most proof-like bustie that I have encountered. She's an early die state but not so early as to have avoided a clashing.