A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a "no grade". Yet two separate light scrat

MrEureka · February 9, 2011 9:46AM

A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a bodybag. Yet two similarly light but separate scratches are not a big problem, and the coin will be graded. Why should this be?

ColonialCoinUnion · February 9, 2011 9:50AM

Is that really a hard and fast rule? I've seen lots of coins in holders with much more then just a light X -

RRich2004 · February 9, 2011 9:51AM

<< A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a bodybag. Yet two similarly light but separate scratches are not a big problem, and the coin will be graded. Why should this be? >>

If the "X" is in a prominent place and distracting, I would agree.

Pics would help everyone else see the coins in question.

QuarterCollector · February 9, 2011 9:57AM

Because the Gods say so.....

Top50SetBuilder · February 9, 2011 9:59AM

the graffiti is deliberate...

coinguy1 · February 9, 2011 10:01AM

It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones.

MrEureka · February 9, 2011 10:08AM

It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones.

Yes, but why should that matter?

JupitarCoins · February 9, 2011 10:13AM

<< It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones. >>

coinguy1 · February 9, 2011 10:17AM

<< It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones.

Yes, but why should that matter? >>

Maybe it shouldn't. But, in general, and within limits, numismatists are more accepting of accidental/naturally occurring damage/flaws (similar to unintentional vs. intentional toning)?

OnTheHunt · February 9, 2011 10:21AM

Because intentional graffiti is so much more visually distracting than similar random marks. Psychologists probably have a term for it.

Steve

AnkurJ · February 9, 2011 10:22AM

And its more tolerable on earlier coinage. Specifically half dimes and dimes.

MrEureka · February 9, 2011 10:40AM

Because intentional graffiti is so much more visually distracting than similar random marks. Psychologists probably have a term for it.

I think you're on the right track. I think the problem is that if you see an intentional scratch on a coin, you envision someone intentionally applying the scratch, and that's probably (to some extent) infuriating. It would be more pleasant to envision accidental scratches caused by jingling around in someone's pocket.

coindeuce · February 9, 2011 12:22PM

<< It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones. >>

Then how do you rationalize the chopmarked Trade Dollars with assigned grades at PCGS, and E / L countermarked 1815 & 1825 Bust Quarters assigned grades at NGC? Aren't those intentional marks/damage?

coinguy1 · February 9, 2011 1:39PM

<< 

<< It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones. >>

Then how do you rationalize the chopmarked Trade Dollars with assigned grades at PCGS, and E / L countermarked 1815 & 1825 Bust Quarters assigned grades at NGC? Aren't those intentional marks/damage? >>

What is YOUR answer to Andy's question?

Lakesammman · February 9, 2011 1:45PM

If I see scratches in an area that obviously had a spot, it's more irritating than a similar number of random scratches.

MrEureka · February 9, 2011 3:37PM

Then how do you rationalize the chopmarked Trade Dollars with assigned grades at PCGS, and E / L countermarked 1815 & 1825 Bust Quarters assigned grades at NGC? Aren't those intentional marks/damage?

Chopmarks, countermarks and counterstamps are good examples of intentional "marks/damage" that don't bother me as much as purposeless numismatic vandalism. Again, it all goes back to what goes through your head when you see the coin, the coin's history you envision, the story the coin tells, and how you feel as a result. It's still a personal judgment call, of course.

ebaybuyer · February 9, 2011 4:14PM

little events like this should be a reminder of what these little round metal discs were made for, they were made to use as money, to circulate for decades, being passed through thousands of hands, not one of those people ever dreamed that one day every little nick, ding and carving would be scrutinized.

AngryTurtle · February 9, 2011 11:34PM

The same question can be raised for cleaning vs. circulation wear. If just going by the technical amount of wear/damage to a coin, a XF or AU circ would be the full equivalent of a cleaned coin, and sell for the same price.

Dentuck · February 9, 2011 11:39PM

Read Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell.

kurtdog · February 10, 2011 4:49AM

<< It sounds like perceived intentional marks vs. haphazard ones.

Yes, but why should that matter? >>

Because there are some people who are accustomed to judging the eye appeal of a coin by taking their mind's eye off the coin.

kurtdog · February 10, 2011 4:52AM

<< Because intentional graffiti is so much more visually distracting than similar random marks. Psychologists probably have a term for it.

I think you're on the right track. I think the problem is that if you see an intentional scratch on a coin, you envision someone intentionally applying the scratch, and that's probably (to some extent) infuriating. It would be more pleasant to envision accidental scratches caused by jingling around in someone's pocket. >>

That's what I mean.

PerryHall · February 10, 2011 5:29AM

What if two random haphazard scratches just happen to cross and form an X?

PerryHall · February 10, 2011 5:36AM

It's more likely an X scratched/cut into a coin is a test mark rather than graffiti unless the person making the X is illiterate and was signing his name. Test marks were fairly common to verify the coin is silver or gold rather that a plated base metal.

jdillane · February 10, 2011 2:36PM

I am somewhat forgiving of test marks. Don't expect they will grade but given the context and the era, they seem a natural byproduct of commerce. In that vein, holes are not troubling to me either. Graffiti, well, that depends. If its my initials on the coin, I may be interested. Staple scratches are the worst, IMO. Depending on the coin, they make me want to keck.

pocketpiececommems · May 1, 2011 9:43AM

Check this scratch out on a PO01 1838-O dime. ebay #190484390493

Moldnut · May 1, 2011 9:49AM

<< Check this scratch out on a PO01 1838-O dime. ebay #190484390493 >>

There is a reason why its been for sale so long! Sorry, make that two reasons.

llafoe · May 1, 2011 9:50AM

MrEureka · May 1, 2011 10:03AM

Without the scratches, I'd grade the 38-O FR02, so I'm guessing PCGS net graded it PRO1.

My question is this: Given that the market currently values a PR01 more than a FR02, should the net grade have been AG03? And if not, is this not proof that "market grading" is a myth?

BG · May 1, 2011 10:20AM

<< A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a bodybag. Yet two similarly light but separate scratches are not a big problem, and the coin will be graded. Why should this be? >>

You're right.

JustMe2 · May 1, 2011 11:10AM

But if you place a whole bunch of small x's on the stars it seams to be ok...

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1127&Lot_No=566

A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a "no grade". Yet two separate light scrat

Comments

Leave a Comment

A light &quot;X&quot; is graffiti and cause for a &quot;no grade&quot;. Yet two separate light scrat

Comments

Leave a Comment

A light "X" is graffiti and cause for a "no grade". Yet two separate light scrat