The difficult and forgotten ART of grading by surface...

ambro51

As we all know, strike quality varies amongst coinage. Some issues have weak strikes, some coins are struck from poorly designed dies, which do not allow full expansion of the metal into the design.

While Uncirculated is always Uncirculated, or Mint state, the design on the piece itself, if it is from a coin that has chronic and well documented striking weaknesses or other issues, the coin will be still uncirculated.

Grading by Surface....the way Walter Breen says such coins should be graded...in my experience (limited) with other seemingly astute collectors, is something I am thinking most are unable to do.

Collectors and many Dealers are brainwashed by labels and printed grades, by assumptions they carry with them learned from years of looking at fully struck coins, to the point where they refuse to see and comprehend what their eyes tell them.

They have a great and impossible to scale mental wall which equates full and complete detail on every single aspect of the coin to mint state. They also have a mental wall which is preventing them from understanding that a featureless device on a coin MAY be as struck. They see the absence of detail as an indicator the coin is graded "FAIR" or "POOR"....even though OTHER parts of the coin are in razor sharp detail, only possible on a piece which has NOT been circulated or marked up post mint.

Once this wall is well and truly established...they cannot climb off of it. Their reason falls apart....and the crisp details which are impossible to reproduce on a coin which has any type of contact or abrasion...which indicate mint state, are replaced by the thoughts that the featureless (as struck) details ar a 'wear indicator' showing that the coin has been in active and heavy circulation for a great portion of its life.


Grading by Surface. A lost Art, and one that requires many mental walls to be taken down.

MrEureka

You just got your grades back?

astrorat

Nice post.

Breen's approach is what most other contemporaries called "technical grading" and it used to be the ANA standard. The challenge that technical grading always faced was the inequity of two coins graded (technically) the same, but with vast differences in strike. For example, an 1884-O dollar is typically stuck with weak design elements at the centers. An "as struck" 1884-O dollar could yield a grade of MS-67 with nearly flawless surfaces, but be struck as flat as a Kansas corn field. Another 1884-O dollar could have a hammer strike with the same nearly flawless surfaces and be graded the same MS-67. Easily, one could argue that while the coins are same on technical merits (let's assume luster is equal), but it should be obvious which is a "better" coin. Of course, the weakly stuck coin could be given a "weak strike" qualifier, but then then steps outside the circle of technical grading.

Technical grading was flawed because there is a disconnect between the eye and the mind. Think of it as left brain versus right brain grading. Left brain is technical grading. Right brain is grading by eye appeal. Market grading, what is used today, is a mixture of both with the balance shifting to eye appeal.

Lane

BillJones

The ability to grade by surfaces goes well beyond a “mental wall.” It involves a lot of experience with looking at a large number of coins, and it also requires a God given talent that many people do not have. In order to be able to grade by surface one must of looked at more than just of sharpness in detail of a conventionally graded coin. One must either explicitly or implicitly filed away images of surfaces of the fields and devices as well. It is a very subtle skill that does not come easily.

I do differ sharply with Astrorat on one point. A poorly struck coin cannot be assigned a grade like MS-67. It does not matter what the preservation of such a piece is, the in marketplace no informed buyer is going to pay a super premium for a poorly struck coin. If grading is going to be used for pricing, high grades, like MS-67, can not be applied to such pieces.

Years ago the late Boston dealer, Don Romano, (son of well-known Boston dealer, Corrado Romano) came up the concept of grading by strike and preservation. On his strike scale a coin was rated from 60 to 70 for strike and then rated from 1 to 70 for preservation. Under this system one could give a high preservation grade to a poorly struck coin, but short of that lousy strikes should not get high grades, if a single number grading system is going to be credible.

keyman64

<< <i>You just got your grades back? >>

magikbilly

I am will Bill, not the first time.

Eric

astrorat

<< <i>I do differ sharply with Astrorat on one point. A poorly struck coin cannot be assigned a grade like MS-67. It does not matter what the preservation of such a piece is, the in marketplace no informed buyer is going to pay a super premium for a poorly struck coin. If grading is going to be used for pricing, high grades, like MS-67, can not be applied to such pieces. >>

Perhaps I was not very clear. Under technical grading a poorly struck coin can be graded MS-67. In fact, it can be graded MS-70. The reason is simple. Technical grading, by definition, is based on how the coin left the die and not in comparison with a "perfect" example. That is one reason why technical grading failed to gain traction in the real world of numismatics.

Technical grading is analytical, market grading is art.

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>Technical grading is analytical, market grading is art. >>


Uh, no. Technical grading is subjective too.

Subjective = Art

Edited to add: most analytic methods also involve some subjectivity needed to reach a conclusion.

ricko

There will always be dissatisfaction with grading since it is an opinion. This opinion, while based on some acquired skills (and indeed, there are those with these skills), is also filled with judgmental parameters such as eye appeal (i.e. tarnish, contrast, degree of luster). Until a strictly technical process is introduced (such as computer grading), there will always be disagreement, dissatisfaction and re-submissions (costly for collectors/dealers, profitable for our hosts). Even full technical grading, if conducted by humans, is an opinion, since the eye will evaluate features differently from individual to individual. Changing to strictly technical grading (when it can be done properly) will then leave a large portion of collectors/dealers unhappy since they will still be judging by eye appeal. Cheers, RickO

ColonialCoinUnion

Anyone can grade their own coin anyway they want using whatever methodology they want, and can write said grade on a 2x2 using a pen color of their choice.

The only time this grade will matter to anyone else is if you are trying to sell it or are trying to argue it into a specific slot in a census ranking.

Justacommeman

<Changing to strictly technical grading (when it can be done properly) will then leave a large portion of collectors/dealers unhappy since they will still be judging by eye appeal>

I think that you will actually be disappointed Ricko.

i believe the best collectors/collections had proven that eye appeal trumps all other attributes regardless of grades. Some of the highest graded registry sets often bear this out with technically sound coins but otherwise boring examples.

I could care less what system is used as it wouldn't effect the manner in which I collect. I doubt it would effect the prices either. The Guttag monster toned/tarnished commems in 64 that went for 30 times book are a prime example of this price wise. These were not registry candidates especially at the prices they went for. They were just eye appealing wonders that happen to have more pent up collectors then coins currently. Yes, I'm sure some were bought for upgrade potential but even a one point bump wouldn't make them registry set coin or anywhere near top pop technically. Just eye appeal top pop.

MJ

astrorat

<< <i>

<< <i>Technical grading is analytical, market grading is art. >>


Uh, no. Technical grading is subjective too.

Subjective = Art

Edited to add: most analytic methods also involve some subjectivity needed to reach a conclusion. >>

I didn't state that technical grading was totally objective. Of course there is subjectivity because there is no strict algorithm for technical grading (as it would be with computer-based grading). How I frame it when I teach grading is that grading is more art than science, not strictly one or the other.