Probably a stupid grading question

Comments

• dorkkarl Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭

  October 30, 2002 11:19PM

  i don't know how you'd account for accumulated weight as dirt gets stuck to the coin though.
  
  K S

  0
• LanLord Posts: 11,723 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 30, 2002 11:20PM

  I don't know if that would really work. First off, the first signs of wear that move the coin from ms to au and xf would remove a miniscule amount of metal and it is in many cases where the wear is that makes the actual difference in a few points in the grade.
  
  Gust my thoughts,

  0
• BillJones Posts: 34,784 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 31, 2002 12:05AM

  No, it could never work. Some coins get downgraded because they are struck poorly, and their designs lacked detail from the get-go. The weight could absolutely on the standard, but the appearance of the piece would preclude a high grade like MS-65 or better. A well known example - most New Orleans Mint Silver Dollars from the 1890s.

  Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?

  0
• Coulport Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭

  October 31, 2002 12:11AM

  The tolerance spread allowed for the planchets more than likely exceeds the grade difference between AU and Unc in weight.
  Seems Conder had some specification numbers on that.

  The most money I made are on coins I haven't sold.
  
  Got quoins?

  0