Perseveration- “continuation of something (such as an activity or thought) usually to an extreme degree or beyond a desired point”
Merriam Webster Dictionary
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
That's the point I tried to make 300 posts ago. It is more important to understand the CAC and PCGS standards than to try to insist on your own. There's no benefit to it. He feels differently...
I'd also add that the term "original luster" taken literally is useless as a grading standard. Coins don't have the same luster when struck as other coins of the same series. By Dr. Literal's standard, a coin that had off the chart original luster is down to a 65 if there is light unobtrusive toning while a coin accidentally struck with a flat, lusterless surface would be a 68 as long a it is untoned.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
I wonder how much your stance would change had this been your coin?
Not that it really matters but it might be comical to hear the change in tone.
Or maybe not! Either way I wouldn’t be complaining if it were mine
Zero, none, nada. It's a beautiful coin. No fudging of the grading standards is required to judge that it is a wonderful specimen. But for some the point difference in the number on the slap label means the coin is worth 16x what the coins in the next lower grade are worth.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^
Damn. You just gave fuel to get this bammerjammer of a thread over 500 hundie. Hope you are proud of yourself
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
A little modification of your statement. If nearly everyone that has bothered comment in this thread interprets the words....
Believe me, I understand the nuance you and others have applied to the words "fully original luster". But I'm not one to go along to get along. I'm not going to fudge the words "fully original luster" to fit in with the crowd.
I've never been one to get too excited about a coin because the number on the slab says 68 instead of 67 or 69 instead of 68. By definition the differences between these coins is miniscule. I've never played in the arena where a 10x or 20x premium is paid based on a one point difference in grade at these lofty MS heights.
In reality I don't think it was necessary to change the literal meaning of the words "fully original luster" to account for the toning of a coin. If any coin with toning was knocked down to a 67 or 66 in grade all toned coins would be in the same boat and you'd have to judge those coins against coins with fully original luster based on the appearance of the coin rather than the number the slab.
That said the genie is out of the bottle. This deficiency in grading (my opinion) has gone on for so long that there is no interest (that would include financial interest) in turning back the clock. We have now been forced to redefine the meaning of the words fully original luster to mean coins that are NOT fully original with respect to luster. I understand that but I don't have to agree with it.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Justacommeman said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^
Damn. You just gave fuel to get this bammerjammer of a thread over 500 hundie. Hope you are proud of yourself
m
Not sure if you were referring to me but either way I was just trying to make a point. And I should have realized would turn out to be irrelevant.
The conversationalist has a point regardless if its pointless. No one wins!
At this point I’m in the to each his own camp. And mostly because I’m still 3 pages behind on the Days of raw which by far is more educational and not above my pay grade.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
You really are beginning a troll. Mark makes a valid point about the wording and you just insult us.
I'm beginning to think you are on the spectrum and so it is organic, so I'll tread lightly. But words do have different meanings in different contexts. This refers to both the sentence construction as well as the field of study.
If someone says they have their "original teeth", do you expect a mouthful of baby teeth? Maybe you expect no teeth at all as a baby originally had no teeth, normally. If you accept that they meant original adult teeth, would you infer no color change since they were 2 years old? When you're done here, go excoriate your dentist for his lack of precision.
My car has a skirt. I bet it looks nothing like your wife's skirt. And if she cooks you a skirt steak, you must be really confused.
A fan is nice when it's hot, unless it's a Patriots fan, in which case it's just annoying.
Should we refer to a coin being "struck"? That seems inexact since it is made in a coin press. Shouldn't it be "pressed" or "minted"?
The term "radar note" must drive you crazy. Is an "off- metal" strike a coin struck into the air?
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
Now you are being imprecise. You are conflating grade with price.
The coin in question does not change value if you call it a 67 or 66. It is still an exceptional coin of the type and possibly finest known. So, as the finest it is worth what the market determines. Whether you think the price is excessive is beside the point. Whether you think the numerical grade is excessive is beside the point.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
Again, I believe that “virtually as struck with slight imperfections” clearly refers to technical quality, and has nothing to do with toning. It takes far more of a stretch to conclude that the description pertains to toning than that it doesn’t. And then there’s the confirmation and physical evidence of my view seen in the large number of 68 and higher grade coins with toning.
This will be my last post to this thread. Disagreements are fine and can lead to interesting and informative discussion. But insults thrown at those who disagree, are not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
You really are beginning a troll. Mark makes a valid point about the wording and you just insult us.
I'm beginning to think you are on the spectrum and so it is organic, so I'll tread lightly. But words do have different meanings in different contexts. This refers to both the sentence construction as well as the field of study.
If someone says they have their "original teeth", do you expect a mouthful of baby teeth? Maybe you expect no teeth at all as a baby originally had no teeth, normally. If you accept that they meant original adult teeth, would you infer no color change since they were 2 years old? When you're done here, go excoriate your dentist for his lack of precision.
My car has a skirt. I bet it looks nothing like your wife's skirt. And if she cooks you a skirt steak, you must be really confused.
A fan is nice when it's hot, unless it's a Patriots fan, in which case it's just annoying.
Should we refer to a coin being "struck"? That seems inexact since it is made in a coin press. Shouldn't it be "pressed" or "minted"?
The term "radar note" must drive you crazy. Is an "off- metal" strike a coin struck into the air?
Can you have a whole quarter?
I say verbal gymnastics and you say troll and I'm the one that has crossed a line? Give me a break.
Your analogies regarding teeth and a skirt are ludicrous. With respect to coins as being original the meaning is clear accept to those that have bought into the idea that a dramatic alteration in the physical and visual properties of a coin can occur and it can still be considered "original". You don't cross that irrational bridge by talking about baby teeth and my wife's skirt. Those comments tell me just how irrational your thinking on the issue has become.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
Again, I believe the “virtually as struck” (with slight imperfections) clearly refers to technical quality, and has nothing to do with toning. It takes far more of a stretch to conclude that the description pertains to toning than that it doesn’t. And then there’s the confirmation and physical evidence of my view seen in the large number of 68 and higher grade coins with toning.
"Virtually as struck" is meaningless without the context. It includes, strength of strike, luster, and color. Not all coins "as struck" get the same grade.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
Again, I believe that “virtually as struck with slight imperfections” clearly refers to technical quality, and has nothing to do with toning. It takes far more of a stretch to conclude that the description pertains to toning than that it doesn’t. And then there’s the confirmation and physical evidence of my view seen in the large number of 68 and higher grade coins with toning.
This will be my last post to this thread. Disagreements are fine and can lead to interesting and informative discussion. But insults thrown at those who disagree, are not.
So are you saying luster is not a technical quality of the coin?
As far as insults, none intended and I hope you feel the same way about those that attempted to insult me in this thread.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
You really are beginning a troll. Mark makes a valid point about the wording and you just insult us.
I'm beginning to think you are on the spectrum and so it is organic, so I'll tread lightly. But words do have different meanings in different contexts. This refers to both the sentence construction as well as the field of study.
If someone says they have their "original teeth", do you expect a mouthful of baby teeth? Maybe you expect no teeth at all as a baby originally had no teeth, normally. If you accept that they meant original adult teeth, would you infer no color change since they were 2 years old? When you're done here, go excoriate your dentist for his lack of precision.
My car has a skirt. I bet it looks nothing like your wife's skirt. And if she cooks you a skirt steak, you must be really confused.
A fan is nice when it's hot, unless it's a Patriots fan, in which case it's just annoying.
Should we refer to a coin being "struck"? That seems inexact since it is made in a coin press. Shouldn't it be "pressed" or "minted"?
The term "radar note" must drive you crazy. Is an "off- metal" strike a coin struck into the air?
Can you have a whole quarter?
I say verbal gymnastics and you say troll and I'm the one that has crossed a line? Give me a break.
Your analogies regarding teeth and a skirt are ludicrous. With respect to coins as being original the meaning is clear accept to those that have bought into the idea that a dramatic alteration in the physical and visual properties of a coin can occur and it can still be considered "original". You don't cross that irrational bridge by talking about baby teeth and my wife's skirt. Those comments tell me just how irrational your thinking on the issue has become.
Yes. You're the one who crossed the line. I said you are beginning to become a troll because when I said"what does PCGS know?", which wasn't even directed at you, you chose to tag me and abuse me of "verbal gymnastics" because what? Because I understand PCGS's grading guidelines.
I made a very rational case for the context of meaning. Your counter is nonexistent. You have been exposed.
@Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
Again, I believe the “virtually as struck” (with slight imperfections) clearly refers to technical quality, and has nothing to do with toning. It takes far more of a stretch to conclude that the description pertains to toning than that it doesn’t. And then there’s the confirmation and physical evidence of my view seen in the large number of 68 and higher grade coins with toning.
"Virtually as struck" is meaningless without the context. It includes, strength of strike, luster, and color. Not all coins "as struck" get the same grade.
Wrong. Virtually as struck has a clear meaning accept to those that think that a coin where changes in the physical properties of a coin have occurred which have alter the appearance of the coin should still be considered virtually as struck. That's blue pill talk and I'm not talking about Viagra.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@CoinscratchFever said:
I stand corrected, this thread is educational. Thank God it isn’t on Zoom!
You made my day...LOL
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Justacommeman said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^
Damn. You just gave fuel to get this bammerjammer of a thread over 500 hundie. Hope you are proud of yourself
m
Not sure if you were referring to me but either way I was just trying to make a point. And I should have realized would turn out to be irrelevant.
The conversationalist has a point regardless if its pointless. No one wins!
At this point I’m in the to each his own camp. And mostly because I’m still 3 pages behind on the Days of raw which by far is more educational and not above my pay grade.
Nope. I was referring to the post above me with arrows pointed up and was being factious and sarcastic
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@jmlanzaf said: “ words do have different meanings in different contexts. ”
Yes. This is the point.
Among all dealers/collectors I’ve ever encountered, original means roughly “not messed with”. All older original coins have some degree of toning.
Some toned coins would be considered original, others not. In many cases, even experts are uncertain.
(On the other hand, original does not mean “what the coin looked like milliseconds after being struck when it is in the air about to drop into the hopper.)
@pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
@JBN said: @pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
Thanks. I'd like to separate out two issues, grading from my appreciation for the coin. The coin in the OP is a stunner. The two coins you post above are absolutely amazing. I love toned coins in fact as far as 60, 70, 80 year old plus coins I'm more of a fan of toned coins because in some ways that toning represents the history the coins have endured. I really could care less about the number on the slab, especially in the high grades being discussed.
That said while I really do understand the numismatic nuance to the words fully original luster that nuance has never sat right with me in the 25-30 years I've been involved in coin collect. I know I'm swimming against the tide, spitting into the wind when I have these discussions. I work in the realm of specifications (electronic component manufacturing). When the specifications say XYZ we don't have the liberty to claim they mean ABC. This issue goes as far as the level of oxidation allowed on plating materials. I can't bring myself to claiming a toned coin has fully original luster. Not happening for me no matter how many times it's repeated. My eyes and what I know about the toning process doesn't allow me to go there AND (as mentioned in an earlier post) going there was really unnecessary for the purpose of grading.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@JBN said: @pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
Thanks. I'd like to separate out two issues, grading from my appreciation for the coin. The coin in the OP is a stunner. The two coins you post above are absolutely amazing. I love toned coins in fact as far as 60, 70, 80 year old plus coins I'm more of a fan of toned coins because in some ways that toning represents the history the coins have endured. I really could care less about the number on the slab, especially in the high grades being discussed.
That said while I really do understand the numismatic nuance to the words fully original luster that nuance has never sat right with me in the 25-30 years I've been involved in coin collect. I know I'm swimming against the tide, spitting into the wind when I have these discussions. I work in the realm of specifications (electronic component manufacturing). When the specifications say XYZ we don't have the liberty to claim they mean ABC. This issue goes as far as the level of oxidation allowed on plating materials. I can't bring myself to claiming a toned coin has fully original luster. Not happening for me no matter how many times it's repeated. My eyes and what I know about the toning process doesn't allow me to go there AND (as mentioned in an earlier post) going there was really unnecessary for the purpose of grading.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I have never thought of fully original luster in the sense you are stating.
To me fully original luster has always meant either never dipped or looking like never dipped. Or if toned not toned to the degree where the luster is not booming through the color. I never interpreted it as literally as you have. In that sense it has to look like as struck immediately from the coin presses.
@JBN said: @pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
Thanks. I'd like to separate out two issues, grading from my appreciation for the coin. The coin in the OP is a stunner. The two coins you post above are absolutely amazing. I love toned coins in fact as far as 60, 70, 80 year old plus coins I'm more of a fan of toned coins because in some ways that toning represents the history the coins have endured. I really could care less about the number on the slab, especially in the high grades being discussed.
That said while I really do understand the numismatic nuance to the words fully original luster that nuance has never sat right with me in the 25-30 years I've been involved in coin collect. I know I'm swimming against the tide, spitting into the wind when I have these discussions. I work in the realm of specifications (electronic component manufacturing). When the specifications say XYZ we don't have the liberty to claim they mean ABC. This issue goes as far as the level of oxidation allowed on plating materials. I can't bring myself to claiming a toned coin has fully original luster. Not happening for me no matter how many times it's repeated. My eyes and what I know about the toning process doesn't allow me to go there AND (as mentioned in an earlier post) going there was really unnecessary for the purpose of grading.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I have never thought of fully original luster in the sense you are stating.
To me fully original luster has always meant either never dipped or looking like never dipped. Or if toned not toned to the degree where the luster is not booming through the color. I never interpreted it as literally as you have. In that sense it has to look like as struck immediately from the coin presses.
Including the machine oil...
Unfortunately, this means we have no original declaration of independence... the paper has toned.
@JBN said: @pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
Ask JA why your coins failed. Sometimes it takes more than one submission to get the “right” (I.e. desired) result.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
Some of the people paying the premium can't tell the difference, they simply have a lot of money and a desire to "win" in the Registry. Furthermore, coins get upgraded (or downgraded after a crack-out) all the time, so even the "people who can tell the difference" don't always agree.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
Some of the people paying the premium can't tell the difference, they simply have a lot of money and a desire to "win" in the Registry. Furthermore, coins get upgraded (or downgraded after a crack-out) all the time, so even the "people who can tell the difference" don't always agree.
But it is a 68 CAC. A downgrade is unlikely.
You could also take the numbers out of it. You are either willing to pay a premium for finest known or not. In pre-slab days. The premiums were perhaps not as large, but quality always commands a premium.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
Some of the people paying the premium can't tell the difference, they simply have a lot of money and a desire to "win" in the Registry. Furthermore, coins get upgraded (or downgraded after a crack-out) all the time, so even the "people who can tell the difference" don't always agree.
But it is a 68 CAC. A downgrade is unlikely.
You could also take the numbers out of it. You are either willing to pay a premium for finest known or not. In pre-slab days. The premiums were perhaps not as large, but quality always commands a premium.
So how many times do I have to recount the story of my Texas commem purchased as an NGC 67 CAC, which I cracked, that now sits in a PCGS 65 holder?
In the pre-slab (i.e., pre-Registry) days, the premium for a coin such as in the OP would be a fraction of what it just fetched, I'd wager. No argument that quality coins have always fetched a premium, but the magnitude was of a different order.
But, guys it stickered. Does the coin even really matter anymore? The green bean looks immaculate. We're all going to feel weird when it ends up in a 68+ or 69 holder.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
Telling the difference between a 67 and 68 or 68 and 69 isn't the issue. By definition those differences are miniscule. I don't place that type of emphasis on a dot or contact mark.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
Some of the people paying the premium can't tell the difference, they simply have a lot of money and a desire to "win" in the Registry. Furthermore, coins get upgraded (or downgraded after a crack-out) all the time, so even the "people who can tell the difference" don't always agree.
But it is a 68 CAC. A downgrade is unlikely.
You could also take the numbers out of it. You are either willing to pay a premium for finest known or not. In pre-slab days. The premiums were perhaps not as large, but quality always commands a premium.
So how many times do I have to recount the story of my Texas commem purchased as an NGC 67 CAC, which I cracked, that now sits in a PCGS 65 holder?
In the pre-slab (i.e., pre-Registry) days, the premium for a coin such as in the OP would be a fraction of what it just fetched, I'd wager. No argument that quality coins have always fetched a premium, but the magnitude was of a different order.
"Unlikely" does not mean impossible, as you should know.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
You miss my point. You will never turn $500 into 6 figures if your mindset is also to squirl away $50,000 when your up. That's because when you turn 500 into 5000 you will stop. You wont get to 6 figures. You wont keep doubling it up. I'm not being critical. It's just a fact. And someone who wont pay 10x premium for one grade up on a top pop coin, they will never own a top pop coin because it will never make "sense" to them.
So how many times do I have to recount the story of my Texas commem purchased as an NGC 67 CAC, which I cracked, that now sits in a PCGS 65 holder?
In the pre-slab (i.e., pre-Registry) days, the premium for a coin such as in the OP would be a fraction of what it just fetched, I'd wager. No argument that quality coins have always fetched a premium, but the magnitude was of a different order.
"Unlikely" does not mean impossible, as you should know.
Since there is roughly a 0% chance that the subject coin will ever be cracked from its current holder, you can't be proven wrong........ for a change.
Comments
Perseveration- “continuation of something (such as an activity or thought) usually to an extreme degree or beyond a desired point”
Merriam Webster Dictionary
That's the point I tried to make 300 posts ago. It is more important to understand the CAC and PCGS standards than to try to insist on your own. There's no benefit to it. He feels differently...
I'd also add that the term "original luster" taken literally is useless as a grading standard. Coins don't have the same luster when struck as other coins of the same series. By Dr. Literal's standard, a coin that had off the chart original luster is down to a 65 if there is light unobtrusive toning while a coin accidentally struck with a flat, lusterless surface would be a 68 as long a it is untoned.
Zero, none, nada. It's a beautiful coin. No fudging of the grading standards is required to judge that it is a wonderful specimen. But for some the point difference in the number on the slap label means the coin is worth 16x what the coins in the next lower grade are worth.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^
Damn. You just gave fuel to get this bammerjammer of a thread over 500 hundie. Hope you are proud of yourself
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
A little modification of your statement. If nearly everyone that has bothered comment in this thread interprets the words....
Believe me, I understand the nuance you and others have applied to the words "fully original luster". But I'm not one to go along to get along. I'm not going to fudge the words "fully original luster" to fit in with the crowd.
I've never been one to get too excited about a coin because the number on the slab says 68 instead of 67 or 69 instead of 68. By definition the differences between these coins is miniscule. I've never played in the arena where a 10x or 20x premium is paid based on a one point difference in grade at these lofty MS heights.
In reality I don't think it was necessary to change the literal meaning of the words "fully original luster" to account for the toning of a coin. If any coin with toning was knocked down to a 67 or 66 in grade all toned coins would be in the same boat and you'd have to judge those coins against coins with fully original luster based on the appearance of the coin rather than the number the slab.
That said the genie is out of the bottle. This deficiency in grading (my opinion) has gone on for so long that there is no interest (that would include financial interest) in turning back the clock. We have now been forced to redefine the meaning of the words fully original luster to mean coins that are NOT fully original with respect to luster. I understand that but I don't have to agree with it.
Not sure if you were referring to me but either way I was just trying to make a point. And I should have realized would turn out to be irrelevant.
The conversationalist has a point regardless if its pointless. No one wins!
At this point I’m in the to each his own camp. And mostly because I’m still 3 pages behind on the Days of raw which by far is more educational and not above my pay grade.
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
What do they know?
I believe the coin to be solid for 68.
Understood but that depends on which version of the standards you're referring to. On their website the requirement is referenced as "Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed." Virtually as struck would not include toning. The allowance for toning would also be a departure from the ANA standard "fully original luster". The ANA was involved in grading coins decades before PCGS came into the picture.
Again, I realize my viewpoint is the minority viewpoint and isn't going to change the situation.
“Virtually as struck” appearing before the words “with slight imperfections” appears to refer to the technical quality of the coin. And that would have nothing to do with toning.
When discussing PCGS standards and grading, references to written ANA standards and how long the ANA has been grading coins is, to borrow a word from you “twisting” the subject at hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Singular not minority. Precision is important.
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
With all due respect, you'd take 2nd place behind jmlanzaf in the "verbal gymnastic" category. Seriously, I really do understand where you're coming from but come on, virtually as struck can mean a coin with significant toning???
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You really are beginning a troll. Mark makes a valid point about the wording and you just insult us.
I'm beginning to think you are on the spectrum and so it is organic, so I'll tread lightly. But words do have different meanings in different contexts. This refers to both the sentence construction as well as the field of study.
If someone says they have their "original teeth", do you expect a mouthful of baby teeth? Maybe you expect no teeth at all as a baby originally had no teeth, normally. If you accept that they meant original adult teeth, would you infer no color change since they were 2 years old? When you're done here, go excoriate your dentist for his lack of precision.
My car has a skirt. I bet it looks nothing like your wife's skirt. And if she cooks you a skirt steak, you must be really confused.
A fan is nice when it's hot, unless it's a Patriots fan, in which case it's just annoying.
Should we refer to a coin being "struck"? That seems inexact since it is made in a coin press. Shouldn't it be "pressed" or "minted"?
The term "radar note" must drive you crazy. Is an "off- metal" strike a coin struck into the air?
Can you have a whole quarter?
Now you are being imprecise. You are conflating grade with price.
The coin in question does not change value if you call it a 67 or 66. It is still an exceptional coin of the type and possibly finest known. So, as the finest it is worth what the market determines. Whether you think the price is excessive is beside the point. Whether you think the numerical grade is excessive is beside the point.
Again, I believe that “virtually as struck with slight imperfections” clearly refers to technical quality, and has nothing to do with toning. It takes far more of a stretch to conclude that the description pertains to toning than that it doesn’t. And then there’s the confirmation and physical evidence of my view seen in the large number of 68 and higher grade coins with toning.
This will be my last post to this thread. Disagreements are fine and can lead to interesting and informative discussion. But insults thrown at those who disagree, are not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I say verbal gymnastics and you say troll and I'm the one that has crossed a line? Give me a break.
Your analogies regarding teeth and a skirt are ludicrous. With respect to coins as being original the meaning is clear accept to those that have bought into the idea that a dramatic alteration in the physical and visual properties of a coin can occur and it can still be considered "original". You don't cross that irrational bridge by talking about baby teeth and my wife's skirt. Those comments tell me just how irrational your thinking on the issue has become.
"Virtually as struck" is meaningless without the context. It includes, strength of strike, luster, and color. Not all coins "as struck" get the same grade.
So are you saying luster is not a technical quality of the coin?
As far as insults, none intended and I hope you feel the same way about those that attempted to insult me in this thread.
Yes. You're the one who crossed the line. I said you are beginning to become a troll because when I said"what does PCGS know?", which wasn't even directed at you, you chose to tag me and abuse me of "verbal gymnastics" because what? Because I understand PCGS's grading guidelines.
I made a very rational case for the context of meaning. Your counter is nonexistent. You have been exposed.
This thread has created a mental health crisis.
Wrong. Virtually as struck has a clear meaning accept to those that think that a coin where changes in the physical properties of a coin have occurred which have alter the appearance of the coin should still be considered virtually as struck. That's blue pill talk and I'm not talking about Viagra.
I stand corrected, this thread is educational. Thank God it isn’t on Zoom!
You made my day...LOL
That's a Daytona. Superbird refers to a Roadrunner edition with the wing and 'X' body.
Nope. I was referring to the post above me with arrows pointed up and was being factious and sarcastic
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Thanks for sharing the knowledge. I obviously don't know what it is but I know I want it! ...pretty much like how I chase coins
@jmlanzaf said: “ words do have different meanings in different contexts. ”
Yes. This is the point.
Among all dealers/collectors I’ve ever encountered, original means roughly “not messed with”. All older original coins have some degree of toning.
Some toned coins would be considered original, others not. In many cases, even experts are uncertain.
(On the other hand, original does not mean “what the coin looked like milliseconds after being struck when it is in the air about to drop into the hopper.)
@pmh1nic
Kudos for the discussion.
I applaud your focus on technical aspects of the half dollar.
That said:
Luster and eye appeal are more 'weighted' today versus technical.
The subject half dollar must damn near glow in the dark/luster of coin probably bumped grade up.
The TrueView seemed to lessen the impact of noise above the motto and on the sun, improving its technical aspects.
I haven't seen the half dollar in hand.
Some in my collection are older 68s (ex. Jack Lee). I like the eye appeal, especially the 40. I believe that mine are better technically than the 1946. However, they are not as marketable as the 1946. CAC did not approve either of my half dollars, so there is that market evaluation as well. We all must abide the market.
@JBN the toning on the upper obverse rim of your 1940 is reminiscent of the subject 1946 coin. IMHO.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Thanks. I'd like to separate out two issues, grading from my appreciation for the coin. The coin in the OP is a stunner. The two coins you post above are absolutely amazing. I love toned coins in fact as far as 60, 70, 80 year old plus coins I'm more of a fan of toned coins because in some ways that toning represents the history the coins have endured. I really could care less about the number on the slab, especially in the high grades being discussed.
That said while I really do understand the numismatic nuance to the words fully original luster that nuance has never sat right with me in the 25-30 years I've been involved in coin collect. I know I'm swimming against the tide, spitting into the wind when I have these discussions. I work in the realm of specifications (electronic component manufacturing). When the specifications say XYZ we don't have the liberty to claim they mean ABC. This issue goes as far as the level of oxidation allowed on plating materials. I can't bring myself to claiming a toned coin has fully original luster. Not happening for me no matter how many times it's repeated. My eyes and what I know about the toning process doesn't allow me to go there AND (as mentioned in an earlier post) going there was really unnecessary for the purpose of grading.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
what's luster again?
I have never thought of fully original luster in the sense you are stating.
To me fully original luster has always meant either never dipped or looking like never dipped. Or if toned not toned to the degree where the luster is not booming through the color. I never interpreted it as literally as you have. In that sense it has to look like as struck immediately from the coin presses.
Including the machine oil...
Unfortunately, this means we have no original declaration of independence... the paper has toned.
Ask JA why your coins failed. Sometimes it takes more than one submission to get the “right” (I.e. desired) result.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
How many posts is that now?
Some of the people paying the premium can't tell the difference, they simply have a lot of money and a desire to "win" in the Registry. Furthermore, coins get upgraded (or downgraded after a crack-out) all the time, so even the "people who can tell the difference" don't always agree.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
But it is a 68 CAC. A downgrade is unlikely.
You could also take the numbers out of it. You are either willing to pay a premium for finest known or not. In pre-slab days. The premiums were perhaps not as large, but quality always commands a premium.
If we'd ask just agree with him, this would end. [And the coin market would never be the same. ]
So how many times do I have to recount the story of my Texas commem purchased as an NGC 67 CAC, which I cracked, that now sits in a PCGS 65 holder?
In the pre-slab (i.e., pre-Registry) days, the premium for a coin such as in the OP would be a fraction of what it just fetched, I'd wager. No argument that quality coins have always fetched a premium, but the magnitude was of a different order.
But, guys it stickered. Does the coin even really matter anymore? The green bean looks immaculate. We're all going to feel weird when it ends up in a 68+ or 69 holder.
Telling the difference between a 67 and 68 or 68 and 69 isn't the issue. By definition those differences are miniscule. I don't place that type of emphasis on a dot or contact mark.
If we'd ask just agree with him, this would end. [And the coin market would never be the same. ]> @CoinJunkie said:
"Unlikely" does not mean impossible, as you should know.
You miss my point. You will never turn $500 into 6 figures if your mindset is also to squirl away $50,000 when your up. That's because when you turn 500 into 5000 you will stop. You wont get to 6 figures. You wont keep doubling it up. I'm not being critical. It's just a fact. And someone who wont pay 10x premium for one grade up on a top pop coin, they will never own a top pop coin because it will never make "sense" to them.
Since there is roughly a 0% chance that the subject coin will ever be cracked from its current holder, you can't be proven wrong........ for a change.
EDIT: And one more thing: 500!!!!!!!