What is the highest grade a coin with a finger print should have?
Bustman
Posts: 1,911 ✭
I've seen finger prints on coins graded as high as MS68. I dusted off some of the old grading guides, and none suggest a limit on the highest allowable grade with a finger print. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
My Auctions
Russ, NCNE
Hmmmm
Tom
Doesn't is make you feel strange to see the grade MS100?
<< <i>MS100FP - I was serious.
Doesn't is make you feel strange to see the grade MS100? >>
STOP IT. You're scaring me.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The only time I might tolerate a partial print or a couple lines would be on an old original looking Bust half that are tough to find that haven't been abused. Of course the dealers will usually say the print is not "Obtrusive" but, well you know the rest.
I see prints on common date toned Morgans, and on expensive classics as well. Some of the "astute" collectors don't mind mottled prints.
Myself, I just haven't become "astute" yet I guess, I'll take a couple more marks ticks etc. before some mottled mess of a coin with prints.
overall toning of a coin. Such a coin could grade 67. At ther other extreme
would be a destinct and detracting print, which would cause a grade of less then 65.
Camelot
siliconvalleycoins.com
IMO, a fingerprint on a heavily toned coin is not as distracting as a dead center colorful print on an otherwise pristine white coin. In addition, a fingerprint on the reverse of a coin is much less annoying than on the obverse. It also depends on the clarity, color and size of the print.
It is truly amazing to me how some collectors express disgust at the though of a fingerprint, yet a bagmark on Liberty's lip is peachy keen!
A bagmark or "minor scratch" is a gash or indentation cutting below the surface, resulting in the displacement of metal. A fingerprint is the result of a human being holding a coin with his oily fingers. Goodness gracious! How horrible! Someone actually holding a coin 100 years ago and leaving a print. How shortsighted of him. He should have used plastic gloves. Give me a break.
Nobody likes to see fingerprints, but a print on the reverse or well-hidden on the obverse is perfectly acceptable up to MS-64 or maybe even MS-65, in my humble opinion.
<< <i>Text >>
As an earlier thread outlined, it is common for finger prints to show up after encapsulation as part of the inevitable toning process that capsules slow but don't stop. Finger prints are transfers of moisture, oils, salts and some acids that will etch their presence into the coin's surface sooner or later.
The point is PCGS probably downgrades if they see a print on a coin and most of us would not sub a printed coin unless it was attractive or important inspite of the print.
So now, most coins with prints wind up on eBay and some, oh unspeakable horror, some such moderns benefit from cracking and careful dipping ("conservation") to improve their appearance and marketability either raw or re-holdered. The tragedy is an ugly print on a nicely toned modern..... Just my opinion. Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Third Edition (page 29)
Fifth edition (page 34)
"Fingermarks - MS63 and below"
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
My personal opinion is a gem or superb gem with a fingerprint should be MS64. I could see MS65 if it was a tiny fractional print near the rim, far from any area of focus.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
If fingerprints preclude a gem mint state grade, then a coin with scratches, nicks and cuts visible to the unaided eye should be considered damaged and ungradable.
Why is a fingerprint worse than environmental oxidation? Just because the acidic reaction originated from a human finger as opposed to a cardboard album?
Where am I wrong here?
Some of you feel it shouldn't even achieve mint state status? So let me get this straight; if you saw a pcgs certified MS-63 1893-s Morgan dollar or MS-64 1901-s Barber quarter with a reverse fingerprint, you wouldn't pay full price for it? HUH?
I just couldn't get past the print, especially since the jump from 65 to 66 was for significant $$
I would max that one out at 65
Should the location, size and color matter?
A witty saying proves nothing- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
<< <i>I believe it depends. Over time, some prints are well hidden in the
overall toning of a coin. Such a coin could grade 67. At ther other extreme
would be a destinct and detracting print, which would cause a grade of less then 65. >>
Well said---
I have certainly seen numerous MS67 and MS68 coins with (at least partial) prints. That aside, my subjective opinion is that those who answered less than MS67 are being too tough, and that those who answered less than MS65 are being way too tough. Here's why:
If a coin is otherwise perfect, I see no reason that a print (depending upon its size, location, appearance, etc.) should automatically count as a grading deduction of more than 3 points. Think about ticks, abrasions, bag-marks, slide-marks, hairlines, stains, spots and numerous other types of imperfections, many of which result in deductions of just one point on the grading scale. In a number of cases, prints aren't any worse than some of the flaws just mentioned, or if so, certainly not 3 times worse or more.
I see many coins which I believe are properly graded, but which, for a variety of reasons I don't like, so I pass on them. Perhaps a hit or flaw is in the wrong place and too distracting, maybe the color is original, but not to my liking, etc. Coins with prints often fall into that category.
Next time you see a coin and think it's over-graded, ask yourself if it's really over-graded, or if instead, there is simply something which bothers you (more than others would be bothered) and you are being too tough on it.
I agree that an automatic 3 point deduction would be a bit harsh. I think I posted this thread because I remember reading somwhere that a coin should not be graded any higher than 64 if it had a finger print, which I don't agree with. Just as we assess the severity of a hit, a planchet mark, luster, etc.... a print should be judged on an individual basis. A tiny, barely visible print in the devices should not receive the same consideration or point deduction as a Fred Gwynne size thumb print across Miss Liberties face. However, I would never buy an MS68 coin with a print. I'd probably draw the line at MS66.
Many will proudly state that they will NEVER buy a cleaned coin, and they love the "crusty" coins.
Yet they claim a finger-printed coin is completely undesireable to them. They won't look at it, and you might as well throw it away as far as they're concerned.
As for the question at hand, (how to grade them), I think it's alot like toning: Some toning is distracting, and might lower to grade....some is neutral....and some enhances the grade. Finger prints are similar....except that I can't imagine a case where the grade is enhanced.