Options
Proof / Genuine grade technical questions.
COALPORTER
Posts: 2,900 ✭✭
Why whould PCGS grade a coin less than PR60 BUT NOT put it in a "Genuine" holder?
See, my question is somewhat technical, because anything less than PR60 is considered
impared, so how can an impared (less then PR60) coin NOT just be ruled genuine? In other words, how
can you have a "good- for- the-grade" but less than PR60?
So, in more other words, what would be the diff between, say a, PR58 and a genuine PROOF?
See, my question is somewhat technical, because anything less than PR60 is considered
impared, so how can an impared (less then PR60) coin NOT just be ruled genuine? In other words, how
can you have a "good- for- the-grade" but less than PR60?
So, in more other words, what would be the diff between, say a, PR58 and a genuine PROOF?
0
Comments
<< <i>Impaired proofs are not problem proofs they are circulated >>
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Proof is a method of manufacture. Even if the coin was cleaned, it's still a proof. >>
Correct, but when would you call it PR50 and when would you call it Genuine??
(to me, anything less the 60 transulates to Genuine anyway.)
<< <i>anything less than PR60 is considered impaired >>
I think I've seen that stated but I don't agree with it, who defined it that way?
Look at something like 1856 FE cents, lots of the proofs are circulated and I wouldn't call them problem/genuine coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>Proof is a method of manufacture. Even if the coin was cleaned, it's still a proof. >>
Correct, but when would you call it PR50 and when would you call it Genuine??
(to me, anything less the 60 transulates to Genuine anyway.) >>
PCGS along with most of the numismatic community disagree with you.
A circulated coin is not a problem coin in and of itself- doesn't matter if it was intended for circulation or not.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>Thought I would add an impaired Proof
Man, that coin looks like its carved out of white marble. And I mean that to mean a good/cool thing.
<< <i>Why whould PCGS grade a coin less than PR60 BUT NOT put it in a "Genuine" holder?
See, my question is somewhat technical, because anything less than PR60 is considered
impared, so how can an impared (less then PR60) coin NOT just be ruled genuine? In other words, how
can you have a "good- for- the-grade" but less than PR60?
So, in more other words, what would be the diff between, say a, PR58 and a genuine PROOF? >>
certainly a good question,
on many issues in life these things are decided by a group of people supposedly deemed worthy/knowledgeable enough to make the choice for the masses, but there will be many to disagree with the general consensus.
if the point is to deem if circulated proofs are in a condition not as intended then they should not qualify for grading/encapsulation, then there is no really right or wrong answer as this has been decided by a particular company or companies to be acceptable. That does not make them right nor wrong as to deem it right or wrong would required an extensive study of collectables and many issues would need addressed. Dipping, toning, patina, plugged, holed, file marks (not discussing cleaning PLS) etc. and these have been discussed and addressed by said companies and within 97.5% or so they follow these guidelines giving us a set of parameters to abide by if we desire their services. If a person/persons disagree then said argument should be addressed to said companies.
You help me to have an interesting thought. Since there are 2 main grading scales, one for business and one for proof, that leads to possibly having one for patterns and possibly some others.
circulated coins from business strikes have their own designations, vf,xf etc and non-ciruclated business strikes have their own designations
maybe proofs should have a separated scale of designations as well, along with patters, matte etc etc, where to draw the line on technicality?
obviously newer issues fall into several new categories of designations, why not include older issues?
Well we can see that since humans design these things, or feebly attempt to, there will most assuredly always be inconsistencies and the capitalistic drive to do what should be right and/or financially beneficial.
Always remember that people start companies every day some are better some are worse and if we don't accept the status quo for a set of parameters from said company/companies, our forefathers and many others sacraficed everything in the name of freedom and capitalism which allows for anyone willing to start a new company to set forth a set of standards/products/services to offer for the masses opportunities to fill a void
well i don't have an opinion on the subject so thusly i shall not offer one
.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why whould PCGS grade a coin less than PR60 BUT NOT put it in a "Genuine" holder?
See, my question is somewhat technical, because anything less than PR60 is considered
impared, so how can an impared (less then PR60) coin NOT just be ruled genuine? In other words, how
can you have a "good- for- the-grade" but less than PR60?
So, in more other words, what would be the diff between, say a, PR58 and a genuine PROOF? >>
certainly a good question,
on many issues in life these things are decided by a group of people supposedly deemed worthy/knowledgeable enough to make the choice for the masses, but there will be many to disagree with the general consensus.
if the point is to deem if circulated proofs are in a condition not as intended then they should not qualify for grading/encapsulation, then there is no really right or wrong answer as this has been decided by a particular company or companies to be acceptable. That does not make them right nor wrong as to deem it right or wrong would required an extensive study of collectables and many issues would need addressed. Dipping, toning, patina, plugged, holed, file marks (not discussing cleaning PLS) etc. and these have been discussed and addressed by said companies and within 97.5% or so they follow these guidelines giving us a set of parameters to abide by if we desire their services. If a person/persons disagree then said argument should be addressed to said companies.
You help me to have an interesting thought. Since there are 2 main grading scales, one for business and one for proof, that leads to possibly having one for patterns and possibly some others.
circulated coins from business strikes have their own designations, vf,xf etc and non-ciruclated business strikes have their own designations
maybe proofs should have a separated scale of designations as well, along with patters, matte etc etc, where to draw the line on technicality?
obviously newer issues fall into several new categories of designations, why not include older issues?
Well we can see that since humans design these things, or feebly attempt to, there will most assuredly always be inconsistencies and the capitalistic drive to do what should be right and/or financially beneficial.
Always remember that people start companies every day some are better some are worse and if we don't accept the status quo for a set of parameters from said company/companies, our forefathers and many others sacraficed everything in the name of freedom and capitalism which allows for anyone willing to start a new company to set forth a set of standards/products/services to offer for the masses opportunities to fill a void
well i don't have an opinion on the subject so thusly i shall not offer one
. >>
Your over thinking it and running around in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off.
There are not 2 different scales for different finishes. The same rules apply to all(-ish) coins no matter their intended role/finish or rarity save for hairlines on mirrors vs cartwheel fields. wear is wear and unacceptable stuff is unacceptable stuff for all coins and even if you can find a few exceptions the core rules apply firm.
<< <i> Your over thinking it and running around in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off. >>
...funny, I had been picturing a large black dog whirling around chasing its tail