Grading: wear and scratches on coins

[nutshell]

It seems to me that grading coins has more to do with wear than minor scratches. I have an ANDA pdf on grading that describes grades as how much detail has worn off with just a mention of "detracting marks" which I take to mean fine or minor scratches. A website discussing grading refers to contact marks which I expect to also be fine or minor scratches.

I have a 1944 shilling and a 1945 florin purchased out of rolls at a coin fair that have good luster but no obvious wear when viewed through my optivisor, however, they do have very fine surface scratches. I also have a few 1966 rounds purchased from Melbourne Mint when I first became interested in bullion and coins. These were held out as VF to UNC and their condition is about the same as my shilling and florin.

So just how important are minor scratching on coins compared to wear?

 

[mmissinglink]

With a reputable grader or TPG, all noticeable or visible imperfections are considered whether nicks, rub wear, significant tarnish, etc.




.

 

[mmissinglink]

No, that was the point I made ....

Not always the case. Have a close look at Australian Sovereigns for example. MS grades will have scratches and uneven toning marks. They still get the high grades.

If you want to make a specific point, you need to provide specific references such as URL's to actual slabbed coins.

Besides, the graders don't always get it right.


My understanding is ALL visible imperfections like scratches and wear negatively affect the grade.





.

 

[mmissinglink]

You are woefully wrong Bulk and talking nonsense. There's no such thing as a coin that is visibly scratched and marked up but otherwise is flawless that will grade 70. You are smoking heroine if you believe otherwise. Visible (meaning with the naked eye) scratches and marks affect the grade adversely if the grader is doing a good job. That doesn't mean that just because a coin has scratches that it won't get graded in the 60's, rather that the coin would almost certainly grade higher did it not have the scratches (everything else being equal)


Get educated, son: https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

You'll notice there are no asterisks claiming that visible scratches and marks do not factor into grading.



.

 

[bja]

If it has wear it will not grade 60 or above.
If it has hairlines it will get a details grade.
If it has minor marks from manufacture but no wear it will get a MS grade.
Simples...

 

[Ipv6Ready]

If it has wear it will not grade 60 or above.
If it has hairlines it will get a details grade.
If it has minor marks from manufacture but no wear it will get a MS grade.
Simples...

Isn't this going around in circles lol.
As a novice, what is wear?

Can a coin be mint with hairline?
Is hairline a scratch, can it be a hairline nick, or is hairline different to a scratch or a nick?
Can a coin be perfect with wear?

Now to me wear isn't one tiny hairline scratch, would it more precisely mean you put your coin in you pocket with other coins and go for a couple of km jog?

 

[mmissinglink]

Missinglink, I never stated "70".

I did say MS61 and above, but not specifally MS70.

I also mention Australian Sovereigns as my example.

Have you looked at these yet ? ( not NGC, but PCGS )

You clearly didn't NOT say 70 which means you implied or insinuated that a coin with scratches can grade a 70. You need to start comprehending what you've written because you come across as someone with a serious problem.


You just don't like to admit when you are wrong....and you are definitely wrong.


That you mentioned Aust Sover is irrelevant especially since you provided not even a single link, son. The fact that a thousand Joe Shmoes are claiming that the coins they have for sale and to which they are attachng some personal, subjective grade to (coins which have visible scratches and blotchy toning) are in MS61-70 condition simply means that there may be a thousand people who don't know how to properly grade a coin or that there are a thousand people who want to make a sucker out of anyone who falls for their wildly exaggerated grade.

You asked about grading....that's exactly what I answered about. I stated, "With a reputable grader or TPG, all noticeable or visible imperfections are considered whether nicks, rub wear, significant tarnish, etc." to which you responded, "Not always the case. Have a close look at Australian Sovereigns for example. MS grades will have scratches and uneven toning marks. They still get the high grades."

You are wrong, as I already pointed out and provided NGC's grading guidelines.



.

 

[serial]

Missinglink, are you looking for an argument or something, I read this thread and saw an obvious misunderstanding that bulkcoin has attempted to remedy and you come out spewing insults and trying to act superior.
Sovereigns can have bag marks, friction marks from canvas bags and some gold coins can even have file marks where the coin was reduced to weight requirements post strike and still be graded as uncirculated.
Being gold the grading companies give them more leeway for damage during the minting/distribution process as they are gold and are thus softer and more vulnerable to imperfections.
Grading gold coins in general is an art form in itself and a good understanding of the particular issue you are grading is important as minting techniques, metal composition and origin environmental conditions can affect the way you need to assess the coin.
So attempting to carte Blanche attack someone for saying sovereigns grades are not hugely affected by marks and uneven toning is not only ignorant but makes you come across as someone who has a huge problem.

 

[nutshell]

I see this is a very subjective (was objective) topic. I recon that grading down through, say 5 owners would be like that party game where something is whispered in the ear of one person after the other and more than likely it will be different at the other end.

I suppose, for now, I'll just compare anything else I may acquire to those 66 rounds I have which were graded VF to UNC by Melbourne Mint. They will be either better, the same or worse than.......... at the top of the heap and 70's will look like the two (silver and gold) proofs I have.

Edit: Changed in above 1st sentence from objective to subjective. I got my jectives mixed up... hope nobody objects to the change

 

[mmissinglink]

Missinglink, are you looking for an argument or something, I read this thread and saw an obvious misunderstanding that bulkcoin has attempted to remedy and you come out spewing insults and trying to act superior.
Sovereigns can have bag marks, friction marks from canvas bags and some gold coins can even have file marks where the coin was reduced to weight requirements post strike and still be graded as uncirculated.
Being gold the grading companies give them more leeway for damage during the minting/distribution process as they are gold and are thus softer and more vulnerable to imperfections.
Grading gold coins in general is an art form in itself and a good understanding of the particular issue you are grading is important as minting techniques, metal composition and origin environmental conditions can affect the way you need to assess the coin.
So attempting to carte Blanche attack someone for saying sovereigns grades are not hugely affected by marks and uneven toning is not only ignorant but makes you come across as someone who has a huge problem.

Please stop spewing your one-sided, subjective, hypocritical nonsense.

The day that you condemn others every time they hurl insults at me in threads is the day that you have the right to be critical of me insulting someone else. Until you do that, your ludicrous double standards are simply a joke.


As for your ridiculous claims, you have predictably not provided a single valid argument to refute my points. I won't hold my breath seeing that your best attempt was laughable.



.

 

[nutshell]

Before this descends into a flame war to rival emacs vs vi why don't you guys cool down..........

 

[nicwinner]

if you walk in to a coin show with a raw coin and ask every dealer to grade.. they probably come with different answer. and yes, coin grading is a really subjective thing especially when tell a coin whether it is an EF or aUNC, VF+ or EF, UNC or gem...
the only obvious grade is a Proof coin and a BU one, that no one can argue a Proof is not a BU, vice versa.

general speaking PCGS and NGC are one of the two leading grading companies so most ppl recognise & initially accept their scores despite of there are still many disagreeance among some collectors. many of these collectors often break slabbed PVC case because of their disagreement on the coin-grading. However, one thing that cannot be argued, is if a coin slabbed by PCGS or NGC often scored higher price than if the coin was only grade by personals. Also majority of coin auction houses are using PCGS and NGS's grade as a standard recognisation for coins' conditions.

and one experience i have, with what i learnt from the MS64 1912 Melbourne Sovereign granted by NGC, is that if you have "stream" on your coin you will most likely get a MS score. a stream will look like this: (maybe someone call it hairline?)

of course the rest of details on the coin gotta "reasonably" good, but if your coin say grade MS61, because it has an obvious stream line it could reach MS62. anyway, these are my personal opinion and subject to personal experience

 

[serial]

Missinglink, are you looking for an argument or something, I read this thread and saw an obvious misunderstanding that bulkcoin has attempted to remedy and you come out spewing insults and trying to act superior.
Sovereigns can have bag marks, friction marks from canvas bags and some gold coins can even have file marks where the coin was reduced to weight requirements post strike and still be graded as uncirculated.
Being gold the grading companies give them more leeway for damage during the minting/distribution process as they are gold and are thus softer and more vulnerable to imperfections.
Grading gold coins in general is an art form in itself and a good understanding of the particular issue you are grading is important as minting techniques, metal composition and origin environmental conditions can affect the way you need to assess the coin.
So attempting to carte Blanche attack someone for saying sovereigns grades are not hugely affected by marks and uneven toning is not only ignorant but makes you come across as someone who has a huge problem.

Please stop spewing your one-sided, subjective, hypocritical nonsense.

The day that you condemn others every time they hurl insults at me in threads is the day that you have the right to be critical of me insulting someone else. Until you do that, your ludicrous double standards are simply a joke.


As for your ridiculous claims, you have predictably not provided a single valid argument to refute my points. I won't hold my breath seeing that your best attempt was laughable.



.

Having reviewed your post history it seems obvious that the problem here is your lack of experience with anything other than the Chinese version of granny bait. Chinese medal are not numismatic items, collectable they may be, but they are simply medals produced for people who like shine works of art and being produced for that market are expected to be of a high quality. Old Coins are different in that they are mostly produced in order to enable trade and thus their conservation at time of minting generally plays 2nd fiddle to their utility use as mediums of exchange and thus can suffer significant damage before circulating.
Now most coin collectors understand that so I can now understand you ignorance on the subject and would suggest you either kindly FCK of to your Modern Chinese Coins & Medallions section of this forum or start showing others a little more respect in this section especially given your lack of real numismatic expertise. This is not me saying that some of the Chinese medals produced are not works of art, the are, just that they are no different to the many medals pumped out by the likes of the Franklin mint, great to look at, expensive to purchase when issued but now worth melt or less most the time

 

[Nehoc]

Side-stepping the other discussions, I would strongly suggest watching PCGS's series on coin grading which is available on youtube! It's an extremely informative and slick 20-part series. There is one particular video on scratches and other damage designations. The whole thing boils down to severity of the scratch, how much metal movement there has been and if its distracting. A small ding or bag mark is acceptable while a large gouge/scratch from dropping the coin or being scraped by a staple is not.

By the way nicwinner, that looks to be a "die crack" in the date which is exactly what it sounds like, a small crack in the die which imprints itself as a line on the coin when struck.

One last thing, the manufacturing process will affect the final grade. Strike weakness for example is one of the key considerations for high grade (>MS64 for example). A coin with impeccable surfaces will be held back if it has a weak strike, the PCGS video series explains all of this in very good detail. Other flaws like Planchet issues can play an even larger role in the final designation so all things are considered when the coin is graded. The exception here are things like adjustment marks, those are scratches on the coin which were intentionally made to adjust weight (as pointed out by Serial), these are not considered damage.

 

[SULLA]

I believe that "dings and knocks = bag marks" have less impact on a coin than actual signs of circulation.

Hold a coin at around 10-20 degree angle (on obverse) and view through a magnifying lense.

You will clearly see if it has been in circulation as the surface will show signs of rubbing/furbishing.

 

[Nehoc]

I don't really collect aussie coins but I do know what you're talking about, there's a similar situation with the New Orleans mint and their coinage . I don't view either as controversial, the importance of strike isn't limited to the Sheldon grading system. If you were offered a well struck up coin (raw) versus the same coin (raw) but weakly struck you would always tend towards the better struck piece and therefore it's not unreasonable for that to be factored in for the purpose of "sight unseen" grading. Looking at auction houses in Australia they usually state if a coin is particularly well struck as part of the description.

I would also say that because most of a particular type is weakly struck then strike is of greater importance as well struck coins would be scarcer and therefore more desirable.

As far as "marks" on an UNC coin go, the two are not mutually exclusive so I don't see the controversy there. The same logic applies, most high grade Morgan dollars and almost all US gold are bag marked but never circulated. They were made in the mint, put into big sacks and thrown into cars/trains for transport. The result is an uncirculated coin with bag marks, if you happen to find one without the bag marks the premiums go up. This also varies from type to type, is knowing the series is essential when buying.

The key here is that there is no "one" thing to look for, all factors should be considered and just looking at the "mark-free-ness" of the surface is not enough when grading coins and that this isn't a new concept or one unique to the US system.

 

[RichardAL]

Those pcgs videos are a great resource and ought to be viewed.

It seems that the most critical aspect is wear, which is attributed to the coin having been in circulation. Having said that wear comes in different forms, but is distinct in character from imperfections that come about from the production process. As has been pointed out earlier, differing coins exhibit differing wear patterns, enabling a valid distinction between marks arising from circulated and uncirculated coins in any given variety. The function of the grader is to categorise accurately accordingly.

Also a weak strike is not the same as wear through circulation. In other words, lack of the anticipated finer detail can be attributed to either wear or a weak strike. A weakly struck mint state or uncirculated coin does not present the same characteristics as a well struck but circulated example. As pcgs notes, when wear is present the issue of strike takes a second seat.

For me personally the closest analogy is to the relief of minerals when viewed in thin section. Relief is actually a diagnostic factor for many similar looking minerals: as an example you can tell calcite from any number of feldspars simply through the fact that the calcite sample changes its relief when viewed at different (orthogonal) angles.

Mineralogical relief is similar to the strike of a coin. It can't be faked and it is diagnostic for mint state or uncirculated coins.

Granted any dints, marks, scuffing, hairline scratches or whatever need to be taken into account and will usually downgrade the coin under consideration - that I think is how varying grades in the uncirculated realm are justified. It is still subjective, with some preference given to a lack of marking within the focal area of the coin (for example the nose, eye, cheek region on an obverse).

Grading is more science than art. There is established, quantifiable agreement on the qualities associated with each grade for each coin variety.

 

[mmissinglink]

Missinglink, are you looking for an argument or something, I read this thread and saw an obvious misunderstanding that bulkcoin has attempted to remedy and you come out spewing insults and trying to act superior.
Sovereigns can have bag marks, friction marks from canvas bags and some gold coins can even have file marks where the coin was reduced to weight requirements post strike and still be graded as uncirculated.
Being gold the grading companies give them more leeway for damage during the minting/distribution process as they are gold and are thus softer and more vulnerable to imperfections.
Grading gold coins in general is an art form in itself and a good understanding of the particular issue you are grading is important as minting techniques, metal composition and origin environmental conditions can affect the way you need to assess the coin.
So attempting to carte Blanche attack someone for saying sovereigns grades are not hugely affected by marks and uneven toning is not only ignorant but makes you come across as someone who has a huge problem.

Please stop spewing your one-sided, subjective, hypocritical nonsense.

The day that you condemn others every time they hurl insults at me in threads is the day that you have the right to be critical of me insulting someone else. Until you do that, your ludicrous double standards are simply a joke.


As for your ridiculous claims, you have predictably not provided a single valid argument to refute my points. I won't hold my breath seeing that your best attempt was laughable.



.

Having reviewed your post history it seems obvious that the problem here is your lack of experience with anything other than the Chinese version of granny bait. Chinese medal are not numismatic items, collectable they may be, but they are simply medals produced for people who like shine works of art and being produced for that market are expected to be of a high quality. Old Coins are different in that they are mostly produced in order to enable trade and thus their conservation at time of minting generally plays 2nd fiddle to their utility use as mediums of exchange and thus can suffer significant damage before circulating.
Now most coin collectors understand that so I can now understand you ignorance on the subject and would suggest you either kindly FCK of to your Modern Chinese Coins & Medallions section of this forum or start showing others a little more respect in this section especially given your lack of real numismatic expertise. This is not me saying that some of the Chinese medals produced are not works of art, the are, just that they are no different to the many medals pumped out by the likes of the Franklin mint, great to look at, expensive to purchase when issued but now worth melt or less most the time

Clearly you are delusional and have very serious anger issues. You need professional medical help for that.


You make all sorts of spurious claims but never do you back any of them with a shred of good evidence or a cogent argument....that's your deficit alone. Your nutty ad hominem attacks show me that you are either incapable of discussing the issues raised or you don't want to have a discussion because you are so comfortable with spewing inflammatory rhetoric rather than discussing the issues.

You have still yet to contest my comments on grading here in this thread but I won't hold my breath seeing that you have a complete detachment from anything that resembles corroborating your ludicrous claims with facts.


I think it's time for you to go back to your padded cell now and put away your colorful alphabet blocks. :lol:



.

 

[serial]

Please stop spewing your one-sided, subjective, hypocritical nonsense.

The day that you condemn others every time they hurl insults at me in threads is the day that you have the right to be critical of me insulting someone else. Until you do that, your ludicrous double standards are simply a joke.


As for your ridiculous claims, you have predictably not provided a single valid argument to refute my points. I won't hold my breath seeing that your best attempt was laughable.



.

Having reviewed your post history it seems obvious that the problem here is your lack of experience with anything other than the Chinese version of granny bait. Chinese medal are not numismatic items, collectable they may be, but they are simply medals produced for people who like shine works of art and being produced for that market are expected to be of a high quality. Old Coins are different in that they are mostly produced in order to enable trade and thus their conservation at time of minting generally plays 2nd fiddle to their utility use as mediums of exchange and thus can suffer significant damage before circulating.
Now most coin collectors understand that so I can now understand you ignorance on the subject and would suggest you either kindly FCK of to your Modern Chinese Coins & Medallions section of this forum or start showing others a little more respect in this section especially given your lack of real numismatic expertise. This is not me saying that some of the Chinese medals produced are not works of art, the are, just that they are no different to the many medals pumped out by the likes of the Franklin mint, great to look at, expensive to purchase when issued but now worth melt or less most the time

Clearly you are delusional and have very serious anger issues. You need professional medical help for that.


You make all sorts of spurious claims but never do you back any of them with a shred of good evidence or a cogent argument....that's your deficit alone. Your nutty ad hominem attacks show me that you are either incapable of discussing the issues raised or you don't want to have a discussion because you are so comfortable with spewing inflammatory rhetoric rather than discussing the issues.

You have still yet to contest my comments on grading here in this thread but I won't hold my breath seeing that you have a complete detachment from anything that resembles corroborating your ludicrous claims with facts.


I think it's time for you to go back to your padded cell now and put away your colorful alphabet blocks. :lol:



.

again a personal attack without adding any substance to the thread
why don't you go back to spamming links to new granny bait issues, numismatic articles or your latest overpriced Chinese produced medal and leave this thread to the real collectors

 

[RichardAL]

Missinglink, are you looking for an argument or something, I read this thread and saw an obvious misunderstanding that bulkcoin has attempted to remedy and you come out spewing insults and trying to act superior.

in a nutshell