Detracting abrasions

[MikeKing]

Quote (auction description):

 

detracting abrasions conspicuous by their absence

 

what does this really mean?

 

That the ones that are there are so few that the few that are there, appear really obvious?

 

The ones that are there can be ignored because so many are NOT there?

 

The huge gash in the middle of the field means nothing because there are minimal abrasions otherwise?

 

That there are NO detracting abrasions at all? So what IS detracting, does this mean that there are abrasions, but the author feels they are not "distracting"?

 

So what do they mean??

 

 

WHA????

[TomB]

Depending on the context, it could mean someone was writing above their head.

[jgrinz]

It could mean someone was writing above their head.

 

I think the person meant say "distracting abrasions"

 

but your commentary was interesting too

 

[bsshog40]

I'm confused!!

[cpm9ball]

It could mean someone was writing above their head.

 

I think the person meant say "distracting abrasions"

 

but your commentary was interesting too

 

No, the seller probably meant "detracting" because he wants to sell the coin for MS65 money when, in reality, it will only grade AU58.

 

Chris

[jgrinz]

It could mean someone was writing above their head.

 

I think the person meant say "distracting abrasions"

 

but your commentary was interesting too

 

No, the seller probably meant "detracting" because he wants to sell the coin for MS65 money when, in reality, it will only grade AU58.

 

Chris

 

Ahhh the infamous coinage in "retro-grade" I have heard about those

[MarkFeld]

My best guess is that the writer intended to convey that there is a conspicuous absence of distracting abrasions and simply worded it poorly.

[lehigh96]

My best guess is that the writer intended to convey that there is a conspicuous absence of distracting abrasions and simply worded it poorly.

 

I agree with that assessment and it may be related to a particular coin that does not often appear on the market without abrasions. Hence the absence of abrasions would be conspicuous.

[WoodenJefferson]

detracting abrasions, conspicuous by their absence

 

 

conspicuous

1: obvious to the eye or mind

2: attracting attention

 

Detracting (negative points) abrasions (scuffs, marks, dings, dents) conspicuous (obvious) absence (gone, none, not here)

 

So, basically they were attempting to say:

 

~Negative scuffs obviously not here.~

 

 

Writing above and beyond your known vocabulary will often times befuddle the author. They know exactly what they mean, still see it that way after it’s written, it’s just they can’t convey their thoughts in words so others can comprehend just what they meant to say…now I’m confused.

 

A simple comma breaks the thought chain into segments…now you have to pause think about the words you just read, and then continue onto the next words, ponder those etc. etc. etc

[MikeInFL]

"detracting abrasions conspicuous by their absence"

 

It says to me that the issue normally comes with detracting abrasions, and the coin in question doesn't have any/many.

 

For instance, Morgan Dollars and Eisenhower Dollars both are generally found with hits in the prime focal areas, and a coin without any hits in these areas might be described as above.

 

All IMHO...Mike

[James_OldeTowne]

If used to describe a coin, it would be an artful way of implying that a specific type is normally expected to appear with many abrasions, but the example in question is so lacking in them that it is a notable ("conspicuous") exception. I have heard similar expressions used many times in prose. For example, "the general was conspicuous by his absence from the scene of the battle".

[IGWT]

I'm pretty sure he meant "abstracting derisions," not "detracting abrasions." Jackson Pollock stinks!

[Observer44]

I think it was probably a translation from Chinese to English. John