no individually mentionable abrasions

[MikeKing]

when they say:

no individually mentionable abrasions

 

do they mean that there are abrasions, but we're just not going to mention them?

 

 

[RGT]

It means that there are so many abrasions that none really stand out from the others.

[Coindude]

It means you should look elsewhere.

[TomB]

The preson who used the Brillo pad was verrrrrrrrrrrrry careful so as to produce uniform abrasions on the surface of the coin.

[bsshog40]

It means that there are so many abrasions that none really stand out from the others.

(thumbs u

[coinman1794]

This is a concise way of stating that a coin doesn't have any individual, grade limiting marks. It may however, have a handful of tiny marks that aren't distracting and don't hurt by themselves, but taken as a whole, do affect the coins final grade.

 

I would rather have someone point out that there are no obvious marks than get an MS65 coin with a hit on the face and no description.

[RI AL]

As long as we're discussing favorite numismatic phrases, one of my favorite and frequently encountered terms is "a trace of". Particularly notorious for this is the ANA grading book (which I do like, however and find handy as a general guide). Virtually any coin grading from XF - AU 58 can, and frequently is, described as having "a trace" of wear on the highpoints....and of course anything 60 or above has "no trace".

 

Heck, "a trace" is as nebulous as a pinch, a wee bit, a dash, just a smidgen, a teency weency little bit and so on. This is my main gripe with the ANA grading book. There are one heck of a lot of "just a traces" in there. Is it a big trace, a barely noticeable trace, an obvious trace, a microscopic trace, a significant trace, a clearly observable trace..?

 

Then we can get into "a trace of original luster", which presents the same problem.

How much is a trace? I have also seen "a hint" of mint luster...which is every bit as useful as "a trace". .

 

There may not be a way to be verbally more specific, but I am anxiously awaiting the new grading book (due out shortly I believe) to see how it will handle grade descriptions. At least, I hope they use some different terms to describe "a trace". Such terms probably won't be any more specific, but it would be nice to see some other descriptors once in a while.

 

By golly, I do believe that I have a trace of dinner on my shirt....or is that a bit, a smidgen...or a hint...or a big stain!?

 

Have a good evening, all. RI AL, just a hint of a trace of ranting...but all in fun, I think.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

when they say:

no individually mentionable abrasions

 

do they mean that there are abrasions, but we're just not going to mention them?

 

Hey, are we picking on some of my favorite quotes from the Scotsman catalog ??

 

But seriously, the short answer to your question is: Yes. The mitigating factor is that almost every coin that grades less than MS-70 must have at least one abrasion, so it would make for an absurdly tedious catalog if every single abrasion on a coin was deemed "mentionable". One hopes that the cataloger's experience leads him to a sensible assessment of what abrasions are significant enough to warrant "mention".

 

The statement means that regardless of the number of abrasions on the coin, none stand out as being particularly egregious, at least in the cataloger's opinion. However, it does not deny the possibility that a cluster of abrasions might be distracting, even though each tiny abrasions in said cluster is inoffensive independent of the others.

 

There are infinite variations of the phrase, of course.

 

By the way, one hopes that the cataloger is conscientious enough to make note when a coin does feature an abrasion (or more than one) of unusually large size, compared to what is expected of the grade and the size of the coin.

 

Edited to add: if you pick anything I've written to critique, I have no problem at all with that. I am glad to learn from the feedback and suggestions of others.

[AegisIII]

when they say:

no individually mentionable abrasions

 

do they mean that there are abrasions, but we're just not going to mention them?

 

 

It means that the entire surface is covered by abrasions which criss-cross and intersect such that one cannot be isolated and mentioned by itself.

[physics-fan3.14]

I suppose I'll play the contrarian optimist, and say that no individually mentionable abrasions means nothing significant. That is, nothing worth mentioning.