Professional coin graders?

[MarkFeld]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

 

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

 

That's what he meant. Bag marks are acceptable to a point, and shouldn't impact the grade, but a staple scratch is going to be considered damage regardless of when it happened. The key word is "scratch" if the coin was struck through a staple that's another story entirely.

By "post-production" flaws, I mean ones that occur after the coin has been produced/struck. And bag marks absolutely affect the grade.

[Coindude]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

How can they tell, Mark?

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

That's what he meant. Bag marks are acceptable to a point, and shouldn't impact the grade, but a staple scratch is going to be considered damage regardless of when it happened. The key word is "scratch" if the coin was struck through a staple that's another story entirely.

By "post-production" flaws, I mean ones that occur after the coin has been produced/struck. And bag marks absolutely affect the grade.

I would definitely have to agree that bagmarks should and do have an affect on grade, plus I wanted to help shorten up the quote!

[jom]

It is NOT a scratch. The alloy has been sucked up into the die crack when struck, it's raised. I have seen one other 13-S struck with the same clashing and yes this same die crack on the coin and it was graded ms-67.

 

If you say it is raised then it is. Just from the photo it looks like a scratch. I think it's because the shadow it makes on the top part of it. You just can't tell from the photo....

 

The eBay coin looks similar but it is not large enough to really see much of anything....

 

jom

[Walkerfan]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

How can they tell, Mark?

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

That's what he meant. Bag marks are acceptable to a point, and shouldn't impact the grade, but a staple scratch is going to be considered damage regardless of when it happened. The key word is "scratch" if the coin was struck through a staple that's another story entirely.

By "post-production" flaws, I mean ones that occur after the coin has been produced/struck. And bag marks absolutely affect the grade.

I would definitely have to agree that bagmarks should and do have an affect on grade, plus I wanted to help shorten up the quote!

 

Yes, bag marks definitely affect the grade (Morgan dollars readily come to mind) but a staple scratch may keep a coin from receiving a grade and it may end up in a details holder.

[coinman_23885]

It is NOT a scratch. The alloy has been sucked up into the die crack when struck, it's raised. I have seen one other 13-S struck with the same clashing and yes this same die crack on the coin and it was graded ms-67.

 

If you say it is raised then it is. Just from the photo it looks like a scratch. I think it's because the shadow it makes on the top part of it. You just can't tell from the photo....

 

The eBay coin looks similar but it is not large enough to really see much of anything....

 

jom

 

I agree with Jom. Also, at MS67, I would still find a die crack that severe distracting regardless. With this said, I do like your coin.

[Walkerfan]

It is NOT a scratch. The alloy has been sucked up into the die crack when struck, it's raised. I have seen one other 13-S struck with the same clashing and yes this same die crack on the coin and it was graded ms-67.

 

If you say it is raised then it is. Just from the photo it looks like a scratch. I think it's because the shadow it makes on the top part of it. You just can't tell from the photo....

 

The eBay coin looks similar but it is not large enough to really see much of anything....

 

jom

 

I agree with Jom. Also, at MS67, I would still find a die crack that severe distracting regardless. With this said, I do like your coin.

 

I don't mind the die crack on that MS 67 and I like Joe's coin alot, assuming that line it is caused by the same die affliction

[jom]

I agree with Jom. Also, at MS67, I would still find a die crack that severe distracting regardless. With this said, I do like your coin.

 

I actually haven't read through this too carefully so I actually don't know what Joe's coin grades at. Whether it is 66 or 67 I don't know but I think in either case I find that mark distracting....but you know...in a photo it could look REALLY bad but in hand you may not even notice. Sometimes the luster drowns it out. However, since most of the time Buffs don't get a 67 grade I'd guess this probably prevents it.

 

I have a 36-D that depending in what direction you set the lighting I can make a mark appear and disappear at will. When you see it in a photo it is distracting but in hand...not so much.

 

 

Guess which mark I'm referring to?

 

jom

[Buffalo Head]

It is NOT a scratch. The alloy has been sucked up into the die crack when struck, it's raised. I have seen one other 13-S struck with the same clashing and yes this same die crack on the coin and it was graded ms-67.

 

If you say it is raised then it is. Just from the photo it looks like a scratch. I think it's because the shadow it makes on the top part of it. You just can't tell from the photo....

 

The eBay coin looks similar but it is not large enough to really see much of anything....

 

jom

 

I agree with Jom. Also, at MS67, I would still find a die crack that severe distracting regardless. With this said, I do like your coin.

 

The die crack does not bother me in the least, in fact I think it gives this coin more character. And I'm talking about my 13-S, not Joms ugly 36-D....

[L1ncolnF4n]

Mark, I didn't mean to say that bagmarks don't affect the grade, only that they shouldn't (in an ideal world) as that isn't a factor in level of preservation, given storage in mint bags.

[Walkerfan]

Mark, I didn't mean to say that bagmarks don't affect the grade, only that they shouldn't (in an ideal world) as that isn't a factor in level of preservation, given storage in mint bags.

 

Right, it should affect grade but NOT gradeablility.

[Hard Times]

I agree with Jom. Also, at MS67, I would still find a die crack that severe distracting regardless. With this said, I do like your coin.

 

I actually haven't read through this too carefully so I actually don't know what Joe's coin grades at. Whether it is 66 or 67 I don't know but I think in either case I find that mark distracting....but you know...in a photo it could look REALLY bad but in hand you may not even notice. Sometimes the luster drowns it out. However, since most of the time Buffs don't get a 67 grade I'd guess this probably prevents it.

 

I have a 36-D that depending in what direction you set the lighting I can make a mark appear and disappear at will. When you see it in a photo it is distracting but in hand...not so much.

 

 

Guess which mark I'm referring to?

 

jom

 

I am thinking the one right across the pony tail, at least to me it is obvious as night and day.

 

I think the ebay photos are clear enough to say with no doubts that the two 1913-S buffs being discussed here are the same die and that the line east of the nose in the field and appearing again on it were there on the die whatever they be. But that scratch in your pony tail jom is not looking like part of the die........ JMHO

[jom]

But that scratch in your pony tail jom is not looking like part of the die........ JMHO

 

You are correct it is scratch. My point was that a photo can often fool you into thinking it looks a certain way. On Joe's coin it looks like a scratch even though it isn't. On mine it also looks like a scratch and it IS...which should be somewhat obvious because it is located in a device and most die scratches are in the fields. Which, BTW, is why I thought Joe's coin was scratched as it leads into the nose.

 

However, I know for a fact I can photograph my coin a certain way and you wouldn't see it at all. I also know that in hand the scratch isn't that noticeable. It's a subtle point in coin photography vs. reality that often gets overlooked....

 

jom

[Buffalo Head]

But that scratch in your pony tail jom is not looking like part of the die........ JMHO

 

You are correct it is scratch. My point was that a photo can often fool you into thinking it looks a certain way. On Joe's coin it looks like a scratch even though it isn't. On mine it also looks like a scratch and it IS...which should be somewhat obvious because it is located in a device and most die scratches are in the fields. Which, BTW, is why I thought Joe's coin was scratched as it leads into the nose.

 

However, I know for a fact I can photograph my coin a certain way and you wouldn't see it at all. I also know that in hand the scratch isn't that noticeable. It's a subtle point in coin photography vs. reality that often gets overlooked....

 

jom

 

I agree 100% with that statement. I know for a fact if I were to locate my lights going with the grain of the scratch "as not to cast a shadow" It will almost hide the scratch so to speak. This is a trick used by dishonest sellers on e-bay mostly. That's way if I find one that is honest I put him/her on my favorites list, which is a short one....