Gradingly Weakly Struck Circulated Coins

[coinman_23885]

A recent thread inspired a number of questions for me. What role does strike play in grading circulated coins (in terms of both technical and market grade)? I found myself to be unduly punitive after examining a coin in another thread, and I would like to know what the general consensus is.

[coinman1794]

The grading services try to distinguish between weak strike and wear in AU and XF grades, and base thier grades on luster and the amount of wear, instead of detail. Below XF, wear starts to cover more and more of the surface, concealing what is weak strike and what is wear. It becomes gradually harder to tell the two appart as a coin wear down, and a coin that looks worn might just be flatly struck. Thus, the more wear, the bigger the unintentional impact of weak strike on a circulated coin's grade.

[skippy]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

[MarkFeld]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

 

I don't think eye appeal should affect grades for circulated coins. Wear? Yes. Luster, yes. Eye appeal? No.

[FishyOne]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

 

I don't think eye appeal should affect grades for circulated coins. Wear? Yes. Luster, yes. Eye appeal? No.

 

It seems as if eye appeal affects the market grade for some circulated coins. At least that's what I thought.

[coinman_23885]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

 

I don't think eye appeal should affect grades for circulated coins. Wear? Yes. Luster, yes. Eye appeal? No.

 

It seems as if eye appeal affects the market grade for some circulated coins. At least that's what I thought.

 

I see the third party grading services doing it a lot too; I find this confusing. I can see where it wouldn't affect the technical grade, but I thought there would be a difference in the value of the coin and thus the "market" grade. This thread has proven to be as interesting as I had hoped that it would be.

[$ilverHawk]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

 

I don't think eye appeal should affect grades for circulated coins. Wear? Yes. Luster, yes. Eye appeal? No.

 

It seems as if eye appeal affects the market grade for some circulated coins. At least that's what I thought.

 

It is my experience that the TPG s aren't that much affected by eye appeal in assigning grades for circulated coins. There are far too many examples to list. But, we collectors are. Hence the higher prices paid for eye appealing coins that are simply nicer to look at than their pedestrian cousins bearing the same numerical grade.

 

Carl

 

[JOBESSI]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

[$ilverHawk]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

That is exactly the argument I am making. The TPG s aren't that influenced in the assignment of a grade by the eye appeal of a coin. We as collectors are. Collectors will sometimes pay multiples of the going grade price of a circulated or mint state coin if it has eye appeal.

 

The TPG s market grade and that most often does not take into account the attractiveness of the coin. A recent example would be the Capped Bust Half Dollar that Ankur J bought at auction. The price paid for that AU coin was higher than the market price for a MS63-64 of the same year/type.

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

[coinman_23885]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

 

I fully agree with you in that it shouldn't affect the technical grade. With this said, I am still a bit confused. If market grading is effectively a third party grading service's way of pricing coins relative to grade, then why wouldn't the market grade, as defined by the TPG, differ? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding market grading? If the TPGs add points for toning and subtract for spotting on uncirculated coins, why would circulated coins be any different (at least for extreme cases)?

 

Also, for the record, I hate and disagree with market grading; however, the reality is that I must accept it in today's buying market when pricing items. This is all the more reason why I would like to resolve my remaining questions.

[okbustchaser]

At least in the series that I participate in market grading (other than AUs that often get bumped up to MS status) doesn't seem IMO to happen nearly as much with circulated coins as with uncirculated. That doesn't mean that eye appeal doesn't create a premium when selling--just that the premium isn't reflected in the numerical grade.

 

Quite often, technical grade (especially in earlier series) has very little to do with remaining detail on one side of the coin and everything to do with the other. This still results in market grading--especially if it is the obverse that shows the weak strike.

 

For example---not even the most optimistic grader would call this coin XF based on the obverse (looking only at detail it's at best a weak VF--most would call it F)

 

However, when one considers the reverse along with remaining luster in protected areas it's much easier to see that it is an XF coin.

 

 

In the interest of historical accuracy, however, I must admit that the seller's grade for the coin when I bought it was completely irrelevant. It's a cherried 12/1 large 8.

[MarkFeld]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

 

I fully agree with you in that it shouldn't affect the technical grade. With this said, I am still a bit confused. If market grading is effectively a third party grading service's way of pricing coins relative to grade, then why wouldn't the market grade, as defined by the TPG, differ? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding market grading? If the TPGs add points for toning and subtract for spotting on uncirculated coins, why would circulated coins be any different (at least for extreme cases)?

 

Also, for the record, I hate and disagree with market grading; however, the reality is that I must accept it in today's buying market when pricing items. This is all the more reason why I would like to resolve my remaining questions.

 

I think it's easier for grading companies to get away with "market grading" for uncirculated and Proof coins than it is for circulated coins. And part of the reason is that it is generally easier to grade the latter.

[JOBESSI]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

 

Correct, I was speaking of uncirculated coins that have that radiant shimmering rainbow toning

[coinman1794]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

 

I fully agree with you in that it shouldn't affect the technical grade. With this said, I am still a bit confused. If market grading is effectively a third party grading service's way of pricing coins relative to grade, then why wouldn't the market grade, as defined by the TPG, differ? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding market grading? If the TPGs add points for toning and subtract for spotting on uncirculated coins, why would circulated coins be any different (at least for extreme cases)?

 

Also, for the record, I hate and disagree with market grading; however, the reality is that I must accept it in today's buying market when pricing items. This is all the more reason why I would like to resolve my remaining questions.

 

I think it's easier for grading companies to get away with "market grading" for uncirculated and Proof coins than it is for circulated coins. And part of the reason is that it is generally easier to grade the latter.

 

I agree that it should not be done, and that it is easier to do with Mint State coins, but I do see rainbow toned AU coins on occasion that graded several points too high, most likely because of their color.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Eye appeal does play a role. Otherwise, we wouldn't see ppl paying 100's of $'s more on a common date slabbed coin that has colorful toning.

 

The fact that some buyers will pay more for colorful toning/eye appeal, does not necessarily mean that eye appeal plays a role in the grade of those coins. And in the general example that you gave above, it sounds as if you are speaking of uncirculated coins, not circulated ones.

 

Correct, I was speaking of uncirculated coins that have that radiant shimmering rainbow toning

 

So, here is the problem I have.

 

The logic of Market Grading escapes me.

 

Most ( not all, but most) collectors, when asked the question concerning, or asked to comment on, collecting for investment, will adamantly advise that it is a Hobby first, and hold collecting to a higher standard, and not for the purpose of hrmffff... investing. Most Dealers also hold this opinion as the response to the question.

 

Is Market Grading a business model, and only for the purpose of investment? If not, and it is a hobby/collecting model, then how does one argue that technical grading is not the logical choice when evaluating the merits of a coin?

 

If Market Grading is a business model, then how does it trump technical grading, and why would a collector/hobbyist want a coin market graded instead of technical graded?

 

While I certainly understand that technical grading is a substantial part of TPG evaluation, the technical grading is subject to market pressure, sometimes, if not usually, caused by the TPG action - intended or not intended.

 

Is technical grading subjective?

Is market grading subjective?

Is color subjective?

 

 

[Kurtdog]

Weak strike should not affect technical grade (but can be noted for completeness). But since it affects eye appeal, it can affect market grade a lot.

Exactly. That's all there is to it.