Another 1926 Peace Dollar

[wdrob]

I was wondering if these bag marks in the obverse prime focal area would be considered "a major distracting mark" or not?

 

I know as you look at the pictures that are presented here, which are zoomed and cropped mind you, they look very distracting (as they do to me as well), however, in hand they are hardly as noticeable and nowhere near as prominent.

 

I tried to take one picture from a normal (no zoom or crop and to the actual size that one would be seeing in hand) prospective however I still must have missed it because it is still showing way more than it does in hand.

 

I am inclined to think that this would sadly become a VF max however the criteria for a 65 is the point of my interest at this time and how one (a grader) would interpret the 65 criteria. Do they mean "without major distracting marks in prime focal area" to be in hand or under magnification?

 

 

 

 

 

Now the reverse .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

There. Now maybe folks can focus on the question at hand.

 

[MarkFeld]

 

I was wondering if these bag marks in the obverse prime focal area would be considered "a major distracting mark" or not?

 

I know as you look at the pictures that are presented here, which are zoomed and cropped mind you, they look very distracting (as they do to me as well), however, in hand they are hardly as noticeable and nowhere near as prominent.

 

I tried to take one picture from a normal (no zoom or crop and to the actual size that one would be seeing in hand) prospective however I still must have missed it because it is still showing way more than it does in hand.

 

I am inclined to think that this would sadly become a 63 or 64 max. The criteria for a 65 is the point of my interest at this time and how one (a grader) would interpret the 65 criteria. Do they mean "without major distracting marks in prime focal area" to be in hand or under magnification?

 

 

 

 

To me, the marks are, indeed, a major distraction. And my guess is that the coin is AU. The images aren't crisp, and I'm not at all certain, but I see what looks to be light wear on each side.

[wdrob]

Ok. Well that is not going anywhere.

 

Thanks Mark.

 

Oh btw; My question still stands about whether they apply that distracting marks to in hand or under magnification?

 

 

[Coindude]

I agree that those are major distractions. Even if it were to be UNC it would be limited to 62, at best.

[wdrob]

Yeah that is good and all. It can be an XF, I am not concerned with that, I was asking .....Well here I will ask once more just by copying and pasting......

 

"The criteria for a 65 is the point of my interest at this time and how one (a grader) would interpret the 65 criteria. Do they mean "without major distracting marks in prime focal area" to be in hand or under magnification?"

 

That was more important to me to have answered. That is the criteria, word for word, from the ANA Grading Standards. I was hoping to get a clearer understanding of what that guideline was intending.

 

Thanks.

[Walkerfan]

Looks like a dipped AU. I don't like the marks on the face, either.

[MarkFeld]

Yeah that is good and all. It can be an XF, I am not concerned with that, I was asking .....Well here I will ask once more just by copying and pasting......

 

"The criteria for a 65 is the point of my interest at this time and how one (a grader) would interpret the 65 criteria. Do they mean "without major distracting marks in prime focal area" to be in hand or under magnification?"

 

That was more important to me to have answered. That is the criteria, word for word, from the ANA Grading Standards. I was hoping to get a clearer understanding of what that guideline was intending.

 

Thanks.

 

Unless the ANA grading guide mentioned the use of magnification, I believe that the standards would apply to in-hand examination without the aid of magnification.

 

I don't consider "in-hand" and "under magnification" to be either/or situations. To me, "in hand" means literally, in hand, as opposed to "sight-unseen". And, as such, "in-hand" could be with or without magnification.

 

 

[wdrob]

Thank you Mark for addressing my question.

 

No it does not say "under magnification" for that part of the criteria but it does in other areas. Example:

 

It say's for a MS66 and MS67 it says " Hairlines: None visible without magnification" so that right there would lead me to believe that they consider when a grader first looks at a coin, they don't just toss a 5x loupe up to initially examine the coin. From what I have seen they actually look at the overall coin without magnification first to examine luster, "major distracting marks", and general overall eye appeal.

 

Then I believe they go to the magnification to look closer at any flaws that they might have seen as well as looking for other flaws they did not see.

 

You were a grader. Is that how you did it? Or did you base everything off of what you saw under magnification?

 

And as far as grades.... MS63 states "May have distracting marks in prime focal area and/or secondary areas". So I know that a coin with a mark such as that can make 63 and that luster would play a major role at the point ....but I am getting away from my original intent that you are addressing now. I am fine calling that coin a G4 ... I don't care about the grade. Just asking about the grading process.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Nothing between AU53 and MS62 would surprise me. The images are simply not clear enough for me to be comfortable with limiting the range down any further. I am leaning dipped AU for what it is worth.

[MarkFeld]

Thank you Mark for addressing my question.

 

No it does not say "under magnification" for that part of the criteria but it does in other areas. Example:

 

It say's for a MS66 and MS67 it says " Hairlines: None visible without magnification" so that right there would lead me to believe that they consider when a grader first looks at a coin, they don't just toss a 5x loupe up to initially examine the coin. From what I have seen they actually look at the overall coin without magnification first to examine luster, "major distracting marks", and general overall eye appeal.

 

Then I believe they go to the magnification to look closer at any flaws that they might have seen as well as looking for other flaws they did not see.

 

You were a grader. Is that how you did it? Or did you base everything off of what you saw under magnification?

 

And as far as grades.... MS63 states "May have distracting marks in prime focal area and/or secondary areas". So I know that a coin with a mark such as that can make 63 and that luster would play a major role at the point ....but I am getting away from my original intent that you are addressing now. I am fine calling that coin a G4 ... I don't care about the grade. Just asking about the grading process.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

When I was a grader, my first look at coins was without magnification. And in many cases, I did not use magnification, later, either.

 

I feel it is important to look at a coin without magnification, initially. To get an overall feel for the entire coin, the big picture, perspective. If you start out with a loupe, you might focus too much on the little things - micro grade - and not see (as the expression goes) the forest for the trees.

 

And when I taught the advanced grading class at the ANA Summer seminar on two occasions, I stressed that to the students. I encouraged them not to automatically pick up a loupe when they first started to examine coins. It was a hard habit to break for some of them, but I was quite persistent.

 

I think written grading standards can be extremely useful for circulated coins. But that they are largely impractical for grading uncirculated and Proof coins. That is because in may cases, the language used is understandably unclear, imprecise and ambiguous. The best way to learn to grade - and admittedly, it is a luxury which isn't often feasible - is to find a mentor who has the knowledge and willingness to sit with you on a face to face basis, review coins with you and teach you. The ANA grading classes might be the next best thing.

[wdrob]

Well Mark you are a very good instructor, teacher, mentor, etc.... You do a good job of explaining things and that answered my question to a 'T'.

 

Thanks for the patience and time.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Well Mark you are a very good instructor, teacher, mentor, etc.... You do a good job of explaining things and that answered my question to a 'T'.

 

Thanks for the patience and time.

 

 

Thank you very much. I enjoy it.

[jerseycat10]

62-63.