FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM...... PART 3

[Hard Times]

To recap, I did 10 free submissions to CAC recently and am going through them one by one here to discuss the outcomes. I presented to you 2 seated dimes so far, a 77-CC 64, and a 57-O 64, the former did not pass, and the latter received a green CAC sticker.

 

I also submitted two seated half dimes and six seated quarters. I present first the seated quarters, and start here in no specific order.

 

Up for your consideration for a CAC sticker is an 1876-CC quarter. I found this at a show a few years back and it immediately caught my eye in a case full of drab grey seated coins. As you can see in the image, it has deep blue-violet toning. It is graded MS62, but the luster is very flashy under the light - no limitations for luster. The surfaces are clean - there is a dimple just to the right of Miss Liberty's left leg in the field, which I interpret to be a planchet flaw or strike through. There is a gouge in Miss Liberty's chest, made a long time ago pre-toning, that limits the grade.

 

You may note that the obverse strike is not stellar. This die variety is always seen with weak strike from rusting dies according to Briggs. This is a rare die variety that can be easily attributed because of the repunched date and the wide left 'C' beyond the feathers in the arrow in the mintmark. I have done a thorough survey on auction house websites and around 5% of all 1876-CC quarters are this die variety. This is the plate coin for this variety in Briggs' book.

 

To me, this is an absolutely gorgeous example, and despite the unattractive nick in the chest, and the typical weak strike for the die variety. I think it is oustdanding and deserving of a green bean. Again, a nick like this should be permissable on a 62, or should it not?

 

How did CAC view this one? Was it bean worthy? Tell my why or why not.

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

This is the toughest one that you have posted so far. I cannot see JA liking that toning so I'm gonna go no bean - but it's a close call.

[jpcienkus]

I agree with TDN. This is the toughest so far. To me, it's the grade of MS62. Is it really an AU, but because of the toning received the MS grade? (The question is only part of my thought process when considering the bean) I can't really see a rub on the obverse, but there's a mark on her head and left knee that might be a rub. There is a spot between her head and the cap/stick that keeps drawing my attention too.

 

I will say no bean.

[Hard Times]

Good points, the luster rotates through fully under the light, which TPG's generally consider that to be MS, and I have seen MS coins with even more apparent rub (i.e. market grading which is technically an AU coin). The obverse die was really in bad shape which this coin was struck. I bet that makes it very hard to grade it, so what looks like rub could be rub, or possibly could be a function of how it struck up (?).

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

In either case, two tough calls so far. Keep 'em coming.

 

Best, HT

[physics-fan3.14]

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors.

 

I vote no bean on this one - the mastectomy rules it out. While the reverse is particularly attractive, the gaping chest wound makes this a borderline problem coin. The dark toning on the obverse also probably rules it out. Although I think it is original, it is a bit too dark for my tastes.

[messydesk]

I'm going pile on the bandwagon and go with no bean for reasons stated above, plus the appearance of rub on Liberty's right arm.

[MarkFeld]

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

 

 

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

 

 

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

 

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "A system of grading which only takes into account that which has happened to a coin after the minting process (i.e. the state of preservation). Technical graders often ignore strike and eye-appeal." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

[Tyler N.]

I'm going against popular opinion, but I think this one CAC'd. Like you said in your description, the detracting marks (Liberty's breast) are permissible for a 62.

 

I think I'll probably say this for all of your CAC posts, but very nice coin.

[Walkerfan]

I don't care for this one as much, although it is a DECENT coin---not sure what CAC will say, as I have seen them sticker coins like this before but, if it were me-----I'd vote no.

[KeyMan64]

I'll say no on this one.

[FishyOne]

"Not CAC" is my vote here. The obverse strike looks sub-par and the color is iffy in my eyes. And yes, CAC does market grade and would be saying that's an $800 coin by green beaning it. Not that I don't like the coin, I just don't see it as a solid 62 or an $800 piece.

[MarkFeld]

"Not CAC" is my vote here. The obverse strike looks sub-par and the color is iffy in my eyes. And yes, CAC does market grade and would be saying that's an $800 coin by green beaning it. Not that I don't like the coin, I just don't see it as a solid 62 or an $800 piece.

 

If the coin didn't sticker, it wasn't due to its strike. The strike is perfectly acceptable for a 62 or even higher grades.

 

My main concern about the coin is the apparent shiny/flat areas on Liberty's legs.

[Hard Times]

Mark and Fishy,

I mentioned that this particular die variety always has a very poor obverse strike because the die was heavily rusted and that would include all device features poorly struck including flatness on the legs (See Briggs book). Do TPG's, CAC take into account such particulars to die varieties, or will this count against? In such a case, this die variety will never make it to mid-range MS grades.

 

Best, HT

[PLM]

I am guessing Mark's concern is whether it is truly BU or not but if it is I can not see any reason it would not bean. OP said the luster is good, the toning looks pleasing to me and the hit on Liberty's breast is certainly not enough to keep a 62 from beaning. I have a 1897 Morgan MS64* that has a bad hit on the cheek and it beaned. It is in my date set if anyone wants to see it.

I think it will bean.

[MarkFeld]

I am guessing Mark's concern is whether it is truly BU or not but if it is I can not see any reason it would not bean. OP said the luster is good, the toning looks pleasing to me and the hit on Liberty's breast is certainly not enough to keep a 62 from beaning. I have a 1897 Morgan MS64* that has a bad hit on the cheek and it beaned. It is in my date set if anyone wants to see it.

I think it will bean.

 

That is my concern and I don't feel that I can make the determination from the images.

[coinman_23885]

 

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

 

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

 

 

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

 

You beat me to the punch.

[FishyOne]

Mark and Fishy,

I mentioned that this particular die variety always has a very poor obverse strike because the die was heavily rusted and that would include all device features poorly struck including flatness on the legs (See Briggs book). Do TPG's, CAC take into account such particulars to die varieties, or will this count against? In such a case, this die variety will never make it to mid-range MS grades.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand your point and agree with Mark that it might be a re-toned slider. In either case, in the photos, the color appears questionable. The color just doesn't seem original. Now there's the overall appearance of the coin as well which I view as sub-par. I would be surprised if a die variety was taken into account while grading a relatively common piece.

[coinman_23885]

The flat areas on the leg and the obverse look like wear to me rather than strike issues, and I think the coin would be more appropriately described as AU58 personally. I also don't care for the toning.

 

With this said, I have seen similar looking Seated coins with CAC stickers, including a CC Seated Dime that I had. I purchased the coin from auction photos (from Heritage) and was very disappointed with the coin in hand notwithstanding the CAC sticker. I ultimately sold the coin back to CAC, which pretty much paid all that I had in it.

 

Short answer: For me it's a "no," but I wouldn't be surprised to see CAC disagree with me.

[Raisethis2]

 

 

I think the coin looks too scruffy to warrant a bean. There are lots of hits I find unsettling on Ms Liberty on this one.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "A system of grading which only takes into account that which has happened to a coin after the minting process (i.e. the state of preservation). Technical graders often ignore strike and eye-appeal." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

I totally agree with this and with the very succinct definition. On strike as well as luster for that matter technical grading doesn't regard those factors although the ANA has always recognized they can influence the market value of the coin. Enter market grading and those are market grading factors. As far as eye appeal goes, that's at the heart of market grading, as much as condition after the minting of the coin is indeed at the heart of technical grading.

[coinman_23885]

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "A system of grading which only takes into account that which has happened to a coin after the minting process (i.e. the state of preservation). Technical graders often ignore strike and eye-appeal." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

I totally agree with this and with the very succinct definition. On strike as well as luster for that matter technical grading doesn't regard those factors although the ANA has always recognized they can influence the market value of the coin. Enter market grading and those are market grading factors. As far as eye appeal goes, that's at the heart of market grading, as much as condition after the minting of the coin is indeed at the heart of technical grading.

 

The purpose of grading is to describe the relative state of a coin and if we begin to ignore strike and luster (and pretty much everything else other than surface preservation and wear), it seems that grading would become a trivial/worthless exercise. Let's look at a series that is notorious for some pretty horrendous strikes (e.g. early Walking Liberty Half Dollars). Are we going to say that a coin that is technically uncirculated but possesses the design detail of a coin in the good to fine range is of an equivalent grade to a sharply struck mint state coin? And I'm not strictly basing this on value, but the overall condition of the coin (even ignoring eye appeal) is not equivalent in my opinion. By your argument, a coin with the slightest impression of the main design, but otherwise closely approximates a blank planchet would grade the same as any other mint state piece. The problem is especially important for mint state coins, but also, what about for AU coins? Sometimes the difference on those is the degree of luster disturbance that might otherwise not appear to be typical wear. Would we call these high end sliders mint state (if we ignore luster of course)?

 

I can see some arguing that eye appeal should be a small factor and that toning, for example, should not increase a coin's market grade due to enormous variation in tastes and valuation; however, I cannot see someone ignoring pretty much everything other than surface preservation.

 

[Hard Times]

Here is the ANA grading guide description for MS62:

 

An impaired or dull luster may be evident. Clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks or nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be noticeable. Large unattractive scuff marks may be seen on major features. The strike, rim, and planchet quality may be noticeably below average. Overall eye appeal may be below average. Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas.

 

So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62 - it has full luster with no breaks when rotating through the light. I know some have mentioned here wear on the legs but it is not born out by the luster, which can't be seen in the images - maybe videos like those on heritage for some coins that show the rotating luster under the light would be appropriate... The bad hit on the chest is acceptable for an MS62 - 'large marks or nicks in prime focal areas'. The toning in hand looks NT. NGC agreed with this and gave it a 62.

 

However, to no surprise to most everyone here, this seated quarter did not get a bean. I have perused all of the CACed seated quarters at MS62 (n=20) on the heritage site and none of them have as bad a hit on the chest as my 76-CC does. So I believe Jason and those who are worried about the hit are probably dead on as to why this one did not get the CAC sticker. I think that hit alone probably makes this a C coin for 62 in the eyes of CAC graders.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Here is the ANA grading guide description for MS62:

 

An impaired or dull luster may be evident. Clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks or nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be noticeable. Large unattractive scuff marks may be seen on major features. The strike, rim, and planchet quality may be noticeably below average. Overall eye appeal may be below average. Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas.

 

So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62 - it has full luster with no breaks when rotating through the light. I know some have mentioned here wear on the legs but it is not born out by the luster, which can't be seen in the images - maybe videos like those on heritage for some coins that show the rotating luster under the light would be appropriate... The bad hit on the chest is acceptable for an MS62 - 'large marks or nicks in prime focal areas'. The toning in hand looks NT. NGC agreed with this and gave it a 62.

 

However, to no surprise to most everyone here, this seated quarter did not get a bean. I have perused all of the CACed seated quarters at MS62 (n=20) on the heritage site and none of them have as bad a hit on the chest as my 76-CC does. So I believe Jason and those who are worried about the hit are probably dead on as to why this one did not get the CAC sticker. I think that hit alone probably makes this a C coin for 62 in the eyes of CAC graders.

 

Best, HT

 

 

Why couldn't the quoted ANA standards for a 62 apply to a 61 or a 60 or a 58? To say that "So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62" gives those standards far more objectivity and precision than they actually offer.

 

And regardless of what each of us thinks about the coin, based on images or in-hand inspection, unless we hear from CAC why it failed to sticker, we don't know. That is one of the dangers of this exercise, even if it is enjoyable and possibly educational.

[Tradedollarnut]

Three for three - and I don't think it was the hits. Fairly certain the color isn't natural

[physics-fan3.14]

I am going to respond to your post in several parts, for ease of understanding:

 

The purpose of grading is to describe the relative state of a coin

 

Incorrect. The more accurate statement would be "The purpose of market grading is to describe the relative value of a coin." The state and condition all play into the value, but market grading is solely concerned with the value of a coin. TPGs function more as appraisers than graders, and this is where many collectors get confused. This is also why key dates appear to be graded differently, and dates within a series are graded differently (the standards for each date and mint in a series are unique, and variations are considered in the grade) A technical grader would ignore these and apply the same standards to all coins.

 

Technical grading, on the other hand, completely ignores all relative grading, and focuses solely on the coin at hand.

 

and if we begin to ignore strike and luster (and pretty much everything else other than surface preservation and wear), it seems that grading would become a trivial/worthless exercise.

 

The focus of technical grading is its level of preservation after it leaves the mint. That is by no means a trivial excercise.

 

Let's look at a series that is notorious for some pretty horrendous strikes (e.g. early Walking Liberty Half Dollars). Are we going to say that a coin who is technically uncirculated but possesses the design detail of a coin in the good to fine range is of an equivalent grade to a sharply struck mint state coin? And I'm not strictly basing this on value, but the overall condition of the coin (even ignoring eye appeal) is not equivalent in my opinion. By your argument, a coin with the slightest impression of the main design, but otherwise closely approximates a blank planchet would grade the same as any other mint state piece.

 

Technically, yes. The use of technical grading is not common - even old timers who claim to practice technical grading really use more of a hybrid system. The idea is that the grade is independent of value - you can have an MS-65 coin worth $100 or $500. This is where market grading is useful: by combining all of the aspects that go into value (strike, luster, eye appeal, surface preservation, etc), you can much more accurately predict the coins value. We realize that there is still a large amount of subjectivity and interpretation in this scheme, and hence you will still see wide swings in price for the same grade. Not all MS-65s are the same.

 

My personal grading style is a hybrid technical/market grading scheme. I realize that strike and luster and eye appeal are important and should be included in the grade, but I favor the use of a Star or descriptors to give a fuller idea of the coin instead of bumping the grade up for great toning.

 

The problem is especially important for mint state coins, but also, what about for AU coins? Sometimes the difference on those is the degree of luster disturbance that might otherwise not appear to be typical wear. Would we call these high end sliders mint state (if we ignore luster of course)?

 

Technical graders hate when sliders magically become MS coins. With sufficient practice and experience, you can tell when the high points have wear. This is why many old timers sardonically call coins like this "AU-63" - it is a coin with wear on the high points that has been slabbed as an MS-63 coin. The grader has essentially said "Yeah, this coin has a little disturbance on the high points, but otherwise it is a really solid coin and should be worth an MS-63 price. Thus, it will be slabbed as an MS-63."

 

I can see some arguing that eye appeal should be a small factor and that toning, for example, should not increase a coin's market grade due to enormous variation in tastes and valuation; however, I cannot see someone ignoring pretty much everything other than surface preservation.

 

The relative weighting of different factors is a matter that will never be settled. Even with published "standards" like the ANA, everyone will always interpret them differently. Just no way around that.

[Hard Times]

Here is the ANA grading guide description for MS62:

 

An impaired or dull luster may be evident. Clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks or nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be noticeable. Large unattractive scuff marks may be seen on major features. The strike, rim, and planchet quality may be noticeably below average. Overall eye appeal may be below average. Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas.

 

So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62 - it has full luster with no breaks when rotating through the light. I know some have mentioned here wear on the legs but it is not born out by the luster, which can't be seen in the images - maybe videos like those on heritage for some coins that show the rotating luster under the light would be appropriate... The bad hit on the chest is acceptable for an MS62 - 'large marks or nicks in prime focal areas'. The toning in hand looks NT. NGC agreed with this and gave it a 62.

 

However, to no surprise to most everyone here, this seated quarter did not get a bean. I have perused all of the CACed seated quarters at MS62 (n=20) on the heritage site and none of them have as bad a hit on the chest as my 76-CC does. So I believe Jason and those who are worried about the hit are probably dead on as to why this one did not get the CAC sticker. I think that hit alone probably makes this a C coin for 62 in the eyes of CAC graders.

 

Best, HT

 

 

Why couldn't the quoted ANA standards for a 62 apply to a 61 or a 60 or a 58? To say that "So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62" gives those standards far more objectivity and precision than they actually offer.

 

And regardless of what each of us thinks about the coin, based on images or in-hand inspection, unless we hear from CAC why it failed to sticker, we don't know. That is one of the dangers of this exercise, even if it is enjoyable and possibly educational.

 

Agreed on every point Mark. I should restate it - my subjective opinion is consistent with NGC's assessment as an MS62 coin for the reasons stated. It could also be right that the color was considered questionable. TDN has alot of experience and so far has been very accurate in his assessments. The hits, color, or both may have been what kept this from being a CAC coin.

 

It has been very educational to go to the heritage website and compare CAC vs. non-CAC coins for different types. There are consistent themes it seems to what makes something worthy of the bean. This one clearly, by whatever standards, does not look like the type of seated quarter CAC has beaned.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Here is the ANA grading guide description for MS62:

 

An impaired or dull luster may be evident. Clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks or nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be noticeable. Large unattractive scuff marks may be seen on major features. The strike, rim, and planchet quality may be noticeably below average. Overall eye appeal may be below average. Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas.

 

So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62 - it has full luster with no breaks when rotating through the light. I know some have mentioned here wear on the legs but it is not born out by the luster, which can't be seen in the images - maybe videos like those on heritage for some coins that show the rotating luster under the light would be appropriate... The bad hit on the chest is acceptable for an MS62 - 'large marks or nicks in prime focal areas'. The toning in hand looks NT. NGC agreed with this and gave it a 62.

 

However, to no surprise to most everyone here, this seated quarter did not get a bean. I have perused all of the CACed seated quarters at MS62 (n=20) on the heritage site and none of them have as bad a hit on the chest as my 76-CC does. So I believe Jason and those who are worried about the hit are probably dead on as to why this one did not get the CAC sticker. I think that hit alone probably makes this a C coin for 62 in the eyes of CAC graders.

 

Best, HT

 

 

Why couldn't the quoted ANA standards for a 62 apply to a 61 or a 60 or a 58? To say that "So by this definition, no question this 76-CC is a 62" gives those standards far more objectivity and precision than they actually offer.

 

And regardless of what each of us thinks about the coin, based on images or in-hand inspection, unless we hear from CAC why it failed to sticker, we don't know. That is one of the dangers of this exercise, even if it is enjoyable and possibly educational.

 

That is an interesting question.So, if we take a little closer look at the language, and eliminate the iffiness and similarity of wordy descriptions, there are clear separations between the numerical grading standards.

 

ANA Grading Standards:

 

MS62: ...clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks of nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be very noticeable. Large unattractive scuff marks might be seen on major features. Contact marks: may have distracting marks in prime focal areas and/or secondary areas. Hairlines: May have a few scattered or in a noticeable patch.

 

MS61: ..the surface may have clusters of large and small contact marks throughout. Hairlines could be very noticeable. Scuff marks may show as unattractive patches on large areas or major features. Contact marks: May have a few heavy (or numerous light) marks in prime focal and/or secondary areas. Hairlines: may have noticeable patch or continuous hairlining over surface.

 

MS60: ... there may be many large detracting marks, or damage spots, but no trace of circulation wear. There could be a heavy concentartion of hairlines, or unattractive large areas of scuff marks. Contact marks: May have heavy marks in all areas. Hairlines: May have noticeable patch or continuous hairlining overall.

 

AU58: ... the the bearest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present...

 

 

 

A look at the language of PCGS Official Guide To Coin Grading....:(PCGS)

 

MS62: ...the marks/hairlines may cover most of the coin. If the marks/hairlines are light, they may be scattered across the entire coin. If there are several severe marks/hairlines, the rest of the coin should be relatively clean.

 

MS61:... there may be marks/hairlines across the entire coin. There may be several severe contact marks/hairlines. If there are numerous large marks/hairlines in the main focal areas, the fields should be cleaner, although they still could have some contact marks/hairlines. On larger coins, (half dollars and larger), there may be areas with almost no marks/hairlines.

 

MS60: ...marks: numerous. The marks/hailines will probably cover the coin's entire surface. On larger coins (blah,blah), there may be some areas that have few or no marks/hairlines. The marks/hairlines can be large and in in prime focal areas. (There is then a caveat about some marks not being from normal contact and would be considered damage, and the coin might not be graded).

 

MS58: ...there will be slight wear on the highest part of the coin. In some cases, 5X magnification is needed to notice this wear.....Very often, the obverse will have slight friction and the reverse will be full mint state (often MS63 or higher).

...there are usually very few marks for this grade. Instead of marks, the principal detractions on the typical AU58 coin are rub or hairlines. The few marks should not be major or in prime focal areas. A coin that would grade AU58, from a wear standpoint, but has numerous marks, would be graded AU 55 or lower.

 

The use of the word "may" is not used in the "it might have" sense, but in the " it is allowed" sense.

 

I know we can all read, and we all probably have a library. I just thought it would be interesting to compare 2 sources. I could have also used NGC in the comparison, but I did not want to get carried away, considering we are on their website and can quickly compare (it is, for the most part, the same caveats between grades).

 

So, there are distinct differences between the various grades, even though there is overlapping. I have not gotten into the eye appeal/luster language , etc., so easier comparative issues could be addressed -wear, contact marks,, hairlines, etc.

[Kurtdog]

So here is a question to y'all - do you believe the CAC team market grades, technical grades, or both?

Since we keep talking about CAC evaluating luster and toning, it is clear that CAC market grades. Technical grading does not consider these factors......

I believe that technical grading does, indeed, include luster, even if not eye-appeal.

While I have never seen a thorough set of grading standards for "technical grading," the best description I've ever seen comes from Jim Halperin, founder of Heritage. He defines it thusly: "A system of grading which only takes into account that which has happened to a coin after the minting process (i.e. the state of preservation). Technical graders often ignore strike and eye-appeal." Based on this, luster may or may not be included - it is an effect of striking, but it is also affected by things occuring after the minting process.

 

Either way, it is abundantly clear that CAC market grades, and does not use technical grading.

I totally agree with this and with the very succinct definition. On strike as well as luster for that matter technical grading doesn't regard those factors although the ANA has always recognized they can influence the market value of the coin. Enter market grading and those are market grading factors. As far as eye appeal goes, that's at the heart of market grading, as much as condition after the minting of the coin is indeed at the heart of technical grading.

The purpose of grading is to describe the relative state of a coin and if we begin to ignore strike and luster (and pretty much everything else other than surface preservation and wear), it seems that grading would become a trivial/worthless exercise. Let's look at a series that is notorious for some pretty horrendous strikes (e.g. early Walking Liberty Half Dollars). Are we going to say that a coin who is technically uncirculated but possesses the design detail of a coin in the good to fine range is of an equivalent grade to a sharply struck mint state coin? And I'm not strictly basing this on value, but the overall condition of the coin (even ignoring eye appeal) is not equivalent in my opinion. By your argument, a coin with the slightest impression of the main design, but otherwise closely approximates a blank planchet would grade the same as any other mint state piece. The problem is especially important for mint state coins, but also, what about for AU coins? Sometimes the difference on those is the degree of luster disturbance that might otherwise not appear to be typical wear. Would we call these high end sliders mint state (if we ignore luster of course)?

 

I can see some arguing that eye appeal should be a small factor and that toning, for example, should not increase a coin's market grade due to enormous variation in tastes and valuation; however, I cannot see someone ignoring pretty much everything other than surface preservation.

 

Grading in any hobby has always had to do with condition or state of preservation, Kenny. That's what you're not understanding. Market grading? That has to do with markets, and marketing. What's the grade of a note? It's the condition or state of preservation of the note. What's the grade of a stamp, a sports card, a comic book? It's the condition or state of preservation of those items. What's market grading? It's markets, and marketing, which influences markets. It's an appraisal of the value of the item, not an assessment of the shape the item is in. Does the market demand a crisp strike, and booming luster? Then those criteria raise the market grade. Has marketing influenced many if not most collectors that the TPGs can differentiate NT from AT even though nobody yet can define those purely arbitrary terms? Then NT market grades, and, when it's eye appealing, it raises the market grade. Pedigree raises the market grade for much the same reason Perrier sells for $4.00 a bottle while seltzer sells for only $0.25. Can you imagine a guy in a nightclub with his girl, "Darling, I love you, you're my whole life, I can't live without you...would you like a glass of seltzer?" There are collectors who get off on status symbols. If they gave away free balloons, that would raise the market grade. Well, OK, maybe that's a spot extreme.

[Hard Times]

Nice point Kurtdog. To follow that, for example, I am coming to believe after submitting my 10 seated coins to CAC that there is a particular bias they have as to what constitutes NT vs. AT and are making judgements of deciding which coins are A and B in part because of this. After studying heritage archives, it appears as if there is a fairly consistent type of silver coin CACed as regards to the range and types of toning. I did a test once by setting out several uncirculated washington quarters on a bookshelf for a year. Each one toned in a completely different way. This tells me that the line between NT and AT in many cases, or what graders consider, is not so clear. I believe at the present at least, that TPG's and CAC err on the side of caution with respect to this issue. So many nicely toned coins may not get the bean simply because of their toning, for which some, including TDN here, points out that could have been a key factor in the 76-CC decision. So as long as CAC is recognized as the elite team for determining quality for a coin, it will determine the market value and some coins perceived not to be within that range of quality will be penalized, rightly or wrongly......

 

Best, HT