Newbie Question - Strange Marks on Coins 0

[Seamus8]

I have another newbie (somewhat dumb) question. I have been researching how to grade coins and am confused (again). This time it is about the numbering system used. 

I know MS stands for mint state and AU stands for about uncirculated. I have seen coins referred to as MS 50, 53, 55, 58.

My question: are they the same as AU 50, 53, 55, 58?

[EagleRJO]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:30 PM, Seamus8 said:

I know MS stands for mint state and AU stands for about uncirculated. I have seen coins referred to as MS 50, 53, 55, 58.

My question: are they the same as AU 50, 53, 55, 58?

They should be different.  You might be getting confused as mint state coins are graded 60 to 70 (e.g. MS-60 to MS-70), and there would not be an MS 50.

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

 

[JKK]

MS stands for mint state, and begins at 60. AU stands for almost uncirculated, and begins at 50. If the coin has been circulated (as opposed to dinged up in mint bags), it cannot be MS or better.

There is a slight variation on this for proof coins. Most proofs are uncirculated and follow a grading track parallel to MS (60-70), yet with slightly different criteria because the expectations for proofs are different. However, there is such a thing as a circulated proof (usually happens when some kids swipe someone's coin collection and then go out and spend the proofs), so a coin can get PR-50 for example. I think the cutoff is at PR-45 or so; below that, my information is that they're graded like circulation strikes.

[Sandon]

On 12/24/2022 at 5:10 PM, JKK said:

I think the cutoff is at PR-45 or so; below that, my information is that they're graded like circulation strikes.

    @JKK is incorrect in this particular.

   Circulated coins that were manufactured for circulation and have circulation wear are sometimes (and incorrectly) referred to as "MS" instead of by their adjectival circulated grade to distinguish them from coins that were manufactured as proofs. (On an NGC grading submission form, the coins being submitted have to be identified as "MS" or "PF"   A coin that was struck as a proof can be designated "PR" (PCGS usage) or "PF" (NGC usage) no matter how worn it is, so long as it is identifiable as a proof. Certain U.S. coins, such as Trade dollars dated from 1879-1885 and Shield nickels dated 1877 and 1878 were only made as proofs, so the occasionally encountered well-worn specimen, say one worn to Very Good grade, would be designated by NGC "PF 8", whereas an equivalent circulation strike would be designated "VG (not MS) 8". From time- to-time other well-worn coins have been identified as proofs by having characteristics of dies known or believed to have been used only to manufacture proofs.

   For @Seamus8 and others, here is an overview of the adjectival and parallel numerical grading systems, which should explain why there is so much confusion:

   When I began collecting coins in the early 1970s, grading was done by adjectives from Poor through Uncirculated, specifically Poor, Fair, About Good, Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, Extremely Fine, About Uncirculated and Uncirculated. Only very rare coins were (and generally still are) considered collectible below the grade of Good. A coin that was nice for its grade could be described as "Choice", and one that was nearly the next grade up would be described by the two grades with a hyphen between them, such as (Very Fine-Extremely Fine, usually "VF-EF"). Each side of the coin was graded, so a coin with Fine obverse and a Good reverse (this happens on older coins) would be described as "F/G". An uncirculated coin that was unusually nice would be described as a "Gem" and an uncirculated coin that was brilliant (though in those days sometimes due to what is now condemned as "cleaning") would be described as "BU". 

  A Guide to the Grading of United States Coins by Martin R. Brown and John W. Dunn, first published in 1958 and last published in 1975 (fifth edition) had standardized and popularized this system, which was generally accepted by collectors and dealers. (Before the Brown & Dunn grading guide, the adjectives were used inconsistently.) Brown & Dunn used line drawings as well as written criteria to depict most series from About Good to About Uncirculated.  In 1970 Photograde by James F. Ruddy, which was generally consistent with Brown & Dunn's guide, used photographs to depict each of these circulated grades. Both guides were accepted by the American Numismatic Association ("ANA") Board of governors as official grading guides.

  In the late 1940s Dr. William Sheldon, an early (1793-1814) large cent collector and researcher, had proposed a 1 to 70 numerical scale for grading early large cents.  At that time such a coin that was in Gem Uncirculated condition (almost nonexistent) was valued at seventy times as much as one in "Basal State" (Poor), so Sheldon believed the grade could be related to the value.  (The price relationship would now be thousands to one, not seventy to one.) In the late 1970's some collectors and dealers started using the numerical scale together with the adjectival system for all U.S. coins, so a Very Fine became "VF 20", a Choice Very Fine a "VF 30" and the like. Initially uncirculated (and unworn proof) coins were only graded "60" and "65", with "70" being a theoretical "perfect" coin that couldn't exist in reality.  This numerical system was accepted by the ANA as an alternative or equivalent to the adjectival system, which is still used.  Over time more and more numerical grades were used, especially for higher grade circulated and uncirculated coins, so that when PCGS began grading and sealing coins in holders in 1986, all eleven numbers from 60 to 70 were used.  The ANA Board--mistakenly I think--acquiesced in this practice later in 1986, even though no one has been able to consistently define how one numerical grade varies from the next. This is why instead of "AU" and "Choice AU", we now have AU 50, 53, 55, and 58, and endless debates over which of these numbers a coin may be (or is it an XF 45 or an MS 61 or 62?). 

   Try to enjoy coin collecting notwithstanding the confusing, inconsistent, nitpicking, subjective nonsense that coin grading has become. Focus on learning the adjectival grading system.

  Happy holidays!

   

Edited December 25, 2022 by Sandon

[JKK]

On 12/24/2022 at 4:47 PM, Sandon said:

    @JKK is incorrect in this particular.

 

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

[Sandon]

   @JKK--Just check the NGC or PCGS population reports for nineteenth century proof coins, especially of proof-only issues and issues (such as 1880 Shield nickels or 1884-85 three cent pieces) where a circulation strike is more valuable than an equivalent proof.  I've actually seen some well-worn pieces designated as proof on the holder.  

[Fenntucky Mike]

Why wouldn't a circulated/impaired proof grade below 45 if freed into circulation? The benchmarks should still be identifiable, straight rims, sharp details, mirrored feilds etc..

I do tend to disagree with coins with proof- like features but no documentation to support such strikes being graded as such but that is a contradiction for another time.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:00 PM, JKK said:

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

The GIST of your post was correct, sometimes we all pick up specific details that turn out to be off a bit.

Don't sweat it, JKK. 

[JKK]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Don't sweat it, JKK. 

No reason why I would.

[Seamus8]

Thanks for all the replies. I have a lot of reading and learning to do. If you look at the screenshot below of a 1972-D Kennedy Half Dollar, you will see that PCGS gave it a MS64 designation.

The coin was obviously in circulation as evidenced by the "wear" of the eagle and marks on the eagle's shield. Not to be a wiseass, but I thought I read in the above replies that only uncirculated coins can receive a mint state 60 to 70 designation. 

Can someone explain what I am missing or misinterpreting here?

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Seamus8

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 12/25/2022 at 1:28 AM, Seamus8 said:

Thanks for all the replies. I have a lot of reading and learning to do. If you look at the screenshot below of a 1972-D Kennedy Half Dollar, you will see that PCGS gave it a MS64 designation.

The coin was obviously in circulation as evidenced by the "wear" of the eagle and marks on the eagle's shield. Not to be a wiseass, but I thought I read in the above replies that only uncirculated coins can receive a mint state 60 to 70 designation. 

Can someone explain what I am missing or misinterpreting here?

 

Ring-a-ding-dings from production mostly and light circulation. Uncirculated or "MS" doesn't necessarily mean that a coin wasn't "out there" prefoming it's intended function at some point/short time. Plenty of coins are broke out of mint rolls in registers for daily commerce.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Fenntucky Mike

[EagleRJO]

On 12/25/2022 at 1:28 AM, Seamus8 said:

The coin was obviously in circulation as evidenced by the "wear" of the eagle and marks on the eagle's shield. Not to be a wiseass, but I thought I read in the above replies that only uncirculated coins can receive a mint state 60 to 70 designation. 

As noted in the thread related to "Black Spots on Quarters" you can have a coin that is in circulation but can still grade as a mint state (MS) coin, as long as there isn't any wear on the coin (minor slide marks or cabinet friction for some older coins aside).

For example, you could get rolls of coins from your local bank that come direct from mint bags which will invariably have some contact marks, which are not considered '"wear", but otherwise could still be in a "mint state" as long as the coins aren't roughly slid across a counter or otherwise handled causing wear.  And for the 1972 Kennedy half dollar the "wear" you are referring to appears to just be contact or bag marks which are not considered wear in grading coins.

[J P M]

On 12/25/2022 at 3:00 AM, EagleRJO said:

As noted in the thread related to "Black Spots on Quarters" you can have a coin that is in circulation but can still grade as a mint state (MS) coin, as long as there isn't any wear on the coin (minor slide marks or cabinet friction for some older coins aside).

For example, you could get rolls of coins from your local bank that come direct from mint bags which will invariably have some contact marks, which are not considered '"wear", but otherwise could still be in a "mint state" as long as the coins aren't roughly slid across a counter or otherwise handled causing wear.  And for the 1972 Kennedy half dollar the "wear" you are referring to appears to just be contact or bag marks which are not considered wear in grading coins.

Welcome Seamus8,,,There are also coins struck from worn Die's that make a coin look old even before it leaves the mint which my be the case on that 72.

[Seamus8]

Not to belabor the point on grading, but (there is almost always a but) I found this 1993-D Quarter on PCGS. It is graded by PCGS as MS 50.

I am confused (again). I thought that only grades 60 through 70 were designated as MS and 50 through 58 were designated as AU.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Hoghead515]

On 12/25/2022 at 11:17 AM, Seamus8 said:

Not to belabor the point on grading, but (there is almost always a but) I found this 1993-D Quarter on PCGS. It is graded by PCGS as MS 50.

I am confused (again). I thought that only grades 60 through 70 were designated as MS and 50 through 58 were designated as AU.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Id say that was a typo.  Should be AU50. Sometimes you will see typos on the slab labels as well. Not very often but it happens. 

[Sandon]

   Regarding the 1972-D half dollar, if you're referring to the weakness on the eagle's neck and the shield, this is from a weak strike or a worn die and is frequently seen on Kennedy half dollars of that era. The master die was subsequently modified to lower the relief in this area to reduce the number of weak strikes. The strike was probably taken into account by the graders in arriving at the MS 64 grade. So were the number and severity and number of marks and abrasions on the coin, which was almost certainly never in circulation.  Coins made for circulation drop from the press into a bin where they fall on and are hit by many other coins. They are then packed into bags of thousands of coins, and other bags are piled on top of that bag. This is why uncirculated coins made for circulation almost always have such marks (referred to as "bag marks") and abrasions. Coins graded MS 60 to 62 are typically very heavily marked, and even coins graded MS 67 typically have a few noticeable marks and abrasions.

   Regarding the description of the 1993-D quarter, note that the "MS" is in parentheses.  It is simply being used on this PCGS Coinfacts page, together with the PCGS code 5935, to identify the coin as a 1993-D quarter, which is a circulation ("MS") issue. The grade on the PCGS label in its holder would be AU 50. You are understandably confusing PCGS's classification system with a grade.

   You cannot learn the basics about coins entirely from online sources. When you receive your "Redbook" and grading guide, please read them carefully. You should then go to coin shows and shops, examine the coins of series that interest you to learn their grading and characteristics, and speak to dealers and experienced collectors.  You should also consider joining a local coin club.  It's a lengthy process but a rewarding one.

[RWB]

The grading system has a more ancient origin than many suppose. It is first mentioned on tablets found in the ruins of the Sumerian city of Jemdet Nasr. These were counting or trade tokens representing a certain quantity of agricultural products, much like a modern bill of lading or possibly a promissory note. In the instance of grading, the sexagesimal (base 60) scale was used to define the quality of wheat grain based on a physical count of rat droppings in a "gur" (or standard measure) of grain. A higher quantity of rat poo per measure was indicated my a separate symbol, rather than by a set of items followed by numbers. (That is, there was a separate symbol for "1 sheep" and another for "5 sheep." The result was hundreds of individual symbols for products and quantities.)

When modern third party coin grading was invented, the founding brothers adopted this Sumerian system because it was both obscure and knowable only to a very few indoctrinated elites. They also changed it into a base 70 system from base 60, and inverted the resulting decimal equivalents so that higher modern numbers indicate LESS rat poo, rather than MORE as did the ancient forefathers, foremothers, and foreothers. This resulted in the current base 70: 1-70 numbers with each number preceded by a symbol such as "MS". "AU". "EF" or the commonly used "FU."

This was a very abbreviated overview. You can find more in the Handbook of Gradeflation and Taxidermy. Also, my new book Numismatic Flatulence is a good source of fibre.

Enjoy the hobby and history, and forget the numbers.

Edited December 27, 2022 by RWB

[EagleRJO]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:00 PM, JKK said:

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible ...

I am going to have to borrow that affirmative concessional denial one day.  

[VKurtB]

On 12/24/2022 at 7:00 PM, JKK said:

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

Indeed one cannot. There is too much misinformation out there. A lie gets around the world twice before the truth gets its boots on.