Is a new coin pulled straight from the press "MS-70?" 1 1

[RWB]

A post on another forum asks this question. I pose it here because it begs understanding of old and modern minting practices, and is dependent on the definition of MS-70.

The Sheldon definition of MS-70 is: exactly as it came from the dies, or "as struck." (This ignores defects of planchet or dies.)

The TPG definition of MS-70 is, it appears: Perfect in all respects. (This is a little confusing because it implies we have a "perfect" example for comparison.)

Anyway - what's your opinion on the question?

Edited July 13, 2023 by RWB

[Zebo]

Definitions and grades evolve over time. So the question I guess is  - are you a purest? I would tend to consider defects.

[J P M]

I have a example that I just got yesterday a proof 69 that I had to look all over trying to look to find out why it was not a MS70 . I found the planchet looks to have a void not a scratch. So that it is in the strike to me. I am amazed it was even seen buy the grader. It only shows up only with just the right angle and a digital shot. It is in the field left of TRUST. Also looks to be a rim ding at 3 a clock on the reverse. I guess it is not a perfect coin therefore 69 it is

Edited July 13, 2023 by J P M

[VKurtB]

No, MANY MANY coins taken “right off the press” can be as low as a 64 or even worse. The coin must be perfect; the planchet must be perfect; the die must be perfect; the strike must be perfect. THEN AND ONLY THEN are we in 70 country.

[Sandon]

   NGC's definition of "MS/PF 70" is "[a] coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification."  NGC Coin Grading Scale | About Coin Grades | NGC (Emphasis added.)  PCGS defines the "MS or PR 70 " grade as "[f]ully struck and lustrous, free of visual marks.  The PCGS 70 grading standard does allow for 'as minted' defects, as long as those flaws are minor and do not impact the eye appeal of the coin." https://www.pcgs.com/grades#grade70

  These TPG definitions contrast markedly with the definition stated in the seventh and latest edition (2013) of The Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins, which (p.25) defines the "70' grade as "[t]he perfect coin.  Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint.  No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are no noticeable hairlines, scuff marks, or defects. Eye appeal is attractive and outstanding. If copper, the coin is bright, with full original color and luster." Unlike the NGC and PCGS definitions, the ANA definition doesn't permit any defects, including those that existed from the moment the coin was struck, so under the ANA's standard a coin might not grade MS 70 when "pulled straight from the press", while under the NGC and PCGS standards it generally would.  However, the magnification to be used in looking for defects even under the ANA's standards is only to be in the 3x-7x range. (ANA grading guide, p.17)

    Until the mid-1980s the "70" grade was considered to be one that didn't exist in reality, as perfection is not of this world. Then, as I recall, ANACS, which was still owned by the ANA and issuing photo certificates, graded a few newly issued 1986 Statue of Liberty commemorative coins MS or Proof 70.  Although I don't think that any U.S. coin made for circulation without special handling has ever been graded MS 70, the major grading services have now awarded the "70" grade to many millions of modern (1960 and later) coins made as collectors' issues, including proofs, commemoratives, and bullion coins.  PCGS has graded over 6.5 million coins "70", some 19.3% of all coins to which PCGS has awarded numerical grades VG and better. https://www.pcgs.com/pop/pcgs-population-totals The NGC Census doesn't show aggregate grade totals but is probably comparable, with many collectors' issues of recent years showing "70" as the most frequently awarded grade.

   In my opinion, "70" as presently interpreted by the grading services is a marketing gimmick, not a legitimate grade.  My practice is to examine coins at 10-15x magnification, and I seldom see any real difference between pieces graded 69 (or sometimes even "68") and those graded "70".  Almost invariably, I can find one or more tiny shiny areas, nicks or spots on pieces awarded either "69" or "70".  These minute flaws likely occurred after the moment the coin was struck and before or during packaging, although I have no way to be sure. Any of these modern coins could accurately and more or less objectively be described as "Superb Gem", but then they would all price the same.

[Jason Abshier]

No such thing as 100% perfect no two coins taken off press stop definitely positively not identical to each other … just nearly impossible if you want get technical about it look at each “perfect” coin under a powerful microscope I guarantee you’ll see flaw difference between the two coins that are so called “perfect”… Never ever will Machine nor man ever be 100% perfect … I still can’t tell difference between MS/PF 69 VS MS/PF 70 not with a 10x loupe 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[zadok]

On 7/13/2023 at 12:20 PM, Jason Abshier said:

No such thing as 100% perfect no two coins taken off press stop definitely positively not identical to each other … just nearly impossible if you want get technical about it look at each “perfect” coin under a powerful microscope I guarantee you’ll see flaw difference between the two coins that are so called “perfect”… Never ever will Machine nor man ever be 100% perfect … I still can’t tell difference between MS/PF 69 VS MS/PF 70 not with a 10x loupe 

...just to amplify; no two planchets r identical, the dies deteriorate microscopically after each strike therefore no two coins r "perfectly identical" therefore no two 70 coins r identical therefore there r differences in all 70 coins...what/when/where/who decides the difference tween 70 n 69 ????...but obviously there has to be some "play" in the scope of 70 coins...not sure its measurable by any standard....

[VKurtB]

Perfect with 5x magnification, period. No defects perceptible at 5x.

[RWB]

"MS-70" applies to each coin individually, so microscopic changes in dies would not be relevant.

Is the "5x" approach:

A) 5x magnification on the coin as struck, or

B) 5x magnification on the coin as compared to some "perfect" definition, or

C) is it 5x magnification with no discernible alteration of the surface regardless of cause?

[Note that the original micro surface of a gold or silver coin is harder than the rest, so small movement against a metal chute or collar face, might not make any difference.]

Edited July 13, 2023 by RWB

[zadok]

On 7/13/2023 at 3:39 PM, RWB said:

"MS-70" applies to each coin individually, so microscopic changes in dies would not be relevant.

Is the "5x" approach:

A) 5x magnification on the coin as struck, or

B) 5x magnification on the coin as compared to some "perfect" definition, or

C) is it 5x magnification with no discernible alteration of the surface regardless of cause?

[Note that the original micro surface of a gold or silver coin is harder than the rest, so small movement against a metal chute or collar face, might not make any difference.]

..."small","might", maybe maybe not ??...relevant is relative...point is no two r "perfectly identical"...bigger point, who really cares??....

[VKurtB]

On 7/13/2023 at 2:39 PM, RWB said:

"MS-70" applies to each coin individually, so microscopic changes in dies would not be relevant.

Is the "5x" approach:

A) 5x magnification on the coin as struck, or

B) 5x magnification on the coin as compared to some "perfect" definition, or

C) is it 5x magnification with no discernible alteration of the surface regardless of cause?

[Note that the original micro surface of a gold or silver coin is harder than the rest, so small movement against a metal chute or collar face, might not make any difference.]

You are being intentionally provocative here. We know what the "perfection" looks like. It looks like the renderings from the Mint. We can have dozens of NEARLY perfect coins that each have a different defect and be able to tell what a "perfect" coin is. It's one that doesn't have ANY of these dozens of minor defects, EVEN IF NONE ARE EVER FOUND IN THE FLESH! No perfect coin ever NEEDS TO exist, and except for well-produced proofs or NIFC's, often none ever WILL exist. I have one (and only one) MS69 "circulation strike" coin. I have never seen an MS70 come from a circulation strike press. They exist as proofs and as NIFC "uncirculated" or even so-called "Specimen" or "Special" strikes.

My point here? I reject categorically that a perfect coin needs to exist in order to judge all others by. It's a logical non-necessity. The concept of perfection still exists. I'm frankly unimpressed with any group that doesn't instinctually understand that.

I remember a movie called "As Good As It Gets". In coins, for some issues, and some years, that can be as low as MS66 or even lower. Example? What is the highest grade for a 1922 (so-called) plain cent? I haven't looked, but I can tell you it's not near 70.

Edited July 13, 2023 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/12/2023 at 11:08 PM, VKurtB said:

No, MANY MANY coins taken “right off the press” can be as low as a 64 or even worse. The coin must be perfect; the planchet must be perfect; the die must be perfect; the strike must be perfect. THEN AND ONLY THEN are we in 70 country.

Stop the presses !!!  I agree with Kurt. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/13/2023 at 5:52 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Stop the presses !!!  I agree with Kurt. 

You are approaching wisdom, then.

[zadok]

On 7/13/2023 at 7:21 PM, VKurtB said:

You are approaching wisdom, then.

...off topic: but speaking of wisdom or maybe lack there of?...whats ur take on recent ANA board of governors election...pro-collector??

[Nutmeg Coin]

The fact there are no Morgan dollars graded by NGC or PCGS as MS70 tells you something.  As far as I know there are a few 1880-s Morgans that graded MS69, and that issue usually comes quite nice.

[Fenntucky Mike]

By the definitions given in the OP, nope.  The Sheldon definition is poor at best, the TPG definition is undefined as to "perfect".

That some, or most, MS70 definitions include luster but don't mention the lack thereof if early strikes from dies or proof like features as possible characteristics of "70" coins leaves the window wide open for interpretation, special designations, etc... I know a rose when I see one, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, 69-70.  There will never be an all defining threshold that all will adhere to.

[VKurtB]

On 7/15/2023 at 3:26 PM, zadok said:

...off topic: but speaking of wisdom or maybe lack there of?...whats ur take on recent ANA board of governors election...pro-collector??

Not horrible, but could’ve been better. We really needed Phil Vitale and Pat McBride on that Board. Phil is a stalwart in the Southwest, an Albuquerque Coin Club member, and Pat is a stalwart of PAN. I voted AGAINST the number one vote getter. Dealers have more votes than is healthy. I have made it known that I am a candidate to be the next Parliamentarian, replacing the late great Greg Lyon, if Tom Uram will have me. 
 

My beard is on the return, and I will be taking over the Society of Bearded Numismatists, at the Pittsburgh convention. It will be a quick reorganization meeting, with some really yummy adult beverage door prizes. The Coin of the Year event trails us by only 30 minutes.

Edited July 16, 2023 by VKurtB

[Zebo]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:14 PM, VKurtB said:

Not horrible, but could’ve been better. We really needed Phil Vitale and Pat McBride on that Board. Phil is a stalwart in the Southwest, an Albuquerque Coin Club member, and Pat is a stalwart of PAN. I voted AGAINST the number one vote getter. Dealers have more votes than is healthy. I have made it known that I am a candidate to be the next Parliamentarian, replacing the late great Greg Lyon, if Tom Uram will have me. 
 

My beard is on the return, and I will be taking over the Society of Bearded Numismatists, at the Pittsburgh convention. It will be a quick reorganization meeting, with some really yummy adult beverage door prizes. The Coin of the Year event trails us by only 30 minutes.

I haven’t seen the results yet, other than Tom. 
 

Who decides the coin of the year? I thought that was a Stacks thing.

[zadok]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:14 PM, VKurtB said:

Not horrible, but could’ve been better. We really needed Phil Vitale and Pat McBride on that Board. Phil is a stalwart in the Southwest, an Albuquerque Coin Club member, and Pat is a stalwart of PAN. I voted AGAINST the number one vote getter. Dealers have more votes than is healthy. I have made it known that I am a candidate to be the next Parliamentarian, replacing the late great Greg Lyon, if Tom Uram will have me. 
 

My beard is on the return, and I will be taking over the Society of Bearded Numismatists, at the Pittsburgh convention. It will be a quick reorganization meeting, with some really yummy adult beverage door prizes. The Coin of the Year event trails us by only 30 minutes.

...seems like we voted the same, many of the members just dont see the bigger picture perhaps because they collect from home n dont see who is active for the hobby in the field n rely upon just the bios in the magazine?...i guess until it returns we will just refer to u as vk the scruf....

[Tyrock]

Short answer, no. I just bought a bag of 2023 Kennedy halves from the mint and it was interesting to sort through the bag and see the condition of the coins, which covered the grading spectrum.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/15/2023 at 8:13 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

The fact there are no Morgan dollars graded by NGC or PCGS as MS70 tells you something.  As far as I know there are a few 1880-s Morgans that graded MS69, and that issue usually comes quite nice.

It appears that no Morgan or Saint (both large coins) have gotten over a 69.

Someone asked and I don't recall if it was answered....what is the OLDEST regularly-minted coin (not a token or commemorative) that achieved a 70 rating ?  I would even allow proofs separately struck to be included but non-proof regular mintage is the focus.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

When looking at coins, I do not net grade for planchet defects or die cracks.  So, I guess I am in the Sheldon camp.  However, I do take strike into consideration.

[Sandon]

On 7/25/2023 at 12:15 PM, Tyrock said:

Short answer, no. I just bought a bag of 2023 Kennedy halves from the mint and it was interesting to sort through the bag and see the condition of the coins, which covered the grading spectrum.

   Coins that have been packed into a bag aren't "new coins pulled straight from the press. They acquire marks and abrasions after being ejected from the press, being loaded into the bag, and from jostling around in the bag while it is being transported.

On 7/25/2023 at 2:17 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

what is the OLDEST regularly-minted coin (not a token or commemorative) that achieved a 70 rating ?  I would even allow proofs separately struck to be included but non-proof regular mintage is the focus.

    A few years ago, when the PCGS Rare Coin Market Report included a "Best Grade" column, I tried to answer this question. As I recall, the earliest coin graded "70" by PCGS was a proof 1960 nickel.  I have never seen any regular issue coin made for circulation graded "70" by any reputable grading service.  As far as I know, all coins graded "70" are collectors' issues, including proofs, commemorative coins, and bullion coins, that received special handling and packaging.  If anyone wants to scroll page by page through the NGC Census and the PCGS Population Report to verify this, please be my guest.

[Henri Charriere]

I cannot define perfection in the numismatic sense, but I know it when I see it and in my series, F20F GR, none have been so graded. But a rhetorical question comes to mind... should not a perfect Proof Jefferson Nickel, however one wishes to define that term, exhibit SIX FULL STEPS?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/25/2023 at 4:51 PM, Sandon said:

A few years ago, when the PCGS Rare Coin Market Report included a "Best Grade" column, I tried to answer this question. As I recall, the earliest coin graded "70" by PCGS was a proof 1960 nickel.  I have never seen any regular issue coin made for circulation graded "70" by any reputable grading service.  As far as I know, all coins graded "70" are collectors' issues, including proofs, commemorative coins, and bullion coins, that received special handling and packaging.  If anyone wants to scroll page by page through the NGC Census and the PCGS Population Report to verify this, please be my guest.

Has to be an MS-70 from a regularly struck penny, nickel, dime, etc...struck in the last few years or decades, no ?

[RWB]

So is there any consensus between "unblemished as it was struck," and "perfect in every way" ?

The first (Sheldon) is a practical definition, and the second is a Divine intervention.

Edited July 26, 2023 by RWB

[VKurtB]

On 7/25/2023 at 5:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Has to be an MS-70 from a regularly struck penny, nickel, dime, etc...struck in the last few years or decades, no ?

No. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/25/2023 at 6:28 PM, RWB said:

So is there any consensus between "unblemished as it was struck," and "perfect in every way" ?

The first (Sheldon) is a practical definition, and the second is a Divine intervention.

No, no such consensus. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/25/2023 at 7:28 PM, RWB said:

So is there any consensus between "unblemished as it was struck," and "perfect in every way" ?

The first (Sheldon) is a practical definition, and the second is a Divine definition.

Consensus?  (I think I liked it better when you dwelt on empirical, replicative stuff.)  I recently wrote a seller to explain his version of the higher end of the Sheldon scale.  Here, in substance, is what I got. There is no AU, but EF is followed by UNC, BU and Pf.  I requested his definition of BU. He had the temerity to reply with a circuitous MS-60 to MS-70. I didn't bother to ask him exactly where in his convoluted scheme MS stood.. Theoretically, I suppose, MS-70, however unlikely, still technically falls squarely within the realm of possibility. If there were a consensus, a frequent-flyer among us would retire in the usual sense of the word. I purchased a TPGS' MS-67 MS-67, in part, when the seller gushed, "she is beautiful," where most collectors of high-end items located overseas would have declined in the absence of holding a loupe in one hand, coin [slab] in the other, and both boots on the ground.

[VKurtB]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Consensus?  (I think I liked it better when you dwelt on empirical, replicative stuff.)  I recently wrote a seller to explain his version of the higher end of the Sheldon scale.  Here, in substance, is what I got. There is no AU, but EF is followed by UNC, BU and Pf.  I requested his definition of BU. He had the temerity to reply with a circuitous MS-60 to MS-70. I didn't bother to ask him exactly where in his convoluted scheme MS stood.. Theoretically, I suppose, MS-70, however unlikely, still technically falls squarely within the realm of possibility. If there were a consensus, a frequent-flyer among us would retire in the usual sense of the word. I purchased a TPGS' MS-67 MS-67, in part, when the seller gushed, "she is beautiful," where most collectors of high-end items located overseas would have declined in the absence of holding a loupe in one hand, coin [slab] in the other, and both boots on the ground.

Sounds like a British seller’s standards to me.