Detecting Highpoint Wear... 1 1

[Carterofmars]

I'm reading in Scott Traver's book 'The Coin Collectors Survival Manual' that to distinguish wear on the highpoints of a coin that might otherwise possibly look UNC, is the slight discoloration between those very highest points and the rest of the coin.  The points with wear will show dull grey vs the rest of the coin showing a bright silver color.  Also, breaks on luster when turning under a lamp. 

I tried to take the best pictures I could. From these photos can one distinguish those high points as wear, or as maybe toning?  

I circled the dull grey areas in red.   There is definitely a contrast between brighter silver and a duller grey on those high points.   Seem to coincide with what I'm reading in Traver's Survival Manual. 

[Greenstang]

To me that looks more like toning. The high points would not be as big an area as what yo have circled.

[Carterofmars]

On 6/27/2024 at 4:21 PM, Greenstang said:

To me that looks more like toning. The high points would not be as big an area as what yo have circled.

Thanks.   If not wear, what grade would you say given what you can see in the images?   Is it in fact a unc MS? 

[J P M]

It is a good looking coin, Guessing a grade from pictures is always tough but I would give it a MS65 

[Coinbuf]

Toning or possible old dip residue that was not properly rinsed.   While rub or wear can have a dull look it can also have a shiny look depending on the coin's surface.   Lets use your coin as an example, notice on the center of the eagle how that area is shiny in your photo as opposed to the area surrounding it.   That could be a sign of wear as that is a high point of the design where the tone or whatever might have been rubbed or even from stacking friction.   I'm not saying that is wear just that looking for a change in color doesn't always have to be dull, only buy tilting and rotating the coin under a proper light can you tell for sure.

As to a grade I would not be able to venture a guess on grade or even MS vs AU from your photos, you need to take the photos straight on not angled as your photos are.

[Coinbuf]

Look at this photo of a modern circulated quarter.   Look at the jawline, neck, and eyebrow area.  See how those areas show the wear from circulation.   I tilted this quarter to really highlight the wear, when viewed at a different angle this wear is barely noticeable.  That is why you need to tilt and rotate a coin to really see the surface.  This is a good example of the grey dull look your book describes. 

Edited Thursday at 09:22 PM by Coinbuf

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/27/2024 at 4:42 PM, Coinbuf said:

....As to a grade I would not be able to venture a guess on grade or even MS vs AU from your photos, you need to take the photos straight on not angled as your photos are.

There is a simple reason why the OP -- and for that matter, scores of other members -- take photos at an angle.  If he didn't, the viewer would see nothing due to less than optimum lighting conditions. 

The challenge here is producing photos so clear, one can volunteer an informed opinion.  As a reasonable person, I am going to propose the following: an array of a minimum of ten (20) angled photos, shot at all 16 points of the compass: N/S, NE/SW, E/W, SE/ NW, S/N, SW/NE, W/E, NW/SE, obverse and reverse, + 4 photos: 2 for close-ups and 2 more, shot straight-on, obverse and reverse. They must pass muster with Buffalo Head and Kurt.  When both are satisfied, your work is done.

 

[CIII]

Based upon the photos submitted, I would guess an MS65+ grade.  Very well struck and nice luster too.  It is virtually impossible to accurately grade without more evidence. however. :-)

[Carterofmars]

On 6/27/2024 at 5:23 PM, Henri Charriere said:

There is a simple reason why the OP -- and for that matter, scores of other members -- take photos at an angle.  If he didn't, the viewer would see nothing due to less than optimum lighting conditions. 

The challenge here is producing photos so clear, one can volunteer an informed opinion.  As a reasonable person, I am going to propose the following: an array of a minimum of ten (20) angled photos, shot at all 16 points of the compass: N/S, NE/SW, E/W, SE/ NW, S/N, SW/NE, W/E, NW/SE, obverse and reverse, + 4 photos: 2 for close-ups and 2 more, shot straight-on, obverse and reverse. They must pass muster with Buffalo Head and Kurt.  When both are satisfied, your work is done.

 

I'll get right on it.  😁

[Carterofmars]

Video link

Edited Friday at 04:28 AM by Carterofmars

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/27/2024 at 3:52 PM, Carterofmars said:

I'm reading in Scott Traver's book 'The Coin Collectors Survival Manual' that to distinguish wear on the highpoints of a coin that might otherwise possibly look UNC, is the slight discoloration between those very highest points and the rest of the coin.  The points with wear will show dull grey vs the rest of the coin showing a bright silver color.  Also, breaks on luster when turning under a lamp. I tried to take the best pictures I could. From these photos can one distinguish those high points as wear, or as maybe toning?   I circled the dull grey areas in red.   There is definitely a contrast between brighter silver and a duller grey on those high points.   Seem to coincide with what I'm reading in Traver's Survival Manual. 

This is probably the most difficult thing to gauge in coin grading.  It automatically determins if your coin is MS or AU.

There are doozies all over these forums....ATS...etc.  Veteran coin collectors who have seen tens of thousands of coins (maybe more)...professional graders.....etc...and even THEY can't agree on the definition of rub/wear/friction and what it looks like from either pictures and/or in-hand.

A former grader stated that on coins with high points if the die isn't filled you can have the APPEARANCE of rub/wear/friction even though it was a striking issue.

[Carterofmars]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:10 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Veteran coin collectors who have seen tens of thousands of coins (maybe more)...professional graders.....etc...and even THEY can't agree on the definition of rub/wear/friction and what it looks like from either pictures and/or in-hand.

From what research I've done, distinguishing between rub/wear/friction is the most difficult to determine.  They're all a disturbance in a coins microscopic luster finish. 

All three, rub/wear/friction, discount the coin from mint state right?  But now, regarding toning; does toning typically effect only high points of a coin?  Is that expected usually? 

If my example is wear, would that much wear cover the areas I circled in red and leave the rest of the coin as nice as they present?  Would there be such a lack of scratches, nicks, etc on a coin displaying that much coverage from wear? 

Toning, wear, or some kind of residue (from a dip I'm presuming) as was suggested by one contributor?  Although, if dipped, wouldn't we expect to see the residue in the recessed areas as well? 

Lots to consider. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:20 AM by Carterofmars

[Carterofmars]

On 6/27/2024 at 4:42 PM, Coinbuf said:

As to a grade I would not be able to venture a guess on grade or even MS vs AU from your photos, you need to take the photos straight on not angled as your photos are.

How are these? 

[Sandon]

   It really isn't possible to teach just how to detect very light wear as opposed to abrasion from coin-to-coin contact through two dimensional images. (The image of the 2023-D quarter that @Coinbuf posted is about as good as can be done.) I recommend that you go to coin shows or other venues where you can examine in hand professionally graded coins at the AU 55 and AU 58 levels versus MS levels, especially those from more recent (twentieth century) series.

  To the extent I can tell from your most recent images, your 1935-D Texas commemorative half dollar probably would merit a lower-end mint state grade, with the light difference in color or shine on the high points being toning or light abrasion from contact with a surface or album slide. The whole coin appears to have impaired luster, likely from having been "dipped".

  The grading services, with the possible exception of CAC Grading, treat some level of "rub" on older (especially pre-1837) U.S. coins, Indian Head quarter and half eagles, and some heavier coins such as silver dollars and double eagles as "roll friction" or now "stacking friction". This approach is what is creating much of the confusion about what does and doesn't constitute light wear. I don't agree with this approach and personally regard most pieces of the mentioned series that the services have graded as high as MS 63 (and some as high as MS 64) as lightly worn Ch. AUs, a.k.a. "sliders". (See, for example, my topic Grade Inflation? - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards.)

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/28/2024 at 11:06 PM, Sandon said:

The grading services, with the possible exception of CAC Grading, treat some level of "rub" on older (especially pre-1837) U.S. coins, Indian Head quarter and half eagles, and some heavier coins such as silver dollars and double eagles as "roll friction" or now "stacking friction". This approach is what is creating much of the confusion about what does and doesn't constitute light wear. I don't agree with this approach and personally regard most pieces of the mentioned series that the services have graded as high as MS 63 (and some as high as MS 64) as lightly worn Ch. AUs, a.k.a. "sliders". (See, for example, my topic Grade Inflation? - US, World, and Ancient Coins - NGC Coin Collectors Chat Boards.)

The whole concept of "net grading" is that very MINUTE amounts of friction/rub/wear are being offset by other attractive features of the coin.  Technical grading and the whole "fear" about CACG is that ANY evidence of wear/friction/rub was dropping coins into the AU bucket and collectors with previously MS coins in the 60's were losing registry points and/or Big $$$ by having an AU coin in the 50's.  

Even CACG might be more forgiving of rub/wear on some pre-1837 coins than say on a 1924 Saint where there are hundreds of thousands of coins.

Reading the 2 John Albanese articles/interviews -- with Maurice Rosen (2009) and the CACG discussion (2002) -- is very useful to learn about market grading influences.  It's not a black-or-white issue, even to John.

Edited yesterday at 05:10 AM by GoldFinger1969

[Carterofmars]

As I turn this coin over in my hand under a bright incandescent light and view the obverse, i'm noticing that I see luster/cartwheel effect around the eagle device, In the surrounding fields, but not crossing over the eagle.

Might this be an indication that someone at some point may have used some type of cleaning solution just on the eagle and not the rest of the coin? Hence i'm seeing that brownis/tonish looking color over the eagle only?

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Carterofmars

[Coinbuf]

On 6/29/2024 at 7:02 AM, Carterofmars said:

As I turn this coin over in my hand under a bright incandescent light and view the obverse, i'm noticing that I see luster/cartwheel effect around the eagle device, In the surrounding fields, but not crossing over the eagle.

Might this be an indication that someone at some point may have used some type of cleaning solution just on the eagle and not the rest of the coin? Hence i'm seeing that brownis/tonish looking color over the eagle only?

 

No cartwheel effect doesn't work on the devices/design only in the flat fields.  Cartwheel comes from the metal flow lines that radiate from the middle of the coin out to the rim as the coin is struck.   However, those lines need to be straight uninterrupted lines to get the cartwheel.  The design has multiple relief heights which prevents that cartwheel effect.

I think you are over thinking this one coin and missing the forest for the trees.  Your coin from the second set of photos appears to be mint state, I would say MS65 or perhaps MS64.  Many coins of this age have been dipped by dealers and collectors in the past which is why I said the tone on your coin could be old dip residue that was not fully rinsed off.   Don't take that as gospel, just my guess from the photos.   The tone may be just that simple toning.

[Carterofmars]

On 6/29/2024 at 11:12 AM, Coinbuf said:

 

I think you are over thinking this one coin and missing the forest for the trees.  Your coin from the second set of photos appears to be mint state, I would say MS65 or perhaps MS64.  

This is an exercise in learning for me.  I'm going into such detail on this coin because it's a good learning opportunity.  I'm picking up a lot of good info that I hope will help me choose better coins going forward. 😉

Edited 20 hours ago by Carterofmars

[Carterofmars]

On 6/28/2024 at 11:06 PM, Sandon said:

I recommend that you go to coin shows or other venues where you can examine in hand professionally graded coins at the AU 55 and AU 58 levels versus MS levels, especially those from more recent (twentieth century) series.

 

This is a good recommendation.  Viewing other coins with this type of cleaning (if that's in fact what it is).

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/29/2024 at 11:39 AM, Carterofmars said:

This is an exercise in learning for me.  I'm going into such detail on this coin because it's a good learning opportunity.  I'm picking up a lot of good info that I hope will help me choose better coins going forward. 😉

That is true.  Same with the detailed discussions with the heavyweights going at it ATS.  Some really good threads...and yet...if folks with decades more experience than me can't agree on the definition or grading of a coin, how the hell am I going to get up to definitive speed on recognizing border-line cases of wear/rub/friction ?

At the end of the day...with tons more knowledge....you're STILL not sure of which way to go.   Ultimately, it's subjective.  Nobody wants clear evidence of wear/rub to be ignored in grading...but at the same time, only a minority of a minority wants the SLIGHTEST trace of rub on the HIGHEST point of a coin to disqualify it from MS status (there are some but not many). 

The debate in the past -- as it was -- was a tough NGC vs. a very tough PCGS.  But now, with CACG, people are afraid the standard is going to be set by the Perfectionist No Leeway At All CACG.   You have the tiniest bit of wear, unless you're a coin from the 1800's with a single-digit population, you're going into the AU bucket.

[GoldFinger1969]

Sandon, just curious on where you come out -- how you would characterize yourself -- on this whole grading thing involving wear/rub/friction.  Are you a technical grader, consequences be damned...or do you allow for SOME leeway into market grading ?

If you have an MCMVII High Relief Saint or some other coin with high points...if you see just 1 SLIGHT point with the faintest wear/rub, are you grading it AU even if the rest of the coin was spectacular and if not for the sole blemish might be an MS-66 or MS-67 ?  You gonna give it an MS-65....or an AU-58 ?

Happy to hear from others here on this, too as this is the ultimate definer of how we see grading and TPGs.

 

[Coinbuf]

On 6/29/2024 at 9:38 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sandon, just curious on where you come out -- how you would characterize yourself -- on this whole grading thing involving wear/rub/friction.  Are you a technical grader, consequences be damned...or do you allow for SOME leeway into market grading ?

If you have an MCMVII High Relief Saint or some other coin with high points...if you see just 1 SLIGHT point with the faintest wear/rub, are you grading it AU even if the rest of the coin was spectacular and if not for the sole blemish might be an MS-66 or MS-67 ?  You gonna give it an MS-65....or an AU-58 ?

Happy to hear from others here on this, too as this is the ultimate definer of how we see grading and TPGs.

 

This would be better served as it's own topic/thread vs tacking onto this thread.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/29/2024 at 1:04 PM, Coinbuf said:

This would be better served as it's own topic/thread vs tacking onto this thread.

No objections...I thought because the OP was on High Point Wear, it was still relevant to this thread.

New thread created.  Thanks, CB ! 

Edited 18 hours ago by GoldFinger1969