Change in Grading Nomenclature needed? 1 1

[Carterofmars]

It seems that luster is the absolute most important aspect when determining MS from about UNC.  If there's any disturbance to the luster of a minted coin, then it's not mint state, no matter how that disturbance occurred- rub, friction, wear.   

It seems to me that it's more important to not think in terms of circulated/uncirculated,  as having been or not having been used in commerce, but rather to think in terms of that mint state- is that luster in tact, absolutely and undisturbed at all, on obverse and and reverse.

Might it be better to do away with the term about uncirculated and replace it with about mint state instead?  Get the words uncirculated and circulated out of the nomenclature entirely? 

Is this reasonable?

Edited July 3 by Carterofmars
Syntax correction.

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

determining MS from UNC.

Same thing essentially.

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

If there's any disturbance to the luster of a minted coin, then it's not mint state, no matter how that disturbance occurred- rub, friction, wear.   

Not accurate but disturbance or lack of luster will downgrade the coin, doesn't mean it doesn't grade MS/UNC. Have you checked out the ANA's grading standards? https://www.money.org/official-grading-standards/

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

It seems to me that it's more important to not think in terms of circulation/uncirculated as having been or not having been used in commerce, but think in terms of that mint state- is that luster in tact, absolutely.

Luster matters but what will really blow your mind is that the first coins produced from new dies will have diminished or no luster, or that a coin with eyepopping luster is in fact a real dog due to die wear, or not being fully struck up, etc..  

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

Might it be better to do away with the term about uncirculated and replace it with about mint state instead?  Get the words uncirculated and circulated out of the nomenclature entirely? 

Is this reasonable?

Negative. 

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:49 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Luster matters but what will really blow your mind is that the first coins produced from new dies will have diminished or no luster, or that a coin with eyepopping luster is in fact a real dog due to die wear, or not being fully struck up, etc..  

Okay, that I didn't need to know.  

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:49 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

determining MS from UNC.

Same thing essentially.

I corrected the Typo. Thanks. 

[Henri Charriere]

I have nothing to substantiate my position but I am certain many a matte proof has been mistaken for an uncirculated coin.

Edited July 9 by Henri Charriere
Delete one letter.

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:49 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Not accurate but disturbance or lack of luster will downgrade the coin, doesn't mean it doesn't grade MS/UNC. Have you checked out the ANA's grading standards? https://www.money.org/official-grading-standards/

CACG uses this to the ANA to the letter? 

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 11:58 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I have nothing to substantiate my position but I am certain many a matte proof has been mistaken for and uncirculated coin.

Can you expand on this? 

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 7/3/2024 at 12:03 PM, Carterofmars said:

CACG uses this to the ANA to the letter? 

Yes, I believe they use the ANA grading standards or some version of it, all TPG's do. How they interpret/implement it is another matter. My understanding is that CACG holds tighter to the ANA grading standards, technical grading, as opposed to other TPG's.

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 2:26 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

My understanding is that CACG holds tighter to the ANA grading standards, technical grading, as opposed to other TPG's.

 Well, that's critically important.  The grading company adhering as close to the standards as possible is the better.  No matter how it will affect coins in slabs presently.   My opinion. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 7/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, Carterofmars said:

Well, that's critically important.  The grading company adhering as close to the standards as possible is the better.  No matter how it will affect coins in slabs presently.   My opinion. 

Collectors should learn how to grade themselves, use the ANA grading standards as a base but remember each coin series will have its nuances, and develop their own taste in coins based on what they like or place more importance on, booming luster vs sharp details, etc.. Also, look at a lot of coins, I mean a lot, to develop their skill set/eye.

Market grading vs technical grading for the masses, it doesn't really come into play for me at the moment since I collect mainly world coins and at present the TPG's that do grade world coins do so similarly for the most part. Haven't really formed an opinion on it yet, don't know that I will ever really need to either. The coin is the coin, judge it for what it is.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, Carterofmars said:

Can you expand on this? 

NYPD:  In a nutshell, Ms.Arrius, the eyewitnesses, the tape, all suggest he was shot in a drive-by...

Ms. ARRIUS:  A Drive-by?  He said he"d be back in 3 minutes.

NYPD:  I'm sorry.

Ms. ARRIUS:  I TOLD HIM NOT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THOSE UNCS AND MATTE PROOFS!!!!  

[Sandon]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

If there's any disturbance to the luster of a minted coin, then it's not mint state, no matter how that disturbance occurred- rub, friction, wear.   

   This is incorrect. Every coin minted for circulation and handled in bulk has disturbance to its luster in the form of bag marks, nicks, and scrapes (sometimes called "luster grazes") from coin-to-coin contact. These disturbances are distinguishable from circulation wear or "rub", which is dull, while the results of coin-to-coin contact are shiny. Only individually handled collectors' issues that would grade MS 69-70 by current grading standards (ANA or commercial) may be completely free of such disturbances, at least under low magnification.

   Luster, defined by PCGS as "the strength and pattern of light reflected off a coin", plays different roles in grading circulated and uncirculated (or mint state, the terms being synonymous) coins.

   Luster is not expected to be present at all on coins grading below Extremely Fine. The ANA Grading Guide (7th and most recent edition, 2013) states for some series, such as Barber and Walking Liberty half dollars, that at EF-40 "traces of mint luster may still show", while for others such as Franklin half dollars and Morgan and Peace dollars, "part of the mint luster is still present".  At EF-45, either "part" or "half" of the original mint luster should show, depending on the series. Coins grading AU 50 are supposed to have "some", "half", or "three quarters" of the luster present, again depending on the series. For most series, a coin grading AU 55 is supposed to have at least three quarters of the luster present, and for coins grading AU 58 the only breaks in luster due to wear would be at the identified high points of the design.

   For uncirculated/mint state coins, it is the quality of the luster that is supposed to constitute one of the four factors used in arriving at a mint state grade, the other factors being service preservation, strike and "eye appeal".  The ANA Grading Guide spells out the expected quality of luster, as well, as other characteristics, for each numerical grade for such coins as Walking Liberty half dollars, Morgan and Peace dollars, and double eagles.  For coins grading MS 60 to MS 62, luster "may be original or impaired", for MS 63 "original or slightly impaired", for MS 64 "average" but "fully original", for MS 65 "fully original", for MS 66-67 "above average" as well as "fully original", for MS 68 "attractive" as well as "fully original", and for MS 69-70 both "very attractive" and "fully original". Remember that luster is just one of the four factors, so a coin with original but dull luster but a strong strike and decent surface preservation and overall pleasing eye appeal may be graded MS 65, as well as a coin with much brighter and frostier luster but a slightly weak strike and a fair number of contact marks.

   The commercial grading services may be interpreting some of these standards differently or loosely, but interpretations of such complex yet subjective standards are going to vary somewhat from one person to another, regardless of experience. Even the ANA Grading Guide states (for example at p. 252 regarding Walking Liberty half dollars), "These coins often show minor weaknesses or friction spots even though they may never have been used in circulation. Such coins are difficult to distinguish and are sometimes considered to be Mint State rather than About Uncirculated, when they have superior eye appeal, strike, or appearance."

Edited July 3 by Sandon
closed paren

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:06 PM, Sandon said:

This is incorrect. Every coin minted for circulation and handled in bulk has disturbance to its luster in the form of bag marks, nicks, and scrapes (sometimes called "luster grazes") from coin-to-coin contact.

I'm not including contact or bag marks.  If luster is damaged by wear or rub then it's precluded from an MS designation.  Should become what I'm calling Almost Mint State or AMS.

Edited July 4 by Carterofmars

[Coinbuf]

I think you are fighting a losing battle, if this is the hill you want to die on go for it.   I will continue to use AU for the foreseeable future.

[Zebo]

Not today.

Edited July 3 by Zebo

[Carterofmars]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:52 PM, Coinbuf said:

I think you are fighting a losing battle, if this is the hill you want to die on go for it.   I will continue to use AU for the foreseeable future.

Hill to die on?  Dude, this is a hobby.  Have fun with it.  

[RWB]

I'd prefer to get rid of "MS = Mint State" and return to the clearer term "Uncirculated."

PS: "Washington is the top-producing mint state in the nation, producing the most spearmint and peppermint. Oregon is the #2 producer of peppermint and the #4 producer of spearmint." (Washington State University)

[VKurtB]

On 7/3/2024 at 8:12 PM, RWB said:

I'd prefer to get rid of "MS = Mint State" and return to the clearer term "Uncirculated."

PS: "Washington is the top-producing mint state in the nation, producing the most spearmint and peppermint. Oregon is the #2 producer of peppermint and the #4 producer of spearmint." (Washington State University)

Lots of wild spearmint in streams around Pennsylvania farm fields, too. The Alabama streams are useless, unless you’re hunting for long lost filthy Roll Tide ball caps.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/5/2024 at 10:25 PM, VKurtB said:

Lots of wild spearmint in streams around Pennsylvania farm fields, too. The Alabama streams are useless, unless you’re hunting for long lost filthy Roll Tide ball caps.

Streams? Farms?? FIELDS???  Ohhh, I get it. You mean before all the concrete, steel, glass and asphalt came. I'll bet the air is fresher, too. You still have grass and trees?  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:52 PM, Coinbuf said:

I think you are fighting a losing battle, if this is the hill you want to die on go for it.   I will continue to use AU for the foreseeable future.

Similar battle ATS over the terminology and how coins could be "circulated" and still Mint State or something like that.  Left my head spinning. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/3/2024 at 9:23 AM, Carterofmars said:

It seems that luster is the absolute most important aspect when determining MS from about UNC.  If there's any disturbance to the luster of a minted coin, then it's not mint state, no matter how that disturbance occurred- rub, friction, wear.   It seems to me that it's more important to not think in terms of circulated/uncirculated,  as having been or not having been used in commerce, but rather to think in terms of that mint state- is that luster in tact, absolutely and undisturbed at all, on obverse and and reverse.Might it be better to do away with the term about uncirculated and replace it with about mint state instead?  Get the words uncirculated and circulated out of the nomenclature entirely? Is this reasonable?

Probably not, because if you go by the actual definition of luster -- the best example of what is is and how it is caused is in RWB's Saint-Gaudens book (see below) -- then you realize it a result of deformations involving the crystalline structure of the coin's metal (gold) as it is impacted  by the deformed steel die under heavy pressure. There could be variations that have nothing to do with wear or circulation or rub.

As Roger noted:

Luster, as understood by coin collectors, is the visual result of light reflecting off of thousands of tiny ridges and grooves of metal in the smooth (i.e., field) areas of a coin. These imperfections were created in a working die as the hard steel was stressed during the striking of thousands of blank planchets.

The original surface of a coinage die is smooth, somewhat satin-like and largely free of imperfections. This die face is made of very hard carbon steel (mostly martensitic steel formed by rapid cooling of austenite steel) that has been tempered for toughness. Modern techniques further harden the surface through application of special coatings, but this was not done on dies made for Saint-Gaudens double eagles.

In use, the hard die face impacted a soft metal planchet composed of 0.900 gold and 0.100 copper. The pressure, or force, applied to the planchet was approximately 100 tons to 120 tons per square inch acting over a short period of time. Energy of the blow, pushed planchet metal into the recesses of the die so that the coin became a mirror image of the die face. With each blow of the die, an imperceptible movement occurred in the crystals of the die face. Following several hundred strikes, the die face had distorted slightly so that the fields were no longer completely smooth, but consisted of microscopic ridges and grooves. These radiated from the center of the die face and also emulated the general pattern of metal flow in the planchets. Once metal flow was established, it tended to aid metal flow in planchets and the die surface then changed very slowly.

This type of surface alteration was most prominent in the fields of a die where movement of metal was greatest and least inhibited by details of the design. The portrait, inscriptions and other design elements were subject to similar die deformation, but at a much lower rate and magnitude. This explains why a coin shows luster in the fields but not in the raised areas.

If a die is kept in use too long, or was improperly tempered, surface distortion will continue to where ridges and groves appear to join into larger structures. Their amplitude also in-creases and the defects become visible streaks on the die surface. This also begins to abrade the edges of details and creates additional ridges that blur design detail. At this point, the die is said to exhibit “starburst” named for the bright star-like pattern of radial lines.

Edited July 7 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:06 PM, Sandon said:

Luster is not expected to be present at all on coins grading below Extremely Fine. The ANA Grading Guide (7th and most recent edition, 2013) states for some series, such as Barber and Walking Liberty half dollars, that at EF-40 "traces of mint luster may still show", while for others such as Franklin half dollars and Morgan and Peace dollars, "part of the mint luster is still present".  At EF-45, either "part" or "half" of the original mint luster should show, depending on the series. Coins grading AU 50 are supposed to have "some", "half", or "three quarters" of the luster present, again depending on the series. For most series, a coin grading AU 55 is supposed to have at least three quarters of the luster present, and for coins grading AU 58 the only breaks in luster due to wear would be at the identified high points of the design.

Is luster a factor of both the metal AND the deformation in the crystalline structure of the die, or just the die itself ?  Seems you might get more light-reflection (luster) off gold than other metals, no ?

On 7/3/2024 at 6:06 PM, Sandon said:

Every coin minted for circulation and handled in bulk has disturbance to its luster in the form of bag marks, nicks, and scrapes (sometimes called "luster grazes") from coin-to-coin contact. These disturbances are distinguishable from circulation wear or "rub", which is dull, while the results of coin-to-coin contact are shiny. Only individually handled collectors' issues that would grade MS 69-70 by current grading standards (ANA or commercial) may be completely free of such disturbances, at least under low magnification.

The results of "coin to coin contact are shiny" -- can you elaborate ?

It's not that I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to deduce these minute differences in luster and wear and friction etc....the problem I have...one I have noted here for years....is that I don't believe that even experts can do all this discerning in 10-15 seconds without making an unacceptable number of errors that might not be the case if they spent 90 seconds on each coin.

Also, some purists believe all wear is wear and this includes bag marks and thus even shiny "coin to coin contact" would be penalized as much as dull "rub" even if it was distinguishable (which again, in the span of a few seconds, you wonder how many senior graders can really nail it).

[powermad5000]

If you are basing MS on this issue of luster, can you explain to me why many of the highest graded Franklin Half Dollars have heavy or dark toning on them? Also, can you explain Mercury dimes graded MS 68 with blue toning so heavy that luster is not apparent on them? Should those then not deserve the grade based on original, undisturbed surfaces they retained which earned them the grade they got because they don't have this cartwheel luster?

I think you are getting too hung up on this friction/wear/rub thing which begun in another thread and now an issue with luster as well in this thread. I can only guess this stems from a submittal returning with a coin(s) not getting a perceived grade you thought they would. If anything, this would mean you need to learn more about these nuances when it comes to self grading and selecting coins for purchase and submittal. I can point out two coins which I do own. A 1923 Peace dollar that is so blast white and has such good luster that it is difficult to take photos of that is NGC graded MS 63, and another 1923 Peace Dollar with a little luster but mostly a somewhat dull surface that NGC graded as MS 65. If grade is based upon luster, then my 65 should be maybe only an MS 60 and my MS 63 should have graded as MS 67 or MS 68. Luster is only one factor of grade and AU coins (especially AU 58) may/could still retain all of their original luster.

I find nothing wrong with the terms the way they are, nor the 70 point Sheldon scale. When you can properly apply the knowledge you have to the system in place, it should present no issue in this hobby.

[Henri Charriere]

Barring any violent objections, I shall henceforth refer to ridges and grooves as lands and grooves.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/7/2024 at 3:07 AM, powermad5000 said:

If you are basing MS on this issue of luster, can you explain to me why many of the highest graded Franklin Half Dollars have heavy or dark toning on them? Also, can you explain Mercury dimes graded MS 68 with blue toning so heavy that luster is not apparent on them? Should those then not deserve the grade based on original, undisturbed surfaces they retained which earned them the grade they got because they don't have this cartwheel luster?

That's a REALLY good point....because toning is not only now considerd a positive....but it can HIDE and COVER UP blemishes that would otherwise detract from the grade and maybe even keep a coin MS instead of going to AU if a coin has a few areas of wear/rub.  If they are covered up by (dark) toning....a coin that was originally an MS-63 30 years ago....that had wear and could have been a strong AU-58....might instead be an MS-65 today with all the toning ! 

[J P M]

Toning or tarnish can hide many sins. I picked up this coin for next to nothing. I was thinking it was AU, but it was too far gone to tell for sure, it looked like it was in a fire. This coin has some marks but actually has cartwheel.

Edited July 7 by J P M

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/3/2024 at 6:06 PM, Sandon said:

....For uncirculated/mint state coins, it is the quality of the luster that is supposed to constitute one of the four factors used in arriving at a mint state grade, the other factors being service preservation, strike and "eye appeal"...

This is as fine a recitation of the factors considered in grading a coin that one can hope to come across.  All the more reason why I am hesitant to offer an observation of my own.

In reading and re-reading your reply, I have noted your references to "four" factors.  In consulting my hand-printed notes from 2019 (when I re-entered the hobby after a 50+ year hiatus) I see Five factors considered. These are, in no particular order: strike, [surface] preservation, luster, COLOR and attractiveness (eye appeal). I have a penciled marginal note stating "toning" is not formally included for the purposes of determining a coin's grade.  Unfortunately, I made no note of the source of this information. Should I assume there is more of an emphasis on color in non-Mint State coins?

 

[VKurtB]

On 7/9/2024 at 8:04 PM, Henri Charriere said:

This is as fine a recitation of the factors considered in grading a coin that one can hope to come across.  All the more reason why I am hesitant to offer an observation of my own.

In reading and re-reading your reply, I have noted your references to "four" factors.  In consulting my hand-printed notes from 2019 (when I re-entered the hobby after a 50+ year hiatus) I see Five factors considered. These are, in no particular order: strike, [surface] preservation, luster, COLOR and attractiveness (eye appeal). I have a penciled marginal note stating "toning" is not formally included for the purposes of determining a coin's grade.  Unfortunately, I made no note of the source of this information. Should I assume there is more of an emphasis on color in non-Mint State coins?

 

Color is more important on non-silver coins, apart from toning, which can be included in eye appeal. (Not for me, of course.)

[RWB]

"Luster" is subjective and should NEVER be part of the condition or grade of a coin. It is a personal opinion.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/10/2024 at 7:29 PM, RWB said:

"Luster" is subjective and should NEVER be part of the condition or grade of a coin. It is a personal opinion.

But... but grading, in and of itself, is one giant, composite opinion, No?

Take Luster away. Exempt Toning from consideration. Strike down it's cousin, Color, and then "there were three."

Strike, surface preservation, and eye appeal.

(And don't forget to give Trade Dollars chop-marked to Hades and back, the professional pass.)

I think I am ready to die on that hill Coinbuf mentioned earlier!

Edited July 13 by Henri Charriere
Add puctuation.