Thoughts on Coin Grading - Taking a Chance

[RWB]

In another thread I was soundly lambasted for referring to a coin labeled "AU" as a high-end EF. It might be helpful for some to learn more of the system I follow when examining a coin. Although I don't buy or sell coins, this is the evaluation and thought process I learned from Frank Katen but with some practical modifications - mostly examination conditions - picked up in the 1970s and early 1980s while making coin photos of dimes and half dimes for Kam Ahwash.

 

Here goes ----- This first part ends at MS-70.

 

Thoughts on Coin Grading (copyright)

 

Grading refers to the condition or preservation of the surfaces of a coin. All three surfaces are relevant. No other factors are involved. Assumptions concerning coloration, scarcity/abundance, or assumed value are immaterial and left to free market forces and owner preferences. Proof and other specially made coins are graded in the same manner; however, they are identified by the abbreviation “PR” preceding any grade. (“Proof” is a manufacturing process, not a description of condition or preservation.)

 

There is only one set of modifiers: S.A.W. which stand for Strong, Average and Weak. One of these can be used with regard to the detail present on a coin. This is always in relation to the original detail of the design and ignores any assumed production trends. (If all known coins of a specific date/mint are poorly detailed, then all will be eligible for the “W” modifier. If a fully detailed example were discovered, it could earn the “S” designation, and thus standout from all others.)

 

Examination Conditions. All grading is performed under standard lighting and magnification.

 

Lighting – one halogen or LED light source with a corrected color temperature of 4800 to 5200 degrees Kelvin. The source fixture is fitted with a diffusion disc and has a front diameter of between 100mm and 150mm. It is lined with either full reflective aluminum or Eastman Kodak 90% standard white. The fixture is placed between 150mm and 250mm from the surface being examined. Intensity may be between 1,500 lux and 5,000 lux at the examination point.

 

Ambient lighting – may not exceed 250 lux but should not be less than 50 lux.

 

Background – must be Kodak 18% gray and include the examiner’s entire field of view during coin examination.

 

Magnification – may range from none to 10x, either monocular or binocular.

 

MS-70. This is the only “mint state” grade.

The coin is as it came from the dies. The design might be strong, average or weak, but the surfaces will be free of all non-die defects when examined with 10x magnification under standard examination conditions.

 

********

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Did you copy this from somewhere, or are these your own thoughts?

 

The system you describe sounds a lot like "technical grading," which was the standard in the 1970's. Technical grading has its merits, but the vast majority of the hobby practices market grading. Neither system is "right" or "wrong" per se, but they are different and the differences must be acknowledged. It must be understood that almost all of the grading opinions posted here, discussed in the grading guides, and given by the TPGs are market grades.

 

Your S.A.W. method sounds a lot like the "a-b-c" designators that Accugrade used to use. I'm a fan of that idea, if it can be consistently and accurately applied (Accugrade wasn't accurate or consistent, hence their failure). Recently, Rick Snow has been advocating a similar system where several factors are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, and designated as part of the grade (I can't remember exactly which factors he calls out, but strike and surfaces are two of them).

[RWB]

Nope. Just how I learned to grade with a few small modifications over the years. I added standard lighting/viewing conditions about 20 years ago while writing a book on coin photography. Back in the film days, consistency was vital. It is how I examine a coin today.

 

The approach from Frank Katen was to use this when examining a coin...it wasn't necessarily in conformance with any published "system." The goal was to understand the coin in-hand without any distractions. (Katen used the same process for buying and selling. When working with Ahwash photographing his dimes and half-dimes, I saw a lot of "dealers" who in Kam's words "bought AU and sold BU.")

 

S.A.W. works today because we know what the designs were supposed to look like, and can make reasonable comparisons. The three letters are simply a mnemonic device....and no Li Ion batteries needed!

[numisport]

Boy there's a lot of gem to superb gem Buffalos that get that 'weak' modifier !

[Afterword]

I agree coins should be graded in this fashion.

[RWB]

"Boy there's a lot of gem to superb gem Buffalos that get that 'weak' modifier !"

 

...and that's OK. It is an honest statement. That, to me, is what good coin grading is about - being as objective and dispassionate about the state of preservation of the coin as possible - nothing else. The market will decide how to value the pieces, just as it will the others that might get an S or and A. [if all the present "gem to superb gem Buffalos" were magically designated W, their market value would not change. However, the different market value of an A or and S coin would probably become evident very quickly.]

 

Notice that the adjectives "gem" or "superb gem" are never used - they are subjective and highly distorted terms that actually convey no useful information.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Wikipedia, a site I know you love to hate RWB has this article on coin grading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading

 

Coin grading has always been about market valuations not abstract concepts of a "grade" but real practical application. JMHO. YMMV

[brg5658]

 

...

Notice that the adjectives "gem" or "superb gem" are never used - they are subjective and highly distorted terms that actually convey no useful information.

 

Notice the terms Strong, Average, and Weak are also subjective. Not sure what your point is ...

 

I'm not sure what benefit there is to having an idiosyncratic, unpublished, and personal grading system that is interjected (often in a snarky way) into other threads when people are referencing PCGS or NGC or ANA systems.

 

Everyone can have their own way of grading and reviewing coins, but one of the utilities of using the same systems is that there is a common language for discussion (in this case market grading is the most prevalent).

 

The UK folks on another forum I frequent also seem to get hung up on semantic differences in the UK vs. USA grading systems. They are different, one is not better or worse. The coin is what it is, regardless of what we collectors try to assign as a descriptive grade...in whatever varied "language" or system.

[MJ]

 

...

Notice that the adjectives "gem" or "superb gem" are never used - they are subjective and highly distorted terms that actually convey no useful information.

 

Notice the terms Strong, Average, and Weak are also subjective. Not sure what your point is ...

 

I'm not sure what benefit there is to having an idiosyncratic, unpublished, and personal grading system that is interjected (often in a snarky way) into other threads when people are referencing PCGS or NGC or ANA systems.

 

Everyone can have their own way of grading and reviewing coins, but one of the utilities of using the same systems is that there is a common language for discussion (in this case market grading is the most prevalent).

 

The UK folks on another forum I frequent also seem to get hung up on semantic differences in the UK vs. USA grading systems. They are different, one is not better or worse. The coin is what it is, regardless of what we collectors try to assign as a descriptive grade...in whatever varied "language" or system.

 

A+

 

mark

[lehigh96]

In another thread I was soundly lambasted for referring to a coin labeled "AU" as a high-end EF. It might be helpful for some to learn more of the system I follow when examining a coin. Although I don't buy or sell coins, this is the evaluation and thought process I learned from Frank Katen but with some practical modifications - mostly examination conditions - picked up in the 1970s and early 1980s while making coin photos of dimes and half dimes for Kam Ahwash.

 

 

 

I would submit that the person who criticized your for referring to an AU coin as high-end XF has much more to explain than you do.

[MarkFeld]

In another thread I was soundly lambasted for referring to a coin labeled "AU" as a high-end EF. It might be helpful for some to learn more of the system I follow when examining a coin. Although I don't buy or sell coins, this is the evaluation and thought process I learned from Frank Katen but with some practical modifications - mostly examination conditions - picked up in the 1970s and early 1980s while making coin photos of dimes and half dimes for Kam Ahwash.

 

 

 

I would submit that the person who criticized your for referring to an AU coin as high-end XF has much more to explain than you do.

 

Did you see the images of the coin and his comments? I bet not.

 

Here is what RWB described as his standard for AU:

 

"There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated. Anything with more abrasion of field alteration is

 

Here is the thread - take a look at the 1835 $5 and the comments:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9551069#Post9551069

[RWB]

The term "Strong, Average, and Weak" have meaning relating to specific aspects of a coin that can be understood by ordinary people. Things like gem, super gem and others have no perceptible meaning and only serve to confuse and obfuscate.

 

It's curious how some object to anyone thinking about the situation differently - almost a defense response to threat perception.

[physics-fan3.14]

The term "Strong, Average, and Weak" have meaning relating to specific aspects of a coin that can be understood by ordinary people. Things like gem, super gem and others have no perceptible meaning and only serve to confuse and obfuscate.

 

It's curious how some object to anyone thinking about the situation differently - almost a defense response to threat perception.

 

SAW are still subjective terms - there is always going to be subjectivity in the application of a term. Sure, it may have more meaning than "gem", but I don't really see people grading by the "Select" "Choice" "Gem" terms... they are more for marketing. The grade is a numeric encapsulation of all of the factors.

 

I don't object to you thinking about it differently. I just don't see the obvious advantage that you seem to. Your system is different (and not well defined), but it isn't necessarily superior.

[RWB]

S.A.W. relate to a discrete source: the original design. Other terms relate to nothing.

 

The original post deals with limiting descriptive terms and standardizing examination conditions. Yet.....

 

In any event, I titled this little experiment "Taking a Chance" and so it is.

[coinman1794]

 

Your S.A.W. method sounds a lot like the "a-b-c" designators that Accugrade used to use. I'm a fan of that idea, if it can be consistently and accurately applied (Accugrade wasn't accurate or consistent, hence their failure). Recently, Rick Snow has been advocating a similar system where several factors are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, and designated as part of the grade (I can't remember exactly which factors he calls out, but strike and surfaces are two of them).

 

That sounds very similar to the NGC grading system for Anchients, where both Strike and Surface are graded on a scale form 1 to 5. It's an interesting system but I've found it to be just as subjective as other methods.

[RWB]

The S.A.W. modifiers, and these are my own uses, are based on knowing what the design was supposed to look like. That is, it has an anchor point. Although still subjective this reference point acts to limit that range of opinion because others can always return to the source design and make their own comparison. That is not possible with the kinds of modifiers usually used in describing coins. Further, for me Strong, Average, and Weak are optimal....sometimes it doesn't matter. (Think about 1921 Peace dollars. Grading for state of preservation might have a bunch of coins at UNC-65, but an S coin could be worth 5x what an A coin is....or maybe not, if one looks at auction results.)

 

Given the trauma some seem to experience in reading even the basic comments with only one grade mentioned in my OP, and the difficulty many have with separating condition from money, I'll not bother with any other aspects of how I examine and grade coins.

 

Thanks for reading and for the helpful and considerate ideas.

[brg5658]

The S.A.W. modifiers, and these are my own uses, are based on knowing what the design was supposed to look like. That is, it has an anchor point. Although still subjective this reference point acts to limit that range of opinion because others can always return to the source design and make their own comparison. That is not possible with the kinds of modifiers usually used in describing coins. Further, for me Strong, Average, and Weak are optimal....sometimes it doesn't matter. (Think about 1921 Peace dollars. Grading for state of preservation might have a bunch of coins at UNC-65, but an S coin could be worth 5x what an A coin is....or maybe not, if one looks at auction results.)

 

Given the trauma some seem to experience in reading even the basic comments with only one grade mentioned in my OP, and the difficulty many have with separating condition from money, I'll not bother with any other aspects of how I examine and grade coins.

 

Thanks for reading and for the helpful and considerate ideas.

 

In practice, Roger, the S.A.W. modifiers will suffer the same subjectivity and inconsistency issues that other systems do.

 

For example, suppose you're grading a SLQ. The head and hair are complete, but the shield rivets are soft / almost non-existent. What do you call it? Average? Weak (but only really weak in one place)? You know as well anyone (since you wrote the book) that dies don't degrade equally on all design elements.

 

How about a Jefferson 5 cent piece -- steps are mushy, but windows and rest of Monticello are sharp. Or the converse -- the steps are sharp, but the windows and column detail of Monticello are mushy.

 

How do you deal with the fact that both obverse and reverse dies are not changed out at the same time, so a weak/tired/mushy reverse die could be paired with a completely new sharp wonderful obverse die. So, now the "strike" is really a function of the age of the varied die states (my argument here is a salient one, in that you cannot always know if a weak design is due to either the strike component or the poor die quality component, or a little of both).

 

It all falls apart....and quite quickly.

 

As for your summarily dismissing those of us who have expressed concern with your "system", our main concerns are that it doesn't fix anything, but creates yet another idiosyncratic "system" through which collectors must wade. A very simple system such as yours, in practice turns into a subjective nightmare. There are simply too many components of a coin's state of preservation for any one system to encompass them all. Calling us all dolts doesn't make your proposed system somehow better than what is already in place and has been continually refined for the past 60+ years.

 

[RWB]

Actually, all of your examples support the concept of using the original design to determine detail on an uncirculated coin. In you SLq example, most coins would be A. or W. - they are evaluated based on the entire design, not just little pieces. An S. coin with the design fully visible might be extremely difficult to locate or possibly unknown to anyone. That's OK. When examining a coin I want as close to an objective assessment as I can make. Your other examples fall into the same confused pattern where the design is ignored, in favor of puffery and "full head" nonsense.

 

The point you are missing is that there is always a stable reference. Admittedly, it requires a little experience and observation to decide what is Average, but that's part of the learning curve for anyone. Plus, if I don't know, I simply skip the modifiers.

 

I'm not sure that "what is already in place and has been continually refined for the past 60+ years" is meaningful. If "refined" means "distorted" or "compromised" or maybe "monetized," then you are on point -- grade inflation is then your friend. (Imagine what a lot of coins in high-end holders would be if the "standards" were the same as when the TPGs got started, or maybe followed the ANA's guidelines, or B&D or Photograde?

 

And BTW - no one was called or implied to be a "dolt." That is your term.

 

 

 

[brg5658]

Actually, all of your examples support the concept of using the original design to determine detail on an uncirculated coin. In you SLq example, most coins would be A. or W. - they are evaluated based on the entire design, not just little pieces. An S. coin with the design fully visible might be extremely difficult to locate or possibly unknown to anyone. That's OK. When examining a coin I want as close to an objective assessment as I can make. Your other examples fall into the same confused pattern where the design is ignored, in favor of puffery and "full head" nonsense.

 

The point you are missing is that there is always a stable reference. Admittedly, it requires a little experience and observation to decide what is Average, but that's part of the learning curve for anyone. Plus, if I don't know, I simply skip the modifiers.

 

I'm not sure that "what is already in place and has been continually refined for the past 60+ years" is meaningful. If "refined" means "distorted" or "compromised" or maybe "monetized," then you are on point -- grade inflation is then your friend. (Imagine what a lot of coins in high-end holders would be if the "standards" were the same as when the TPGs got started, or maybe followed the ANA's guidelines, or B&D or Photograde?

 

And BTW - no one was called or implied to be a "dolt." That is your term.

 

 

 

You seem to have ignored this bit:

 

How do you deal with the fact that both obverse and reverse dies are not changed out at the same time, so a weak/tired/mushy reverse die could be paired with a completely new sharp wonderful obverse die. So, now the "strike" is really a function of the age of the varied die states (my argument here is a salient one, in that you cannot always know if a weak design is due to either the strike component or the poor die quality component, or a little of both).

 

And, how do you assign your S.A.W. simplistic adjective to a coin like that?

 

Do you have to introduce separate adjectives for the obverse and reverse? And, will this "magical" S.A.W. adjective system then naturally lead to people assigning intermediate made-up terms? S+, A-, A/W, etc...

 

Your S.A.W. proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem. My two eyes are quite adept at determining strike, and in greater levels of gradation than three mnemonic letters...

 

 

 

[Afterword]

"Grading refers to the condition or preservation of the surfaces of a coin. All three surfaces are relevant. No other factors are involved. Assumptions concerning coloration, scarcity/abundance, or assumed value are immaterial and left to free market forces and owner preferences. Proof and other specially made coins are graded in the same manner; however, they are identified by the abbreviation “PR” preceding any grade. (“Proof” is a manufacturing process, not a description of condition or preservation.)

 

There is only one set of modifiers: S.A.W. which stand for Strong, Average and Weak. One of these can be used with regard to the detail present on a coin. This is always in relation to the original detail of the design and ignores any assumed production trends. (If all known coins of a specific date/mint are poorly detailed, then all will be eligible for the “W” modifier. If a fully detailed example were discovered, it could earn the “S” designation, and thus standout from all others.)"

 

 

 

I agree with the above. While eliminating "coloration, scarcity/abundance, or assumed value" from the grading process does not eliminate subjectivity entirely, it does reduce the number of subjective elements. The fewer subjective elements there are the more consistent the grading process becomes.

 

As I understand S.A.W to mean strike is not considered in the grading process, other than as a "modifier", I would much prefer it placed in the same category as "coloration, scarcity/abundance, or assumed value". (Although I could live with it as is, as it is still a vast improvement over the grading process presently being used by the TPGs and consequently the majority of the numismatic community.)

 

 

[BillJones]

Here are some of my observations about S.A.W.

 

1. I would never grade a weakly struck (W) or perhaps even an average stuck coin (A) as an MS-70. In fact I could see the scenario when a weakly struck coin could not get past MS-64, especially if it is an issue that tends to come well struck. To me a coin that gets past MS-65 needs to be a superior example for its type which includes the quality of the strike.

 

Quite often weakly stuck goes hand in hand with poor or indifferent luster. That too is a negative that can knock a coin out of the "glamour grades" of MS-66 and higher.

 

The absence of marks is only one aspect to grading. Luster, eye appeal and strike quality all come into play. If a coin has ugly toning it's not high grade to me.

 

I know the response to this is, "You are market grading the coin," and to an extent that's true. BUT consistent market grading goes hand in hand with giving the customer a fair value. Charging a high price for a high technical grade coin with poor eye appeal is almost as bad as charging a high price for an over graded coin. The customer ends up in the same place.

 

Of late I've seen a number of Proof coins, especially Barber silver pieces, that have high grades like PR-66 or 67, that so heavily toned that the proof mirrors are gone. Despite the fact that these coins don't have marks or hairlines, they are still over graded culls ("C coins") so far I'm concerned. I would be upset if I ordered a Proof coin in PR-67 and got a coin that looks like a lump of coal.

 

2. I think that "S.A.W." does a disserve if you don't take into consideration the general strike quality of the date and mint mark in question. In the Morgan dollar series the 1895-O is usually an ugly poorly stuck coin with at best indifferent luster. Any really attractive Mint State 1895-O is a prize coin.

 

Yet if you were to stack that piece up against the average 1881-S, it would be a loser. Any 1881-S that doesn't have some P-L qualities to it is below average. You can't apply the same standards for strike to the 1881-S and the 1895-O despite the fact that they are both Morgan Dollars.

 

These two dates are just examples. There are many other such dates in the Morgan Dollar set.

 

[RWB]

Yep. Modifiers are not part of the grade as I approach the problem. Neither are other characteristics such as full head, split bands, ingrown toenails or fluffy bellybutton lint.

 

"Grade" is an assessment of the state of preservation of the coin. It is a "bin" approach to the various things that happen to a coin as soon as it is struck. Anything that is part of the struck coin, is NOT part of the grade, regardless of how dramatic.

 

I realize this is tough to grasp, especially for those deeply ingrained into the present structure. It is not presented as better, worse, or some sort of replacement. It is simply what I use when examining a coin for its condition.

 

The Uncirculated (UNC) grades are all based on surface degradation, including location of damage, with no consideration of the presence of absence of detail -- that is left to the three modifiers.

 

Once a coin is graded, the free market takes over and other factors that some collectors feel are important come into play. The ultimate purpose is to help me establish complete separation between the coin "as it is" and any presumed value it might have. To a large extent, this is similar to the approach that could be done though computer-assisted grading.

 

Results vary over design types and era of production, but it is always the coin that tells its history.

 

[RWB]

I'm not sure if any of this discussion has benefited anyone. If it served to get some thinking a little more about how they approach a difficult subject, that is fine. But if it has only created animosity, then I apologize for the initial posts (here and elsewhere) and the undesirable consequences.

 

For the future, I'll keep my personal coin grading approach to myself and return to the man-cave next to a babbling brook with leaping trout and warm, but not too hot, sunshine.

[numisport]

I fully agree with Bill Jones' assessment of the proof 67 lump of coal. Heavy dark toning (if removed) would reveal damaged or pitted surfaces. When I refer to pitting I mean surface damage and not planchet problems that don't strike out. Yes superb gem proofs should have lovely deep mirrored surfaces that you can see right through.

[Hard Times]

The problem I have with these SAW modifiers etc. is that they don't seem to address the issue that many pre-civil war coins, in particular specific die marriages in specific years, come weakly struck. Makes no sense, for example comparing the 1806 B4 quarter in a given grade to other 1806 quarters from other die marriages, do you ding the B4 for being poorly struck and having die damage? You can't compare apples with oranges and die characteristics and minting conditions that may lead to poor strikes for some die marriages and throwing penalties on for this, well, again, just makes no sense.

 

This is the same with Rick Snow's proposed system. Sure it might work when millions are struck for a given year like a common IC, but again, low mintage coins in years with many die marriages, it just won't work.

 

Best, HT

[physics-fan3.14]

This is the same with Rick Snow's proposed system. Sure it might work when millions are struck for a given year like a common IC, but again, low mintage coins in years with many die marriages, it just won't work.

 

Best, HT

 

Were you able to attend his seminar, or do you have a link to where his system is described? I've heard it alluded to, but I haven't actually seen the details of what he proposes.

[MJ]

This is the same with Rick Snow's proposed system. Sure it might work when millions are struck for a given year like a common IC, but again, low mintage coins in years with many die marriages, it just won't work.

 

Best, HT

 

Were you able to attend his seminar, or do you have a link to where his system is described? I've heard it alluded to, but I haven't actually seen the details of what he proposes.

 

 

mark

[RWB]

As noted before, the purpose of "grading" is to assess the condition or state of preservation of the coin/medal, etc.

 

As for the three modifiers that so many are wrapped around, a modifier is not part of the grade. It's entirely optional. If the grader does not know or lacks a reference for the original design, then simply omit a modifier.

[brg5658]

This is the same with Rick Snow's proposed system. Sure it might work when millions are struck for a given year like a common IC, but again, low mintage coins in years with many die marriages, it just won't work.

 

Best, HT

 

Were you able to attend his seminar, or do you have a link to where his system is described? I've heard it alluded to, but I haven't actually seen the details of what he proposes.

 

 

mark

 

Charisma of a sponge...hard to pay attention for that LONG....

 

However, Rick's a very nice guy when I have visited his table...I guess "public speaking" isn't a part of the requirements of a coin dealer.

[MJ]

This is the same with Rick Snow's proposed system. Sure it might work when millions are struck for a given year like a common IC, but again, low mintage coins in years with many die marriages, it just won't work.

 

Best, HT

 

Were you able to attend his seminar, or do you have a link to where his system is described? I've heard it alluded to, but I haven't actually seen the details of what he proposes.

 

 

mark

 

Charisma of a sponge...hard to pay attention for that LONG....

 

However, Rick's a very nice guy when I have visited his table...I guess "public speaking" isn't a part of the requirements of a coin dealer.

 

I lasted 4 minutes which is a lot longer then normal according to my wife. I figured I'll just let RWB tell me how to grade. A lot quicker and he has schitck

 

mark