| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,622 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
In my opinion, the short answer is
NO
An MS62 coin (unwhizzed), should show no wear anywhere, with only the slightest scuffing of the luster on the high points.
If a coin has been whizzed, it can be automatically assumed that the whizzing has caused wear on the high points of the design, and thus the damaged coin by definition cannot get any grade MS-60 or above.
I agree with Spence the a TPGrader would refuse to grade it.
However for many collectors, including myself, the coin still has some value, and still worthy of consideration for purchase at the right price.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Definitely it would not. Whizzing = ungraqdable.
Edited by Coinfrog
10/04/2021 8:31 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5395 Posts |
Whizzing equates to coin murder!
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
402 Posts |
glad to see Pacificoin is so laissez faire about whizzing..
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Best you could expect when graded would be UNC Details - Whizzed, or UNC Details - Improperly Cleaned.
Edited by Conder101
10/05/2021 06:29 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4085 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
 with KenKat who agrees with Conder 101 .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3546 Posts |
Quote:
...UNC Details - Improperly Cleaned. Improperly cleaned is now properly clarified  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1694 Posts |
No dont do it or even think about it.
|
|
Valued Member
149 Posts |
It depends on how you define whizzing
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2282 Posts |
 Please tell me you're joking with this question. You realize when you know how to think, it empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
|
Valued Member
149 Posts |
Well, Whizzing by definition is removing small amounts of metal from the surface in an attempt to make the coin look birght. That obviously is contrary to a mint condition. So either he is defining whizzing differently or his idea of mint is worng.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Quote:
. joking with this question. The purpose of this forum is to gain knowledge from a diverse group of discriminating members likely to point out erroneous affirmations. When I ask questions it is because I do not want to waste exorbitant amounts of time doing research work on my own that can be at times drudgery. To keep this short I simply wanted to avoid reading a 384 page book like " ANA Grading Standards" by Bressett and find out that no discussion exists about HOW these experts arrived at each MS level, especially 60. Sure, I feel confident that this book differentiates each grading level adequately for graders to follow which would be the primary scope of its writing. But all of this is post-development implementation of the standards. In my case I desired to better grasp the reasoning of the ANA committee of experts that essentially took over in the 1970s the Sheldon-created MS scale begun in the 1940s. I asked myself how they could justify scratches and dents for an MS 60 coin as acceptable but exclude very much less noticeable minuscule fine lines. Do not all dents, scratches and fine whiz lines compromise the integrity of the patina? It seemed like a reasonable inquiry deserving clarification but undeserving of ridicule. |
|
Valued Member
149 Posts |
I feel as if I am being trolled. Otherwise, I don't know why a long term member who has enough background and knowledge to know how many pages are in the ANA grading guild would ask such an transparent question and then fain ignorance of how obvious the question is. Such a person would already know that sanding down a coin, like a car body shop, would destroy it. Edited by radars_teddy
11/15/2021 05:45 am
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,622 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 10/04/2021 7:35 pm
