| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,873 |
|
Valued Member
United States
193 Posts |
O.K. So one of my pet peeves is the terminology used to describe coin conditions. Some are fine and I have no problem with such as brilliant uncirculated, even though according to spell check uncirculated isn't a word. I can even live with mint state.
But when the terms get to "gem brilliant" I begin to get a little peeved. After all why compare a coin to a gem? To me it's apples and oranges.
The worst term in my opinion though, is "blast white" The white part is a stretch in my mind but I can see why it is used, but using "blast" as an adverb to describe very shiny makes no sense.
Maybe I'm just being anal retentive but I think some more appropriate descriptors are in order.
Anybody have any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
14463 Posts |
I have always considered blast white to sort of mean "like new/unblemished". They may simply be using smaller words, and saving type/print space.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
856 Posts |
Quote:
The worst term in my opinion though, is "blast white" The white part is a stretch in my mind but I can see why it is used, but using "blast" as an adverb to describe very shiny makes no sense. To me, 'blast white' is matte. It's the sort of effect you get with ancient/mediaeval coins that have had to be dipped (normally by a museum) to clean them up a bit. In ancient days, the planchet (blank / flan) of silver coins were first blanched with potassium bitartrate to de-grease them and ensure the surface was mainly fine silver, then heated (annealed) to soften the metal to take the imprint of the dies. Coins that resemble those straight from the mint with residual blanching are in my view 'blast white'. Bit like this one (though a degree of toning has occurred over time):  As for 'gem' I guess it suggests perfection as in "That painting is a real gem". Perhaps the term has slipped out of common usage in the same way 'chipper' and 'dandy' have (at least in the UK)? Edited by Tom Goodheart
04/20/2013 10:00 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
Some are fine and I have no problem with such as brilliant uncirculated, even though according to spell check uncirculated isn't a word. I can even live with mint state.
But when the terms get to "gem brilliant" I begin to get a little peeved. After all why compare a coin to a gem? To me it's apples and oranges. Those were industry-standard phrases describing specific grade levels for decades before the Sheldon system became popular. It's just the verbiage which came into popular usage, for whatever reason. I would guess "Superb Gem Brilliant Uncirculated" is even worse?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
My problem is that different countries have different standards. Some countries produce bullion coins that are almost proofs (Australian Koalas, etc) but other countries release bullion coins that are beaten up and scratched (2013 Britannias).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
899 Posts |
I think "Gem" and coins in comparison is a valid use of the term. When you think of a Gem you aren't looking at run of the mill diamonds or sapphires - you are looking at the best of them or a true Gem.
Blast white is more of a visual thing. Typically older silver coins will turn colors, or tone. By comparison again to these often brownish or gold or even grey coins - a non-toned (tarnished) coin will look almost white. I think blast white may have trickled down from a painters term. Because visually after taking a rusty piece of old steel into a blasting cabinet - it comes out white - or blast white.
These aren't new terms - they have been around for years and years - so you have to think of them in terms of when they were...coined.
Probably what frustrates you is the over use of them (at least it does me). Sellers love to over-hype the stuff they have and will toss these terms out for every coin they have in stock. My own personal pet peeve is the new "early release" or "1st strike" like these are the only coins that deserve a MS/PR70 rating and all others are inferior. If a con deserves a MS70 rating it doesn't matter when it was struck. Those to me are nothing more than marketing ploys.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
856 Posts |
Quote:
My problem is that different countries have different standards. Some countries produce bullion coins that are almost proofs (Australian Koalas, etc) but other countries release bullion coins that are beaten up and scratched (2013 Britannias). I can't get excited about bullion. They aren't real coins. They weren't made to be spent, despite a nominal value. They are just blocks of precious metal in the shape of a coin. But they could just as easily be a bar or ingot. So long as they have the correct weight of metal, I don't see the problem with dints or scratches. But then I really don't get the point of collecting them as if they were coins. Particularly Britannias which, unlike sovereigns, never have been made for circulation. As for getting them graded .. just daft IMHO. Might as well slab bottle caps too ... *stands back and waits for explosion*  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
Hi, Tom,
If you do not cause a stir on this group from time to time you are not trying hard enough!
As with the MPs, we should should "agree to disagree."
Why one poster's opinion should be interpreted as a "threat" is beyond me.
Meanwhile, I, too, stand back and await the explosion.
I agree with your opinion: bullion is not a coin, no matter what it is called.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2805 Posts |
I think "blast white" refers to an incredibly reflective state.
Silver is the most reflective of all metals (aluminium beats it in some narrow parts of the spectrum but can't touch it overall), so a "blast" white silver coin is going to figuratively "blast" your eyes with light. I learned this after trying to photograph a few polished silver coins in direct sunlight - aaah! Even my VF/XF silver dollars are hard to photograph if lightly toned because you can see my fingers and the camera lens reflected in the coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
@Tom
The difference between bullion coins and bars/ingots of precious metal should be obvious. As should be the reasons why one is desirable from a numismatic standpoint and the other is not.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
First, Merriam-Webster lists "uncirculated" as a word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...uncirculatedAs for the various names, we could make it easier: NT - Never Touched (using cotton gloves is still OK) SH - Slightly Handled (with bare hands/fingers) HH - Heavily Handled (circulated quality) C - Cleaned NS/D - No Scratches/Dents (combined with NT for a perfect coin) LS/D - Light Scratches/Dents HS/D - Heavy Scratches/Dents Anyone else want to add to my new grading system? What shall I name it? I'll give it some thought. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
856 Posts |
Quote:
@Tom
The difference between bullion coins and bars/ingots of precious metal should be obvious. As should be the reasons why one is desirable from a numismatic standpoint and the other is not. Not to me. I can see why they are collectable. Like medals, there's some artistic input into their production. But numismatically? Nah. I just can't see why anyone would have bullion graded, or pursue different dates for the same design, in the same way people collect coins I'm afraid. Coins circulate. Consequently they have history. And are subjected to wear in the process, making the less worn examples scarcer. Bullion is just churned out and stuck in capsules. Where's the challenge in finding something that you just buy from the mint? Presumably you can even subscribe and they will send you every latest issue and bill you? To me it's no different from those listings on ebay for "one of the most prestigious silvers bars in the world and their demand exceeds supply" Eh? So if you want a silver bar, why not buy a commoner one? Why pay more for the same product? Would you pay more for Heinz beans if it said 'Limited Edition' on them? Bottom line is I don't get it. Britannias, Eagles, Pandas, Kookaburras or cuddly gerbils. None of them is actually worth over the bullion value. If people want to pay over melt .. fine. But I can't see why they do I'm afraid. I'd rather pick pennies out of change. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
Some people like to have coins that look perfect.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
856 Posts |
Quote:
Some people like to have coins that look perfect. Very true. And a good thing we all like different types of coins and different things about them. Firstly, it avoids us all chasing the same thing! And secondly, it makes talking about the hobby much more interesting, I think! There is no right way or wrong way to collect coins, or right or wrong coins to collect. Even those who like to polish the things and mount them on a belt, so long as they stay well clear of the coins I like! So please don't take anything I say as criticism. It's just banter (and opinion). In the end we all collect what we like and if part of what you like is that your collection is pristine, that's cool! For myself I've found I actually like to see signs that my coins have circulated and when they start to look a bit too uniform (around 1816!) I kinda lose interest. But that's just me! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
It's apparent that most people complain about the higher graded nomenclature. For me I think almost all nomenclature or descriptions of grades on coins is nuts. WAy down at the bottom is GOOD. To me Good is supposed to be GOOD, not barely visable. And Very Good is barely still a coin. What people say are Fine, Very Fine, etc. are also dumb. How could a coin be in FINE condition if it is not actually FINE but just sort of full of the original details. Then too there is this Almost Uncirculated or About Uncirculated. This too is wierd. Almost or About means nothing. Just close or sort of. It's like saying my dog is sort of dead. Or my dog is almost dead. He is now buried and has a head stone but that means ALMOST?
And worse yet is this 70 point stuff. Why not 100? Why not 1,000 for grades. And with a decimal system too. Then you could have a coin graded as EF-77.398 or AU-8884.3326.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
I agree AU is a little weird when you think about it. Light circulated or barely circulated would probably be more accurate.
|
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,873 |
Posted 04/20/2013 09:55 am
