| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 2,488 |
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
Over the course of my collecting, I've read and seen for myself that coins from specific years and mints have better or worse strike, luster, etc. For example, 1881-s is a common date for Morgan dollars, but it also typically has vibrant luster and a solid strike. This brings me to my question: Fellow collectors have told me that TPG's will be more critical of a coin like the 1881-s Morgan, and less critical of an 1882-o Morgan, which typically has more subdued luster and a weaker strike. Is this true? If so, how can this be justified when a standard grade conists of standards that cross all dates and mints? Edited by coin_junkie_001
08/01/2018 01:00 am
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
It's true, dates and mint mark matter when it comes to grading for the simple fact that the different mints and even years had different quality. Sometimes you will see someone saying that xyz Morgan is AU because the ear is flat when it's from a date and mint known for that type thing. The 80 S and 81 S are known for very very good quality which means that they're held to a higher standard.
It's just like how gold is graded different than silver, coins before 1835ish are graded different, and ultra moderns are held to a higher standard than classic coins ect. You don't really see it much anymore as the quality of all the mints have evened out but if you look at the IKE series the D mints are superior to the P mints overall especially for the earlier years and are graded accordingly. Prior to 1900 you saw bigger discrepencies that have faded as time went on
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
719 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
1351 Posts |
There should be no difference for dates OR AGE.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Quote:
There should be no difference for dates OR AGE. Correct ... but the fact is that there are differences. Mostly the differences show up when dealing with scarce/rare date/mm coins vs. common date/mm coins. A 1916-D dime will get a bit of slack whereas a dime from the 1960's won't. |
|
Moderator
 United States
188213 Posts |
Quote:
It's true, dates and mint mark matter when it comes to grading for the simple fact that the different mints and even years had different quality... I agree. Consider how design engravings change over time when new hubs are created. Relief may be lowered or details may be added. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
I've noticed this when looking at a lot of slabs at a coin show. So many have MS grades if newer coins and I've found some really great older coins with much lower grades. Of course this too might depend on the grader.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11951 Posts |
 The do ... and they should. Another example are Walking Liberty half dollars, on the earlier coins the date would wear more. After a design change the mint fixed the problem. One of my early photo grade books breaks down the different standards. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
I think that what makes one date more valuable ( besides mintage ) is the rarity of that particular issue in a rarely found grade. Now strike quality is another matter but a grade is a grade is a grade.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
The example of this that taught me how little I know comes from our friends to the north. From Calgary Coin regarding George VI dollars: Quote:
The new obverse design, again by T. H. Paget, arrived late in 1948 and was used until 1952. The inscription now read "GEORGE VI DIE GRATIA REX" (Latin for "George 6th, by God's Grace King") and with deeper hairlines making the coins look sharper in mint state than earlier dates. This affects how the coins look in all lower grades and one cannot use the same grading standard for 1948 to 1952 dollars as for 1937 to 1947 dollars. They would have to wear to VF-30 before the hair looks a muted as it does on uncirculated examples of earlier dates. So the general "standard" on this coin is to look for wear in the hairlines, but from one year to the next a UNC coin becomes a VF-30 using the same "standard". |
|
Valued Member
United States
314 Posts |
If the number represents how good *this coin* is, compared to how good the best example of *this coin* can be, it makes perfect sense, right? I suppose it becomes more difficult to resolve when the overwhelming number, but for whatever odd reason, not all, of a certain date and mint have compromised strikes. Lincolns from the teens and twenties would seem to offer some examples of that. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's the only area where I would presume even limited expertise.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
Quote:
Sometimes you will see someone saying that xyz Morgan is AU because the ear is flat when it's from a date and mint known for that type thing. The 80 S and 81 S are known for very very good quality which means that they're held to a higher standard.
Take Morgan dollars for an example. The O mint Morgans might be graded as AU, even EF by someone who does not know the series, while the coin is just weakly struck. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
I agree that it can be confusing - it has been with me more than once. If a coin was judged purely on technical grade, you'd get a static result. Taking eye appeal and differences in quality from mint to mint into consideration does affect the decision. I guess the moral of the story is, we may not be able to simply assign a technical grade to a coin. This seems to apply especially for older or less common examples.
Edited: left out a word.
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
Edited by Bump111
08/02/2018 1:50 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
I agree. Consider how design engravings change over time when new hubs are created. Relief may be lowered or details may be added. Exactly, or dates becoming more protected from wearing off too fast like Buffalos, SLQ, WLH. Quote:
If the number represents how good *this coin* is, compared to how good the best example of *this coin* can be, it makes perfect sense, right? That's actually a pretty good way to look at it. Quote:
There should be no difference for dates OR AGE. Do you believe that a 1792 Half Disme or or a 1796 Dime should be held to the same standard as a 2018 Roosevelt? How about a midevil coin vs a 2017 Quarter? If not then you just proved that dates and age have to matter as they should |
|
Moderator
United States
188213 Posts |
Quote:
Exactly, or dates becoming more protected from wearing off too fast like Buffalos, SLQ, WLH. Yes, a very good example of a change that significantly impacts how a coin wears.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1188 Posts |
They sure aren't tough on 1921 Peace dollars..a lot of the 64s and 65s I see are laughable given the extremely weak strikes. Then you'll see a 62 with an amazing strike. |
| |
Replies: 19 / Views: 2,488 |
Posted 08/01/2018 02:55 am
