| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 3,730 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
Just wanted to raise a discussion on something I didn't quite understand. I noticed a number of earlier bust type coins getting details for planchet flaws, which didn't make much sense to me. I understand detailing a coin for something that occurs post striking such as cleaning, damage, ect. But why a planchet flaw? It happens prior to the striking (at least intenally) and as such wouldn't be considered damage, right? Given the number of problematic planchets during the first 20 years of our nation's coinage, shouldn't that be taken into account with handing out details grades? What do you all think? I think detailing a coin for a being par for the time is a bit silly. I know we have a lot of higher tier and bust type specialists here who may be able to add another prespective.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
857 Posts |
I think it's really down to the individual grading said coin, the type of planchet flaws we are talking and a mix of what is for the majority "agreed apon" as being something worthy of detailing.
For example, I think adjustment marks on old colonial silver pieces should, at the very least affect the grade, many others will disagree with that. And then there are things that do lead to details grades that I don't think (unless proven to be unnatural) should be, such as 'questionable color'. Again lots will probably disagree with me on that.
So I think it really is a matter of personal "values" when it comes to coins.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
In my mind:
no.
A 'details' means the coin has post Mint impairment.
If that is the way it came out of the Mint, it is not a detracting feature, but it IS a minor error, and for some, may even add some value.
A 'comment':
yes.
The planchet flaw should be noted.
For others, it may even sustain a loss of value.
A potential buyer will decide for himself anyway, if given all of the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, almost all ancient coins need an accurate descriptive comment (including planchet flaws, both pre and post mint).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
 definitely with the first part of sel_69l's answer. I'm so-so with his second part. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
Thanks guys. I 100% am with Kanga and Sel on this. I think all that ANACS does is put a comment on the holder noting that it isn't damage and is part of the coin. I think detailing a coin for a historically documented reason is flat out silly.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7618 Posts |
"Details" notations should only be for problems on coins that occurred after the coin left the press.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Reason I ask? Both PCGS and NGC will details bust and flowing hair coins for planchet flaws (laminations), which in my mind is stupid.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
Interesting question. I think we have come to automatically think of a "details" designation as bad thing. But, how about improperly annealed planchets or coins struck on the wrong planchet? How much detail do we want on a label? What about designated varieties?
Let me really get things fired up - I personally think that toned coins should get a details grade. If it's good enough for copper why not silver? Was it toned when it was encapsulated? Hmmmm
(Edited: omitted word)
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
Edited by Bump111
01/01/2020 9:36 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Quote:
I think we have come to automatically think of a "details" designation as bad thing. It usually carries a negative connotation. Quote:
But, how about improperly annealed planchets or coins struck on the wrong planchet? How much detail do we want on a label? What about designated varieties? They don't affect the coin in the traditional sense. Moreover they are a part of the coin as struck and as such shouldn't be given a "details" designation. Quote:
I personally think that toned coins should get a details grade. If it's good enough for copper why not silver? Was toned when it was encapsulated? This does have a valid argument. Toning is technically chemical corrosion. As for the copper, we give it a color designation which is different then a details designation because of how copper oxidies. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
In the strictest sense, details are any subsidiary information provided other than a strict grade assignment, such as the color designation on copper / struck-through / off center strike / whizzed / and what have you. It's the good, bad and neutral. They can refer to prestrike and/or poststrike anomalies that are considered off-spec. We have come to value some of them and obviously dislike others.
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
Some collectors like toned coins, some don't. Very subjective in a collector's mind. A coin that is as near as possible in all ways, as when it was fresh off the coining press, can be eye candy. What would you prefer: A reasonably toned with subdued luster Seated dollar dollar in MS-65, or a blast white cartwheel luster Seated dollar in MS-65? Some collectors use air tight capsules to maintain a coin to as near as 'fresh out of the coining press' as possible. However, I have to admit: it would be a bit unfair to call the toned coin a 'details'. I guess no TPG'er would. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5239 Posts |
In the end, a TPG designation is just an opinion by an individual or in some cases a group of individuals. I am assuming that these are experienced and skilled individuals. However, their being employed by a TPG company does not automatically make their opinion superior to some of the many experts here in the CCF. Is the details designation for planchet flaws an opinion or a company policy? Has anyone asked the TPG about this? |
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
The reason PCGS and NGC are top tier and ANACS is third when they are the oldest service is because PCGS/NGC started market standard grading. If the coin will not sell at the straight grade price, they saw no reason to give it the grade. So technically graded 65's that were ugly and would sell at 64 money were graded 64 at PCGS. Likewise, a planchet flaw detracts from the value, so they will not put it in a holder with a technically correct grade. They could net it down, but that practice seems to have gone by the wayside.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Quote:
Is the details designation for planchet flaws an opinion or a company policy? Policy far as their respective websites tell. Quote:
a planchet flaw detracts from the value, so they will not put it in a holder with a technically correct grade I think that's silly. Quote:
They could net it down, but that practice seems to have gone by the wayside. I don't care if they want to net it down a grade or whatever. But putting in the same category as cleaned or damaged is ridiculous. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Sometimes planchet issues need to be submitted as errors to get a straight grade. Quote:
The reason PCGS and NGC are top tier and ANACS is third when they are the oldest service is because PCGS/NGC started market standard grading. Market grading is overblown but ANACS has been doing it as well for decades and absolutely does net grade things |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Interesting new tidbit. I talked to a PCGS CS Rep about this on the phone after calling for a seperate issue and they said that they MAY look into a policy revision and gave me an email to contact about it. It would be interesting to say the least. We'll see how far this goes.
|
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 3,730 |
Posted 01/01/2020 6:53 pm
