Posted 05/08/2010 6:22 pm
In addition to bherring1964's entirely accurate comments, we have to complicate things. Of course. 
One must have issue-specific knowledge in order to grade accurately. Some coins look mushy at best (Buffalo Nickels, I'm talking about you); some coins have specific design characteristics affecting grading ( Seated coinage tends to look "weak" on the obverse, for instance); some differ widely in terms of strike quality (you don't grade San Francisco Morgans the way you'd grade most New Orleans Morgans).
Strike plays a greater role in some issues than others. Liberty nickels tend to be held back in Gem grades by the presence (or lack) of detail on the lower-left corn on the reverse. Twenty Cents can be expected to look circulated on the obverse in MS70 (OK, I exaggerate). Lincolns are all over the map, fer cryin' out loud. You practically have to know each year's differing characteristic strikes.
The only "good" answer is to learn each issue, one at a time. There are few generalizations, indeed.
One must have issue-specific knowledge in order to grade accurately. Some coins look mushy at best (Buffalo Nickels, I'm talking about you); some coins have specific design characteristics affecting grading ( Seated coinage tends to look "weak" on the obverse, for instance); some differ widely in terms of strike quality (you don't grade San Francisco Morgans the way you'd grade most New Orleans Morgans).
Strike plays a greater role in some issues than others. Liberty nickels tend to be held back in Gem grades by the presence (or lack) of detail on the lower-left corn on the reverse. Twenty Cents can be expected to look circulated on the obverse in MS70 (OK, I exaggerate). Lincolns are all over the map, fer cryin' out loud. You practically have to know each year's differing characteristic strikes.
The only "good" answer is to learn each issue, one at a time. There are few generalizations, indeed.
