Are grading standards slipping or being fine tuned?
stonej
Bruce Remick
"stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:4b45ca73-b7f5-4348...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=6152
If a coin is in the exact condition it was when it left the mint and has
been unaffected by outside sources, I consider it "perfect" for my purposes.
As a collector, I couldn't care less if it rates an arbitrary MS70 grade by
any of the 29 TPG's. On the other hand, as an investor, any Mint-issued
proof coin that won't grade PR70 should be returned for a refund or
replacement.
PC
> "stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:4b45ca73-b7f5-4348...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If a coin is in the exact condition it was when it left the mint and has
> been unaffected by outside sources, I consider it "perfect" for my purposes.
> As a collector, I couldn't care less if it rates an arbitrary MS70 grade by
> any of the 29 TPG's. On the other hand, as an investor, any Mint-issued
> proof coin that won't grade PR70 should be returned for a refund or
> replacement.
Wouldn't the vast majority of all proof coins minted fail to grade
PR70?
Bruce Remick
"PC" <Super...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:729084d8-e64b-4014...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
They shouldn't by MY standards. And this was never even an issue with
modern proofs before the MS grading system, and especially before we started
using every one of the numbers between 60 and 70. All proofs were
considered perfection.
RWF
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:R%gil.3374$ml6....@newsfe09.iad...
> All proofs were considered perfection.
Really?
While I agree that 20 or 30 years ago there wasn't an attempt to split
hairs between Proof 62 and 63, there most certainly was a distinction
between proof grades.
Take late 50s/early 60s proof coins: some are poorly struck with mirror
finish, others are well struck cameo examples.
There always was a price differential between the two, IIRC.
Mr. Jaggers
Exactly. Old-timers may not have known about the 60 to 70 scale, but ask
any one of them (us) to arrange a group of Unc or Proofs from worst to best,
and they (we) can do it with ease. And they (we) knew which ones commanded
what prices, and they sure weren't all the same. I can just hear them (us)
having whist matches and saying, "My Unc is better than your Unc."
James
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmc7op$13i$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I the 1950's and 60's, annual proof coins were considered the ultimate
versions of our circulating coins. Perfect, compared to circulation
strikes. There was no MS or PR-anything. Some may have been advertised
on the secondary market as Choice or Gem based on how they were stored. As
delivered, they were considered perfect by most collectors. I never heard
of anyone examining one under a glass looking for any microscopic blemish
that would make it less desirable. If numerical grades were widely used at
the time of 60, 65, and 70, 99% would likely rate a 70 with no question.
Now, with all eleven numbers from 60 to 70 being assigned, the TPG fussiness
factor for proof coins has gone in the opposite direction from market-graded
circulated coins. Just the biased take from an older faht.
RWF
I disagree strongly.
Sharp collectors of 50s/60s proof sets would always pick out the better
struck coins.
Saying that all proof sets struck were considered "the ultimate version
of our circulating coins" to contemprary collectors is, at best,
disingenuous and, at worst, just plain wrong.
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
As a collector who started buying proof sets from the Mint in 1953, I will
disagree with you. Those proof coins were indeed looked upon as perfect at
that time. From my own experiences, the average collectors would buy one
set and cherish it for its perceived perfection, even though collectors
usually would have difficulty examining the coins closely through the cloudy
vinyl bags the individual coins were contained in. To clarify, I'm talking
about attitudes of (contemporary) collectors in the 1950's, not the
attitudes of today's (contemporary) collector toward 50+ year old proofs and
sets. Times have obviously changed a lot.
mazorj
Yep. Back then, the average collector was blissful in his ignorance
of the PR-60-PR70 spectrum. "Proof" was perfect by definition.
Undoubtedly there were a few sharp collectors and traders who knew and
paid attention to approximate gradations within that spectrum, but for
most of us, it was a binary state: Proof, or Not Proof.
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1ytil.1133$N02...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Exactly.
Richard L. Hall
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
I don't remember collectors worrying about strike since all proofs were
double struck with extra pressure which usually brought up whatever relief
was available. But I do remember collectors being interested in the few
coins that were frosted. Only the first few strikes from a die were frosted
and those usually brought a premium.
--
Richard
My coin Links:
http://coins.richlh.com/MyCoinLinks.htm
Richard L. Hall
the last few years for the better date coins? Who would reap the most
benefit from this other than the TPG's?
--
Richard
My coin Links:
http://coins.richlh.com/MyCoinLinks.htm
"stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:4b45ca73-b7f5-4348...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=6152
Frank Provasek
> I disagree strongly.
> Sharp collectors of 50s/60s proof sets would always pick out the better
> struck coins.
> Saying that all proof sets struck were considered "the ultimate version
> of our circulating coins" to contemprary collectors is, at best,
> disingenuous and, at worst, just plain wrong.
While some collectors paid premiums for cameo proofs (then called
"frosted")
as a rule, all proofs were and are well struck and vastly superior to
business strikes.
Calling proofs "the ultimate version of our circulating coins" was and
is an appropriate statement.
Finnan, using yet another forged email address to avoid filters, is
wrong again.
--
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO RESERVES www.frankcoins.com
http://myworld.ebay.com/frankcoins Texas Auction License
11259, Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association,
Member TNA, ANA, PCGS, NGC - Full Time Since 1991
RWF
news:c571ec20-a492-44dd...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>While some collectors paid premiums for cameo proofs (then called
"frosted")
as a rule, all proofs were and are well struck and vastly superior to
business strikes.
>Calling proofs "the ultimate version of our circulating coins" was and
is an appropriate statement.
>Finnan, using yet another forged email address to avoid filters, is
wrong again.
Fwankie, you just agreed with me and then you called me wrong?
Whatsamatta you?
Do you even know what a forged email address is, Fwankie?
Frank Provasek
>
> Fwankie, you just agreed with me and then you called me wrong?
> Whatsamatta you?
> Do you even know what a forged email address is, Fwankie?
I DID NOT agree with you, Finnan.
And if you want to argue about the differences bewween fake, forged,
spoofed, invalid or munged email adresses, I am aware of the nuances.
The point is that you constantly change yours so people who have
filtered your posts are forced to read your rubbish. You think YOUR
desire for attention is more important that the readers' desire to
ignore you..
RWF
>And if you want to argue about the differences bewween fake, forged,
>spoofed, invalid or munged email adresses, I am aware of the nuances.
Well you have yet to demonstrate that awareness, Fwankie.
>The point is that you constantly change yours so people who have
>filtered your posts are forced to read your rubbish. You think YOUR
>desire for attention is more important that the readers' desire to
>ignore you..
Fwankie, you use Google groups to access the Usenet, so filters are not
even an issue for you.
Nobody is "forced" to read my posts.
Anal retentive, obsessed, deranged stalkers might "have" to read them
though.
Frank Provasek
> Fwankie, you use Google groups to access the Usenet, so filters are not
> even an issue for you.
.
Actually it is an issue. I use the Trollkiller plugin.
http://www.source9.com/trollkiller.html
>Nobody is "forced" to read my posts.
Then why are you constantly nymshifting?
RWF
>Then why are you constantly nymshifting?
Why are you obsessed with me Fwankie?
Given that you were widely suspected of trolling this group under a
variety of noms de net, such a remark is pretty ironic.
sgt23
Why do you like pushing people so much for RWF? Did you get bullied a
lot in school or is it a sexual turn on. RWF you know they do have
help for this kind of stuff now days.
RWF
"sgt23" <bravesfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e436ac1-b56a-4e92...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>Why do you like pushing people so much for RWF?
Why are you a semi-literate, low-grade moron?
sgt23
> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e436ac1-b56a-4e92...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Why do you like pushing people so much for RWF?
>
> Why are you a semi-literate, low-grade moron?
Why are you allowed to use Usenet?
RWF
On Feb 7, 7:56 am, "RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote:
> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
Why does you mommy let you use the computer unattended?
Does she know what a potty mouth you have?
sgt23
> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e37cc8f6-3da4-4897...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 7:56 am, "RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Why are you allowed to use Usenet?
>
> Why does you mommy let you use the computer unattended?
> Does she know what a potty mouth you have?
You’re grammar skills maybe superior to mine, but your maturity level
is about knee high.
note.boy
Great reply there sarge, and spot on, well done, really. Billy
RWF
>You’re grammar skills maybe superior to mine, but your maturity level
>is about knee high.
I tailor my responses to you in a fashion your limited intellect can
grasp.
Now I'm sure you'll respond with one of your usual witless rejoinders.
RWF
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Hjnjl.26692$nx....@newsfe10.ams2...
Don't encourage him.
sgt23
> "note.boy" <note....@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Hjnjl.26692$nx....@newsfe10.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5451de22-e5a8-4bcb...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 7, 12:55 pm, "RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote:
> >> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:e37cc8f6-3da4-4897...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 7, 7:56 am, "RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> > "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Why are you allowed to use Usenet?
>
> >> Why does you mommy let you use the computer unattended?
> >> Does she know what a potty mouth you have?
>
> > You're grammar skills maybe superior to mine, but your maturity level
> > is about knee high.
>
> > Great reply there sarge, and spot on, well done, really. Billy
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't need encouragement too dislike you, but deep down in side I
believe there a good person inside all of us, so I won't use hate.
That would also mean that I cared what you thought.
Mr. Jaggers
Can we then count on you not to come up with the potty mouth that we've been
seeing under your byline lately?
James