Define Damage On A Coin

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll be back later with a more thought out response, but I wanted to mention that my definition of damage as in "too much damage" would depend upon method of manufacture (proof vs business strike coinage) and apparent overall grade.

 

IMHO, any mark in a prominate area of either side of a coin, which deminishes the overall eye appeal of the coin, is distracting in nature, signs of harsh cleaning, is damage.

 

And I agree, and see a lot of coins in slabs marked Details, or Damaged, no grade.

However, there are ANACS slabbed coins, that have signs of cleaning and are marked CLEANED, and were graded, albeit lower than they would have graded but for the fact they were cleaned.

 

Here's one example:

 

Damage in my definition, and which may or may not match a tpg, is harshly cleaned coins, harsh rim damage(rim dented in towards the center, not a hit), harsh scratches(not the same as a hit), holed coins, corrosion into the surface of a coin - damage is something that takes away from the eye appeal of the coin in that grade. It would probably take me a lot longer than a few minutes - I know my definition of harsh cleaning would not match tpgs. I think tpg's are tougher on morgans than some of the other series simply because they are so common.

As for the coins you posted - coin 1 looks okay to me, but I do not know enough about it to say damaged or not damaged. The second coin the pitting and spotting worried me, but not being the expert on gold I do not know what is normal - my first impression was damaged, but would not be surprise if it was in a graded holder. So treating the two coins like something I know better - based off the pictures I would skip bidding on the second coin for concerns, would bid on the first - knowing it might be returned. A perfect example of this is that 1824 middle date coin I posted just this past week - when I look at the coin with the naked eye it is perfect and wish all of them looked like it. Yet when I looked close with 16x glass I noticed the spot I posted a snap shot of? Do I consider the coin damaged - not yet, am I concerned - somewhat - my decision was to keep an eye on it and only if necessary send it into NCS.

 

The second coin appears to have been whizzed. I see some striations on the reverse that to me are a sign of being whizzed.

In the closeups of the first piece I see some light scratches in the owl. I also see an X on the obverse. The luster is present but from the picture really no way to tell if that is natural luster or maybe artificial luster added by whizzing.

I'd call both of them damaged and upgradeable.

 

Damn~Aged?

Any coin left in a SGS Slab has a taint to it.

Everybody here knows what a Taint is, right?

 

well, I can't tell you what it is on a family forum, but I can tell ya what it t'aint....

 

To me, damage is any condition of the coin outside of plain old wear. As a partial list: Dents/nicks, rim bumps, scratches, cleaning, indentations (other than incurred during the minting process), corrosion, oxidation, PVC or other chemical contamination, and other environmental damage.

Some of these coins will get slabbed if the problem is minor enough.

If I'm grading a coin, I give it a details grade, and then separately mention the applicable defect from the above list.

I can't speak to the two coins you posted, as I don't know what feature you're looking at. If it's one from the list, I would call it damaged.

 

From my observation, I would consider coin 1 as undamaged by current TPG standards, and it is a scarcer coin with marks.

The second coin does have those curved lines on both sides that look like faint lathe lines, but I don't believe that was done on the die of these coins, so I guess it would fall into the area of whizzing ( altered surfaces). Also looks like some repair work was also done, especially on reverse. So I would said it is "damaged".

Really hard to do from photos, as I am sure you know

JIm

 

Damn~Aged?

Ok. My bad.
I love this place because of the knowledge and Loonacies presented here.
I have an example of a damaged coin.

I love it because I know it's history, not because I invested in it.

I feel like the coin invested in me.

GreatGramps at 100 yrds, many years ago.

And like him, I tend to hit high & right. Must be a genetic thing.

So What is a damaged item?

Eye of the beholder and greed.....IMHO

 

To say that I know squat about gold is an understatement, but the obverse of the Pan Pac $50 really bothers me. The darker area at the bottom has an irregular surface even on some of the lettering, and it makes me wonder if it has been retooled and/or puttied.

It also looks like her upper lip on the Lib has been puttied, too.

Chris

 

Now for me this I call damage, edge knocks etc I call wear and tear, normal occurences with a circulating coin



Quick Ps I also call extreemly bad/heavy cleaning Damage

 

Damage is a VERY broad term and CAN include a whole plethora of problems.

I don't consider Mint-caused problems, either pre- or post-strike to be damage.
Pre-strike problems are such things as planchet errors, die clashes, die breaks, etc.
Post-strike problems are such things as bag marks.
I categorize these as the "cost of doing business".
They are unintentional (but not carelessness) and are going to occur.

IMO damage happens after the coins leave the control of the Mint and the Federal distribution system.
But wear caused by intended use is not damage (coins rubbing together in a pocket).

I suspect we'll never reach total agreement as to the definition of "damage".
And I realize my attempt is rather vague.
I can also see my difinition changing as this thread progresses.

 

The first coin appears undamaged to me (cleaning, particularly dipping, is not something I can reasonably detect in an image).

The second coin annoys me.
The obverse has some pitting that I wouldn't expect on this type of coin.
And the reverse appears to have holder damage at 3, 7 and 11 (mounted as a piece of jewelry?)

 

I sort of go along with the first part. Damage is damage and cleaning is cleaning. For some reason this post has gone from damage to cleaning and back again. Damage to a coin is a really broad term and could indicate many situations but I still think cleaning of any kind or extent is cleaning. However, to many cleaning is damage but should really not fall into the same catagory as true damage.
As as noted wear and tear are truely damage in many ways but expected. Whereas damage to many usually means drilled holes, bent, cut off pieces, pressed into another shape, used as a necklace or bracelet by welding to something, etc.
Although there are many forms of cleaning to a coin, they still constatute cleaning and again this could be stated that the coin is now damaged but only by cleaning. The coin itself has not been damaged litterally. Or is it?
My summation is it all depends on what YOU think of as damaged.

 

I have a question along this line. And time is of the essence (I'll need to send back if damaged....)
I do not YET have a pic, but itis a recently purchased MS 70 ANACS GOLD EAGLE; at bottom of obv is a pc of metal (yes, gold), that tends to curl up & over the rim. At 6:30. Yhere are a few other smaller ones as well. I don't get how it could be graded so high?
Any thoughts out there? (I'll work on pic). Tx