Insights

Professional grading of errors a hit-and-miss proposition; special challenges involved

Collectors' Clearinghouse column from Aug. 18, 2014, issue of Coin World
/authors/mike-diamond.html
By , Special to Coin World
Published : 08/01/14
Text Size

Professional grading services first appeared in the early 1980s. Since then, many collectors have been lulled into a sense of complacency, figuring that any grade assigned by a top-tier grading service is likely to be accurate within one or two points of an industry-wide consensus. Such confidence may be misplaced, at least when it comes to error coins.

I frequently come across coins that have been grossly over-graded or under-graded by the leading grading services. Many have been featured in previous columns, although any grading critique was often incidental to the discussion of the error itself. (See the Aug.15, 2011, and Oct. 14, 2013, columns for some examples of over-grading.)

Post-strike damage confuses

In many cases, post-strike damage is mistaken for the effects of the strike. This accounts for the lofty grade of Mint State 66 bestowed upon a greatly expanded, broadstruck Lincoln cent that has on its obverse face a full, centered, flipover, first-strike brockage. As is true of many planchets struck against another coin or planchet, the coin is cupped (in this case toward the anvil die). This led the service to mistakenly diagnose the error as a “reverse die cap” even though there is no evidence to suggest that more than one strike was involved.

The obverse face shows severe abrasions that are commonly referred to as “wheel burns.” The name reflects the belief that these black patches are produced by a rubber wheel that propels coins through sorting and counting machines. The zinc core is exposed in these dark areas. Almost a dozen separate wheel burns are arranged in a rough circle that coincides with the highest elevations on this saucer-shaped disc. Several small wheel burns are located inside the circle.

On the reverse face, the downturned edge of the coin has been almost completed abraded away, exposing bright zinc.

Differences in attributions

I contacted the grader (a well-known figure), who proceeded to defend his decision, arguing that all of the exposed zinc present on both faces represented areas where the copper plating had split under tensile stresses. While the coin exhibits plenty of naturally exposed zinc (especially on the reverse), the numerous abrasions can easily be distinguished from them.

When copper plating splits during the strike, the design continues uninterrupted across the exposed zinc. Here the design has been erased in the dark areas. In split copper plating, the same texture that characterizes the intact surface also characterizes the exposed zinc. But here the scraped surface is quite smooth and flat, with fine striations visible under a microscope.

I’d like to say this misdiagnosis is a one-off event, but it’s actually quite common. These sorts of abrasions are routinely ignored or misinterpreted in cupped Lincoln cents.

You are signed in as:null

You are not allowed to post here, please sign in or join

1 comment
So who died and made you the on and only true king of grading? Maybe YOUR opinion is wrong. Or do you have any FACTS behind this that you could show photographs of (at the same kind of magnification used by professional graders not 200x microphotographs) to educate us?