REPUBLIC OF MEXICO COINS:
A GRADING PRIMER
By Dave Busse
INTRODUCTION
Today there is considerable disagreement over the grading of Republic of Mexico coins. Arguments often occur, even among friends and acquaintances. Moreover, such disagreements become quite significant when collectors/dealers are buying/selling a rare item or one whose value varies greatly according to its grade. As Mexican Coin collecting grows in popularity there will be an increasing need for a relatively simple yet reliable grading system that knowledgeable buyers and sellers will agree upon and utilize. We firmly believe that if Mexican Coin collecting is going to remain a viable pursuit collectors just starting out must be confident that a coin purchased at a specific grade will retain that grade as long as it is properly handled and stored.
Before we begin our discussion of how to grade Mexican coins there is one situation that we believe both Mexican collectors and dealers would like to avoid, and that is the adoption of the rating system currently popular with US grade-for-fee services.
For several valid reasons, many numismatists specializing in Mexican coins consider it to be an impossible and unnecessary task to try to utilize a full-scale (1-70) numeric rating/grading system for Republic of Mexico coins. If we were to accept the notion that Mexican coins should utilize the grading nomenclature of ANACS, PCGS, NGC, IGC, et al., one of the first considerations would be how could there be a standardized grading system without an official set for comparison purposes? Would we not have to compile a complete set of a specific denomination by Date, Assayer, and Mintmark (DAM) and then by grades 1 through 70 for each DAM? From there we would need a complete DAM set from each of the 14 mints that struck coins during the Republic. Since not even the Sociedad De Numismatica De México (SNM), the American Numismatic Society (ANS), nor the American Numismatic Association (ANA) has such an assemblage, then it is safe to assume that none of the grade-for-fee services has one either. Another factor that would have to be considered would be the effects caused by differences in machinery, dies, and flans in the 14 mints. It seems logical to assume that the grader should have a good deal of knowledge about those differences as well as the variances in minting processes at each Republic Casa De Moneda. In addition, one must also have some understanding of how and why nearly all the mints had time periods ranging from several months to several years when their minting operations resulted in inconsistent products. The variations had a multitude of causes including; soft or low pressure strikes (either intentional or unintentional), thin/thick flans, porous flans, under/over diameter flans, overweight flans, well or poorly made dies, and hand, horse or steam powered machinery to name some. And lest one think that Mexico was the only North American country to have such problems, it might interest the reader to learn what one of the great US Numismatists of our time, Q. David Bowers had to say about similar problems with US coins. In November 1999, Bowers wrote an article for Rare Coin Review (#132) that dealt with the characteristics of one dollar gold coins produced at different US mints. He explained the differences in the U.S. mints and what effect dissimilar manufacturing techniques had on individual coins. Though he confined his discussion to one dollar gold coins, he pointed out the same conditions existed for other denominations. “Gold dollars struck during the same era, but from different mints, can have widely varying characteristics. Further, coins struck from the same dies at the same mint, but at different times, can have different characteristics.” Those of us who are dedicated to Mexican numismatics know all too well that those same challenges, as well as others, have to be overcome if we aspire to properly grade Mexican coins.
COIN GRADING
Let us start by offering that collectors of Mexican coins who rely on a third person/party to grade their coins will always be at a disadvantage when buying from or selling to (either a collector or dealer) someone who has utilized the time and put forth effort to learn how to properly grade them. I was fortunate enough to learn from two of the foremost authorities, one a collector and the other a dealer, who taught me many of the variables and nuances of grading Mexican coins. Because not everyone has had the opportunity or pleasure of learning from such experts, this article is an effort to share what was learned. The first lesson they stressed was, a coin is either new or it’s not. The second was, a coin is either nice or its not. If we can agree on those two criteria as a start it becomes easier to develop a grading system that is both accurate and satisfactory to those of us who have been bitten by the Mexican Coin Magic bug. Our next task is to define what we mean by grading a coin.
Grading a coin is an attempt by a person to objectively describe the condition of a coin compared to its original mint state. The primary consideration when grading a coin is, does it have any wear or other non-mint made damage? If it has neither it is considered to be Uncirculated. If it has wear or non-mint made damage then it is circulated. The degree of circulation depends on how much wear and/or damage the coin has sustained.
Mexican coins can be fairly accurately described by using eight (8) basic grades. Additional information can be provided with four (4) modifiers. And even more precision can be achieved by the use of “eye appeal” factors. Those will either add to or detract from the coin’s desirability. While eye appeal factors are not part of a coin’s technical grade, they are necessary in order to accurately describe the coin, especially when trying to compare it to another coin that has the same technical grade but lacks the same eye appeal factors, be they positive or negative. Judging eye appeal comes with experience and the fact that one must look at a large number of coins – the more the better – in order to gain “an eye” for what is normal and what is not cannot be over stressed. The 8 basic grades are:
GEM Uncirculated (Gem)- a perfect coin (for the denomination, date and mint)
Uncirculated (Unc)- absolutely no wear and not cleaned (Softness or crudeness of strike has nothing to do with whether or not a coin is Unc.)
Extra Fine (XF*)- only a slight hint of wear on the high points of the raised areas (Remember an XF coin is closer to Unc than it is to VF.)
Very Fine (VF)- some wear evident on all raised areas (This is where one can expect to start seeing substantial amount of field marks caused by circulation.)
Fine (Fine)- some wear on all the coin elements, all high points are worn down but date and legends are distinct and readable (Assuming a normal [not uneven] strike.)
Very Good (VG)- high points, legends and central features nearly worn away
Good (Good)- very little detail is left the mintmark, date and assayers’ initial are readable
Poor (Poor)- only broad details are left, sometimes the mintmark, date and assayers’ initials are not fully legible
Note the last three grades are not normally collected unless the coin is rare or the coin is not usually found in grades above VG, State Coppers would be an example of the latter. While they can be found in grades of VF or better, the task is long and hard. That is one reason why State Coppers are often over graded.
* I have seen several coins that I graded Choice Extra Fine that have much more “eye appeal” than actual Unc examples.
GRADE MODIFIERS
In addition to the 8 basic grades, we may encounter an individual coin that needs a modifier to better describe it. Therefore, we have group of 4 adjectives to modify the basic grades. They are:
About or Almost - (a, the small letter because we consider it is to denote “less than”)
Choice - (C, some may prefer Ch or CH, we use a single letter for consistency)
Toned - (T)
Brilliant - (B)
When the four modifiers are added one can see the descriptions can now have the basic 8 grades plus another 27 when modified for a total of 35 grades. When used properly the grade and/or modified grades should allow the grader to properly grade at least 99.9% of all Republic of Mexico coins.
All of the above grades are a statement about the “amount of wear” that an individual coin has now compared to when it was struck. Some terms seem to overlap and one may be inclined to ask, what is the difference between a CF and an aVF? The answer is, it’s your choice. If you think the seller has over graded the coin, you can always choose not to buy. Remember, one must look at and study a large number of coins in order to become comfortable with the difference between a CF and an aVF or some similar determination.
Most coins are not a GEM and therefore, probably have either mint made or non-mint made detractions. Mint made detractions do not affect the grade of a coin but the non-mint made problems do. Both attractions and detractions should be included in describing a coin. For example, mint made adjustment marks, flan flaws, soft strikes, a misshaped flan, or mint caused bag marks should not enter into the grader’s opinion of the coin’s condition relative to it being mint state. However, non-mint made detractions such as cleaning, field marks (dings, scratches, gouges, graffiti), rim nicks/bumps do affect the grader’s opinion of that coin’s condition. Both mint-made and non-mint made detractions should be included as a part of the coin’s overall description. For example, a GEM is considered to be a perfect coin and cannot, by definition have any detraction. However, a coin could be Unc, TUnc, CUnc, or CTUnc but have adjustment marks and they would have to be mentioned in order for it to be accurately described. Also, there could be a situation where a coin would be Unc except for the fact that it was cleaned. By definition, such a coin is not Unc. Therefore, it could (depending on how well or poorly it was cleaned) be described as a “CaUnc, lightly cleaned” or perhaps “XF, harshly cleaned.” At least some field marks are to be expected on all but GEM coins. Obviously we would normally assume there are relatively few on an Unc specimen. However, when looking at crowns one seldom encounters an example without mint made marks of some kind be they nicks, or dings where one coin fell on another as it came off the press, or breaks in the luster caused by coins being stacked or bagged. A good example of Unc coins that are normally found with substantial to heavy bagging would be Balance Scale Pesos. As a result, ones that are free of “bagging” almost always bring a premium, even if they are circulated. The lower the grade the more one would expect to see field marks. However, if there are more than is normally seen for that Type or Variety, or if a single mark is very noticeable it should always be mentioned as a part of the grade, e.g., “TXF, several obverse field marks partially obscured by the toning.” On the positive side eye appeal factors can be attractions.
Almost all attractions are a result of the minting process. An attraction could be a Full Strike (this gives it even greater eye appeal if that particular date/denomination normally comes Softly Struck). Another is what is usually referred to as Proof-Like and the result of highly polished dies, flans or both. Toning can be either an attraction or detraction. For example, if a coin is improperly handled or stored it could tone in a mottled or uneven fashion making its eye appeal less than one that has beautiful multi-colored toning over the entire coin. Other eye appeal attractions can include but are not limited to; wire rims, well-centered, frosty luster, or cameo devices.
Let’s analyze the term eye-appeal and what it actually means. From a numismatic standpoint Eye-Appeal is what makes one coin stand out from another even though both may have the same technical grade. There are conditions that can increase or reduce eye-appeal. Both dealers and collectors are well aware of eye appeal but don’t always keep it in its proper perspective attempting instead to make it a part of the coin’s grade. Eye appeal is the second lesson mentioned above. It is the point at which the grader makes the decision that a coin is either nice or its not.
Often, eye appeal factors are used to downgrade or up grade a coin. For example, we have all read a grader’s statement such as:
“A Choice AU/BU coin, but weakly struck centers, therefore make it XF/AU”
“Much Luster, but weakly struck eagle’s wings, downgrades it from Uncirculated to AU”
“Small flan flaw which reduces overall grade from AU to XF, much original mint luster”
“Adjustment marks on eagle’s breast, otherwise UNC, call it AU”
What they are really doing is valuing the coin rather than grading it. Weak strikes should not lower the grade of any coin. Coins having flan flaws (flan cracks, porosity or inclusions that occurred at the mint or in the minting process) should not be downgraded because of them. Coins with adjustment marks should not be downgraded because of them. Coins having irregular rims should not be down graded because of them or the uneven strikes they cause. Die breaks, cuds, or worn dies have nothing to do with the grade of the coin. Raised or polishing lines on the die before striking have nothing to do with grade. Neither needle sharp nor soft strikes should influence the grade of an individual coin. Rusty dies should not help determine the grade of a coin. The above factors and others, no doubt we’ve missed some, should have no impact on the grade of a coin, though they may well lower the price. Only wear or non-mint made damage to the coin should cause it to be downgraded. All too often that isn’t the case because eye-appeal is mistakenly made part of the grading process.
Today the single most important aspect (aside from rarity) when selling a coin on the open market is its eye-appeal. If there are two similar coins of equal grade, but one has greater eye-appeal it will invariably sell much quicker, and at a higher price, than the one having less eye-appeal. The following can and do contribute to a coin’s eye-appeal:
· A high pressure strike or number of strikes by the press on the individual coin
· A high quality flan, showing no signs of porosity, cracks, voids or adjustment marks
· Clean coin surfaces- the lack of bag marks, nicks or bruises on the coin’s surfaces or rims
· Toning, attractive, pleasing color(s), not artificial
On the other hand here are some things that lower a coin’s eye-appeal:
· Striking weakness in the centers or legends or both
· Oval or misshaped flans
· Over or undersized flans
· Adjustment marks on either side
· Coin improperly centered in the dies before being struck causing incomplete or missing rims giving it an odd unbalanced look.
· Numerous nicks, bag marks, knocks or bruises from contact with other coins
· Worn dies with large cracks or cuds
· Heavily polished dies
· Dull surfaces
· Flan imperfections such as porosity, inclusions, or laminations
· Crude dies or flans
· Improper cleaning or handling of coins, leaving incuse hairlines on the fields
· Uneven toning (checker board) or very dark toning that hides features and surfaces
While the above items are not all the possible attractions or detractions they are sufficient to help the reader gain a better understanding of positive or negative eye-appeal. We cannot overstress that eye-appeal is the primary factor why some coins bring much more than what is considered market value while others that are the same date, mint, assayer and denomination sell for much less.
Whenever a grader thinks a coin has out of the ordinary eye-appeal, be it an attraction or detraction, he or she should attempt to describe it to the best of his or her ability after the grade has been assigned.
One excellent way to help you decide the worth of coins in good condition and having a strong eye-appeal attraction is to study the prices realized in auctions where respected dealers or auction firms offer Mexican coins. Coins with exceptional eye-appeal frequently bring multiples of the catalog values. For example, in Richard Long’s December 1999 Mail Auction Sale # 58, Lot 162 an 1829 Go M. J. 8Rs (Dunigan-Parker in RESPLANDORES say it is common but rare in UNC. Long said in his description “This date usually comes nice”). He graded it GEM BU and also provided two nice photos, one in color. It brought in excess of $1,400 plus the 10% Buyer’s Fee. The bid plus the Buyer’s Fee was more than ten times the 1999 catalog value of $150. If one thinks that was an aberration, we would suggest that he or she check almost any Mexican Coin sale by any of the major dealers or auction houses for the past 20 years (catalogs or fixed price lists are relatively easily obtained).
Keep in mind that some graders tend to push coins, meaning if there is a question as to a grade they usually err on the high side. Others almost always under grade the coins, while others are somewhat inconsistent. Astute buyers (both collectors and dealers) know these facts and they know how to grade Mexican coins. Therefore, they bid accordingly when at auctions.
It is our hope that this proposed grading system for Mexican Coins is given thoughtful consideration by all serious numismatists that collect, study or sell Mexican Coins. We invite comments and suggestions.
[Table of Contents] Return to the Table of Contents Volume 1 Issue 2
[Home Page] Return to Mexican Coin Magic Home Page