Mint Damage ?

[ozjohn 627]

The attached photo shows a coin graded NGC MS 64. I have no issue with the grading other than the coin has been damaged with digs around the King's effigy from the forehead to the tip of the King's nose. I get the feeling that these digs occurred during the minting process but it is hard to be sure.

The question is should a coin be judged as MS if the damage happened at the mint or should be noted on the grading as PCGS does with cleaned coins or should the coin be downgraded if judged as post mint damage? In any case it would be a better coin without any damage.

Any thoughts.

[Sword 1,439]

My opinion is that damage is damage. Calling it pre or post mint damage is just an attempt to sugar the pill. I would just view such damage on the level of bag marks and they don't necessitate stating on the slab. The term "mint state" has never been taken literally by TPGs.

[ozjohn 627]

20 minutes ago, Sword said:

My opinion is that damage is damage. Calling it pre or post mint damage is just an attempt to sugar the pill. I would just view such damage on the level of bag marks and they don't necessitate stating on the slab. The term "mint state" has never been taken literally by TPGs.

Exactly. However I've seen marks similar the ones described on several coins over the years and I think they are a bit more than bag marks. caused by coins knocking together. I was looking about cleaning on the PCGS site  the other day and it seems that they do not consider dipping as cleaning.

Edited September 30 by ozjohn
more info

[Bronze & Copper Collector 411]

7 hours ago, ozjohn said:

Exactly. However I've seen marks similar the ones described on several coins over the years and I think they are a bit more than bag marks. caused by coins knocking together. I was looking about cleaning on the PCGS site  the other day and it seems that they do not consider dipping as cleaning.

My little experience leads me to believe that that determination would depend upon who is submitting the coin.

[copper123 1,463]

If this has happened in the mint in bags , in transportation to a bank for example or during storage in a bank or at any other time its impossable to say, the only thing you can say for certain is the coin would be worth much more without it

[ozjohn 627]

I think this one is a bit more than bag damage  more like a metal flaw or intentional  damage  on the reverse by the A in half-crown. Probably down graded due to this but still attracted a fairly high grade from NGC  along with PGCS who seem fairly tolerant to damage. To be honest I probably wouldn't brought the coin If I had noticed it earlier.

[copper123 1,463]

pity its a nice coin but for that

[ozjohn 627]

Another coin with similar damage. on the king's forehead. From what I have noticed the marks come in 3s approximately in line.

Edited October 5 by ozjohn
more info

[ozjohn 627]

Another coin with similar damage. They seem to come in single marks and twos or threes in a line and are far too regular for bag damage. I've seen these marks on both George V and VI coins and as far as I can remember on the obverse.  This example was dated 1924.

[VickySilver 826]

John the 1912 looks on my iPhone to have a strike through at that spot  and so different than the others which look to have bag contacts. Therefore it is part of the striking. 
Also at some site there are videos of the RM striking coins - they are very roughly treated tumbling down out of the striking chamber and down a chute into a collecting bin. And then unceremoniously tossed into bags. 

[copper123 1,463]

Not to mention being spent in shops and returning to the bank

[Sword 1,439]

2 hours ago, VickySilver said:

John the 1912 looks on my iPhone to have a strike through at that spot  and so different than the others which look to have bag contacts. Therefore it is part of the striking. 

I just couldn't figure out how the mark was caused. Doesn't look like a bag mark and doesn't look like graffiti. Strike through would make sense.