Can a Four-Grade Coin System Unlock Hidden Crafting Potential? A Coin Ring Artisan’s Guide to Evaluating Coins for Jewelry

Not every coin belongs in a ring. Before I ever think about design or strike, I start with the metal itself—its composition, its hardness, its ability to survive daily wear on someone’s hand. That’s the foundation everything else is built on.

As a coin ring artisan who has spent years transforming numismatic pieces into wearable art, I find myself at a fascinating crossroads whenever the grading community debates new systems. A recent forum thread proposing a radical “four grades per coin” system—grading obverse devices, obverse fields, reverse devices, and reverse fields separately—has sparked heated debate among collectors. But from my perspective as a crafter, this conversation opens up an entirely different question: How would a more granular grading system help or hurt those of us who see coins not just as collectibles, but as raw material for jewelry?

I’ve examined thousands of coins over the years, and I can tell you that the current single-grade system already leaves a lot to be desired when you’re trying to assess a coin’s crafting potential. Let me walk you through what this four-grade proposal means for those of us who work with metal, design, and aesthetics every single day.

The Four-Grade Proposal: What It Actually Means

The original forum post, authored by a collector going by @RedRocket, proposed that PCGS assign four separate grades to each coin:

1. Obverse Devices — The portrait, central design elements, and high points
2. Obverse Fields — The flat background areas on the front of the coin
3. Reverse Devices — The central design elements on the back
4. Reverse Fields — The flat background areas on the reverse

Under this system, a Morgan dollar might be graded MS62 MS65 MS65 MS61—meaning the obverse devices grade MS62, the obverse fields MS65, the reverse devices MS65, and the reverse fields MS61. The idea, as @RedRocket explained, is that “the collector determines what is important to them. Some would like cleaner fields and don’t care if the devices are of a lower grade and others want a puffy, clean cheek and don’t mind chatter in the fields.”

Now, the forum response was overwhelmingly negative. Collectors called it “a solution in search of a problem,” “unnecessarily complicated,” and “four highly subjective numbers instead of just one.” One commenter pointed out that with 30 grading levels and four gradings per coin, you’d have 30⁴—or 810,000 possible different grades. The logistics alone are staggering.

But here’s where my perspective diverges from the traditional collector. As someone who crafts rings from coins, I don’t just care about the overall grade. I care about specific areas of the coin. And that’s exactly what this four-grade system attempts to quantify.

Why Crafting Potential Demands a Closer Look at Devices vs. Fields

When I sit down at my bench to evaluate a coin for ring-making, the very first thing I examine is the device quality—the raised design elements that will become the visible face of the finished ring. On a Morgan dollar, that means Liberty’s portrait: the cheek, the hair detail, the cap, the laurel leaves. These are the features that catch the light and the eye when the ring is worn.

Under the current single-grade system, a coin with a stunning portrait but a gouged field might receive the same overall grade as a coin with flawless fields but a weakly struck, tooled portrait. For a collector focused on the slab number, that might be acceptable. For a crafter, it’s a critical distinction.

@RedRocket illustrated this perfectly with his example of two 1921 Morgan dollars:

“The first has a deep gouge in the right field next to the portrait. Liberty herself is untouched. The reverse is also fully GEM. The second 1921 Morgan silver dollar has near flawless fields. No slide marks or scratches to be seen. Sadly, though the devices have been tooled and show alterations. The first would probably be details graded along with the second.”

Under the proposed four-grade system, the first coin might grade VF20 MS67 MS65 MS66—reflecting the field damage while preserving the high grade of the devices. The second might grade MS68 AG03 AG03 MS67—showing pristine fields but destroyed devices.

As a crafter, I can work with that first coin. Liberty’s portrait is intact, and the gouge in the field can be positioned on the interior of the ring band where it won’t be seen. The second coin? It’s essentially worthless for crafting. The devices—the very elements that make a coin ring beautiful—are destroyed.

The Crafting Takeaway

If you’re buying coins specifically for jewelry making, you already perform this kind of mental split-grading. You look at the devices first, the fields second, and you make your purchasing decision accordingly. A four-grade system would simply formalize what experienced crafters already do intuitively.

Silver Content and Metal Hardness: The Foundation of Every Coin Ring

Before I ever consider design details, I need to know what I’m working with metallurgically. The silver content and metal hardness of a coin determine whether it can be successfully transformed into a ring—and whether that ring will hold up to daily wear.

Morgan Dollars: The Gold Standard for Coin Rings

The Morgan silver dollar, which features prominently in the forum discussion, is one of the most popular coins for ring crafting, and for good reason. Struck from 90% silver and 10% copper, Morgan dollars have a total silver weight of 0.77344 troy ounces. The 90% silver content gives the coin a warm, lustrous tone that polishes beautifully and develops a rich patina over time.

But silver content alone doesn’t determine crafting suitability. Metal hardness is equally important. The copper content in 90% silver coins provides enough hardness to resist deformation during the forming process and during daily wear. Pure silver (99.9% fine) is too soft for ring-making—it bends, scratches, and loses detail rapidly. The 10% copper alloy in Morgan dollars strikes an ideal balance between workability and durability.

Here’s a quick reference for common coins and their crafting suitability based on metal composition:

• Morgan Silver Dollars (1878–1904, 1921) — 90% silver, 10% copper. Excellent for rings. Hard enough to hold detail, soft enough to form.
• Peace Silver Dollars (1921–1935) — 90% silver, 10% copper. Equally excellent. Slightly higher relief on the obverse can create stunning ring faces.
• Pre-1965 U.S. Dimes, Quarters, Half Dollars — 90% silver, 10% copper. Popular for smaller rings and stacking bands.
• Kennedy Half Dollars (1964) — 90% silver. The last year of 90% silver in circulating halves. Excellent crafting material.
• Kennedy Half Dollars (1965–1970) — 40% silver, 60% copper. Softer and less desirable. The copper content gives a pinkish tone that some crafters find unappealing.
• Modern Clad Coins (post-1965 dimes, quarters) — Copper-nickel clad over copper core. Generally not recommended. The layered construction can delaminate during forming.
• Silver Eagles (1986–present) — 99.9% fine silver. Beautiful but very soft. Best for pendants or display pieces rather than daily-wear rings.

How Grading Affects Metal Integrity

This is where the four-grade proposal gets interesting from a metallurgical standpoint. A coin with a low field grade but high device grade may have surface damage—scratches, gouges, slide marks—that doesn’t compromise the structural integrity of the metal. The devices, which are the thickest and most raised portions of the coin, retain their full metal content and hardness.

Conversely, a coin with tooled devices—like @RedRocket’s second example—has had metal physically removed from the highest points. This isn’t just a cosmetic issue. When you’re forming a ring, you’re compressing and stretching metal. If the devices have been thinned by tooling, they may crack, pit, or lose detail entirely during the forming process.

The four-grade system would flag this distinction clearly. A grade of MS68 AG03 AG03 MS67 tells me immediately: beautiful fields, destroyed devices. Not suitable for crafting. But VF20 MS67 MS65 MS66 tells me: damaged fields, excellent devices. Potentially a great crafting candidate.

Design Details: What Makes a Coin Ring Beautiful

Beyond metal composition, the design details of a coin determine its aesthetic appeal as jewelry. Not all coins are created equal in this regard, and the four-grade system’s focus on devices versus fields aligns perfectly with what matters in a finished ring.

High-Device Coins: The Crafter’s Dream

Coins with bold, deeply struck devices make the most dramatic rings. The portrait on a Morgan dollar—Liberty’s profile with flowing hair, detailed cap, and laurel wreath—is iconic for a reason. When compressed into a ring band, these elements create a striking, three-dimensional effect that catches light from every angle.

Other coins with excellent device detail for ring-making include:

• Indian Head Gold Coins ($2.50 and $3.00) — Incuse (sunken) designs create a unique texture
• Standing Liberty Quarters — Liberty’s figure is bold and well-defined
• Mercury Dimes — The winged Liberty cap is distinctive and detailed
• Buffalo Nickels — The Native American portrait and buffalo are deeply sculpted
• Walking Liberty Half Dollars — Full-struck examples show extraordinary detail in Liberty’s flowing robes

The Importance of Full Strikes

A coin’s strike quality—how completely the design was impressed into the planchet—is crucial for crafting. Weakly struck coins lack the sharp detail that makes a ring visually compelling. This is another area where the four-grade system could help crafters.

Under the current system, a coin might grade MS63 overall—a perfectly respectable grade for a collector. But that MS63 might reflect a combination of weak devices and clean fields, or strong devices and marked fields. As a crafter, I need to know which is which. The four-grade system would tell me at a glance.

One forum commenter noted that ANACS photo certs already include separate obverse and reverse grades along with luster and strike ratings of “below average, average, and above average.” The four-grade proposal takes this a step further by separating high points (devices) from low points (fields)—exactly the distinction that matters most when you’re evaluating a coin for its crafting potential.

Aesthetic Appeal: The Subjective Side of Coin Jewelry

Here’s where I part ways somewhat with the forum’s more rigid collectors. Several commenters argued that collectors should simply “look at the coin and select for that” without needing a label to tell them what they prefer. And for pure collecting, they’re right. But for crafting, the aesthetic calculus is different.

What Wearers Want vs. What Collectors Want

A collector wants a coin that’s pristine in its slab, preserved forever. A ring wearer wants a piece of jewelry that’s beautiful on their finger. These are fundamentally different goals, and they require different evaluation criteria.

For example, a Morgan dollar with a small rim nick on the obverse field might be downgraded by a point or two in the current system. For a collector, that’s a meaningful difference in value. For a crafter, that rim nick will be on the edge of the ring band—barely visible, if at all. What matters is that Liberty’s portrait is full, sharp, and well-centered on the coin so it will be well-centered on the finger.

The four-grade system’s separation of devices from fields would give crafters a much more useful tool for evaluating coins. A grade breakdown like MS64 MS62 MS65 MS63 tells me: strong obverse devices (the portrait I’ll feature), weaker obverse fields (which will become the band interior), strong reverse devices, and average reverse fields. That’s actionable information for a crafter.

Patina and Toning: Beauty in Imperfection

One of the most contentious aspects of coin grading is natural toning. A beautifully toned Morgan dollar might receive a lower grade because the toning obscures luster, even though the toning itself is aesthetically stunning. For a collector, this is frustrating. For a crafter, it’s an opportunity.

Natural toning—the rainbow hues that develop on silver coins over decades—can create breathtaking effects in a finished ring. Blues, golds, purples, and magentas in the fields add depth and character that a brilliant white coin simply cannot match. Under the current grading system, a toned coin might be penalized. Under a four-grade system, the toning might affect the field grade while leaving the device grade intact—giving crafters a more accurate picture of what they’re working with.

The Practical Reality: Why the Four-Grade System Faces Resistance

I’d be remiss if I didn’t address the overwhelming skepticism the forum community expressed toward this proposal. The objections are serious, and they deserve honest consideration.

The Complexity Problem

As one commenter pointed out, the original ANACS split-grade system (obverse grade/reverse grade) was abandoned in the 1980s because it was too complicated. Price guides couldn’t keep up, and the market didn’t know how to price an MS-65/62 versus an MS-62/65. With four grades, this problem is magnified exponentially.

For crafters, though, this complexity is less of a concern. We don’t price our raw materials based on price guides—we price them based on what we can create from them. A coin’s value to me isn’t its PCGS grade; it’s the quality of the finished ring I can produce from it.

The Cost Problem

Multiple commenters noted that four grades would mean four times the grading cost, longer turnaround times, and more subjective opinions. @RedRocket himself acknowledged that “the cost might easily double or triple what is charged now.” For a collector submitting hundreds of coins, this is prohibitive. For a crafter buying raw coins in bulk, it’s largely irrelevant—most of us work with raw, ungraded coins anyway.

The Subjectivity Problem

“Four highly subjective numbers instead of just one” is perhaps the most damning criticism. Grading is already subjective—ask any collector who’s cracked out a coin and resubmitted it only to receive a different grade. Multiplying that subjectivity by four doesn’t improve accuracy; it multiplies uncertainty.

But here’s my counterpoint: for crafting purposes, precision matters less than direction. I don’t need to know that a coin’s obverse devices are exactly MS65 versus MS64. I need to know that the devices are strong and the fields are weak—or vice versa. Even a rough four-grade breakdown gives me more useful information than a single overall grade.

Historical Context: Split Grading Has Been Tried Before

The forum discussion included an important historical note: ANACS actually implemented a split-grade system in the early days of third-party grading. Each coin received two grades—one for the obverse and one for the reverse. The system was abandoned because the market couldn’t adapt to the complexity.

NGC’s ancient coin grading system offers a more relevant modern example. Ancient coins are graded with separate scores for Strike and Surface Preservation (both on a 1–5 scale), plus an overall adjectival grade. This system works because ancient coins have far more variability in appearance than modern machine-struck coins. A well-struck ancient coin with surface porosity might be more desirable than a poorly struck coin with clean surfaces—and the dual-grade system captures that distinction.

The four-grade proposal is essentially an extension of this concept, applied to modern coins. Instead of just separating obverse from reverse, it separates devices from fields on each side. It’s more granular than what NGC does for ancients, which is why many collectors find it excessive.

But for crafters, the NGC ancient model is actually quite useful. When I’m evaluating an ancient coin for a ring, I want to know about the strike (device quality) and the surface (field quality) separately. A well-struck ancient with rough surfaces can make a stunning ring—the devices pop while the textured fields add character. A poorly struck ancient with smooth surfaces is much less appealing.

Actionable Takeaways for Crafters and Collectors

Whether or not the four-grade system is ever adopted by PCGS or NGC, there are practical lessons here for anyone interested in coin jewelry:

For Crafters:

• Evaluate devices and fields separately when purchasing coins for ring-making. Don’t rely on the overall grade alone.
• Prioritize device quality over field quality. The devices are what will be visible on the finished ring.
• Consider metal composition first. 90% silver coins (Morgan dollars, pre-1965 halves) offer the best combination of workability, durability, and beauty.
• Don’t dismiss “problem coins” outright. A coin with a gouged field but pristine devices can make a beautiful ring. The problem area can often be positioned on the band interior.
• Look for full strikes. Weakly struck coins lack the detail that makes a ring visually compelling. Check the high points—Liberty’s hair, the eagle’s feathers, the date—for sharpness.
• Embrace natural toning. Toned coins can produce rings with extraordinary color and depth that brilliant white coins cannot match.

For Collectors Considering Crafting:

• Coins in details holders can be excellent crafting material. A coin graded “Cleaned — Details” might have perfectly intact devices that would make a stunning ring.
• Low-grade coins often have better crafting potential than high-grade coins. A worn Morgan dollar has thinner, more workable metal and often has more character than a pristine MS65.
• Don’t craft graded coins. Once a coin is removed from its slab, it loses its certified grade and much of its collector value. Use raw coins for jewelry.
• Consider the four-grade concept as an evaluation framework even if it’s never formally adopted. Mentally separating device quality from field quality will make you a smarter buyer.

Conclusion: The Intersection of Grading and Craft

The four-grade coin grading proposal may never see the light of day in the collecting world. The objections—complexity, cost, subjectivity, market confusion—are legitimate and significant. The forum community’s near-universal rejection of the idea reflects a healthy skepticism toward unnecessary complication in an already complex hobby.

But for those of us who see coins as more than numbers on a slab—as raw material for art, as wearable history, as objects of beauty that can be transformed into something new—the underlying concept has real value. Separating device quality from field quality, recognizing that different areas of a coin contribute differently to its overall appeal, and acknowledging that a single number can never capture the full story of a coin’s character—these are principles that every coin ring artisan already understands.

The Morgan dollar, which served as the primary example throughout the forum discussion, remains one of the most beautiful and craftable coins ever produced. Its 90% silver content, its bold and detailed devices, its substantial size and weight—all of these qualities make it ideal for transformation into jewelry. Whether graded MS62 MS65 MS65 MS61

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• How to Properly Store and Preserve Your 1893 Columbian Exposition Award Medals: A Conservationist’s Guide to Toning, PVC Damage, and the Clean-or-Don’t-Clean Dilemma – In my three decades of examining, grading, and conserving numismatic material — from Morgan dollars to large-format bron…
• Grading Russ: Lessons in Coin Condition, Value, and the Legacy of a Forum Legend – Condition is everything. Here is how to look at the high points and fields to determine the true grade of this piece. I&…
• Grading the Eglit-90 Columbian Exposition Award Medal: How PCGS Certification, Wear Patterns, and Edge Numbers Separate a $10 Piece from a $10,000 Treasure – Condition is everything in this game. And few pieces in the American medallic series generate as much confusion—or as mu…