“Circulation” wear from sitting in a non-PVC flip

The problem with “damage is damage” is that it leaves a lot of room for doctors to fix things. Cleaning and environmental damage would be acceptable under your proposed scale.

As for toning “damage,” that would make the grading ABSOLUTELY subjective to the viewpoint of the grader.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Cleaning is already acceptable unless it causes damage to the surfaces. Environmental damage is damage. These, like any damage, would lower the grade commensurate with their impact on eye appeal.

Why would it be subjective? Between the official grading standards and the internal standards for the TPGs we already have objective rules for how to grade down for damage from hits and chatter, for light hairlines, for wear, for toning. Why would this be any different? Any damage can be judged based on its severity.

 

Again....sigh...

 

You still have not explained the importance of doing this. You can obviously have a grading standard different from the one you are describing. One in which differentiating "MS" coins is irrelevant. As I demonstrated, the concept of "MS" coins itself is an illusion. By "MS" coins you really mean less damaged coins where the damage arbitrarily is not from what you determine to be friction from wear.

All one has to do is travel abroad to see that the Sheldon scale is neither absolutely correct nor is it the only way to grade coins. Or even right here looking at the grading standards for ancients - they differ quite significantly as well.

But it was over a hundred years ago when collectors, dealers, the numismatic community in general, began trying to figure how to establish grading standards and what grading standards should be used.[/QUOTE]

People have been making mistakes for thousands of years. There is no correlation whatsoever between the age of a standard and its correctness. If anything, the opposite is true, as given enough time working with a standard people will realize the flaws and make modifications. And lo and behold that's exactly what you're seeing happening with market grading and with concepts like NGC X.

I have a strong suspicion that there are a lot more people dissatisfied with the grading standard than you give them credit for. They are simply less outspoken. What you interpret as a TPG conspiracy across the board to loosen grading standards is instead a cultural shift among numismatists toward a better implementation of the grading standard. One that is more pragmatic regarding the equivalence of damage and less caught up on the importance of wear for the sake of adhering to outdated standards without any real justification for doing so. One that is also more closely aligned to the grading standards used by other categories of graded collectibles across the board.