MS-69 Coins Before 1950: How Many ?

Charley...FYI...I couldn't understand your post above...if you want to respond to multiple points separately you have to have the "quote" and "/quote" brackets before and after a section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What are these technical standards and from where do these "standards" emanate?

Where did these 'standards" emanate from?

Really? can you provide some CAC examples?

Can you give an example of a collector stating "I have X Dollars and I want to buy X coins in a MS 65 Grade for that amount".

If the Grade is established by the value of the coin, what is the grade of a coin @ $100? @$300.00? @$1,000.00? @$10,000.00?
You must recognize the silliness of your statement.

There are 2 coins. Both are MS 67. The cost difference between both is $1,000.00. And?
There are 2 coins. One is $1,000.00. The other is $1,960.00. What is the Grade you are assigning.

Were ther prices assigned by Grade at any time by ANA technical grading "standards"?

Were there prices assigned by Grade at any time by ANA for Market Grading Standards"?

Can you opine of "wear" grading for pieces minted prior to 1836?

I don't know anyone that states that. Can you give examples of the persons that are still active in the hobby...whether dealers, consultants, graders, auctioneers.....that you mentioned earlier in the thread that you consider you are in good company with, because the individuals hold the same "standards" as you and are listed in the front of the book?

 

I know. There is nothing to understand. I simply put the comment 'Who is on First..." in the wrong position. It was meant to be added to your post after the last sentence in you post, as a suggested edit add, if you know what I mean. Humor fail, as usual. No harm, no foul.

 

Is that technical grading?

 

What is the technical difference between an A coin a B coin or a C coin that are all graded the same numerically?

Do you know of any ANA technical graded coins graded by ANA that were not graded per the technical standards?

(FTR, I will refrain from using quotes before and after the word "standard", to not confuse anybody more than you have already in your multiple changeup pitches of the use of the word. Plus, it gets old).

 

I think if you are talking CAC-language, it's just strong, average, and weak for the grade.

And some of the A's might qualify for a 1 point boost and some of the C's might qualify for a 1 point drop.

 

The last sentence is not quite on the money, but anyway, I am asking GD (not God, BTW , if someone thinks I am misspelling). I am not referring to CAC language. The ABC language existed long before that, in relation to grading.

 

I think ANA grading as interpreted adamantly by GD is ANA Philosophy Grading. Not quite a religion, but close...

It is not fact, it is not a Standard, it is an opinion, and was always a making a market philosophy. Purist grading it is not.

 

I have no idea, I guess...i am totally confused by GDJMSP's discussion of ANA grading as market grading. I just have this book that says
And the standards are within. Technical Standards I guess is a misnomer, but I was under the impression it is used to distinguish from commercial or market or other US Coin grading that attempt to value a coin by the grade instead of being static and the value is determined by the market and not by the graders appraising the value of the coin through the slab grade.

 

I think it's on the mark, Charley...not saying it's a hard-and-fast rule. CAC themselves state that strong/weak for the grade language, I am pretty sure.

It depends on the coin, the population census, and grading standards employed by the TPGs at the time.

I track Saints pretty closely, and you can see how much the CAC sticker means when it closes part of the price gap between high grades.

 

JA has stated on the CAC education forum the spread. It is not a 1 point up or down, in the manner you are presenting.

 

Only for curiosity and no other reason (and you can pm me if you prefer and I will never disclose a PM), do you interpret JA is technical grading?

 

I don't think so, and am slightly surprised you would think that is the influence soup ingredients used by CAC.

 

A very honorable post. Good on you.

 

I hate to speak for someone, but it appears he is market grading but is not as loosey-goosey as the late-1990's /early-2000's lax period.

That first 10 years of the TPGs seems to be when they were most consistent.

JMHO.

 

But maybe the "market" adjusted to reality and you needed the improvisation ?

Unless the later editions allow for more marks, dings, and bagmarks for a certain grade....I would guess that the biggest discrepancy must be on the definition of wear.

Right ?

 

Also, the whole toning thing (which I personally am generally not a fan of)...in the past, that would be a major demerit for a coin, but today, it's a major plus.

I bet originally via technical grading those coins got killed grade-wise, right ?

 

I have the 7th Edition.....on Page 13 it says that there were "changing grading standards" and that alot of formerly MS-65's would probably grade lower (MS-63 ?) today.

 

Now all we have to do is categorically define technical grading that can not be found wanting, and the world will be a better place.

It can not be. There are and were so many aspects that were not defined by ANA, in any edition at any time and the logic for same was and is to not discourage hobbyists, because if the philosophy that GD espouses.... and that is all it is, a philosophy.... .was the collecting sword to die on, there would not be a thriving healthy hobby because every darn coin regardless of some theoretical grade would be rejected by the philosophical purists that think it is the only true God of Judgement.

I know what that GD purist misguided illogical logic is, though, and it is not some factual fantastical stance for hobbyists to die for, and I know that GD, regardless of his admirable stance, is incredibly naïve to believe his philosophical "Standard" is free of all the evil influence of making a market and "market" grading and developed by persons/entities/ organizations with no ulterior motive, that was destroyed by the evildoers and practitioners of capitalism.