Actually, you might be right. A ASE is not 4 inches across it is 1.596 inches in diameter. That makes a 5x look just short of 8 inches or if you set the image dot for dot. In theory, this is an example of the size of an actualy ASE: So if your rendering at 72px per inch this is the size of a real ASE and this is a rendering of a 5x loop There are a lot of issues here though. First, if the first images is not the size of a ASE when you put it to the screen, that means your screen isn''t rendering a 72px per inch which as a matter of fact is normal in a browser. The gimp automatically corrects this if you open it with the gimp. Secondly, yo u have to get your nose to the screen to see it like you would a coin. My screen is at least 18 inches from my face, maybe further. I have no idea how to compensate for that other than saying that original posting aof the reverse ASE looks to me almost exactly the size of an ASE 5 inches from my face.
Actually, I am right per the red book. and it equals 1.598 inches per CRC handbook and numerous other references.
BTW - the correct 72 ASE image is about 2/3rds to a half as large as a real ASE on pasted to my screen (18 inches away). Ruben
Am I guaranteeing the slabs? Show me the evidence that you have a valid process. You keep thinking this is a street fight. Prove to me that the graders can consistently pick between 60 and 70 grades to and to what degree and with what failure rate. Ruben
The jury has ruled. Your side got 1 vote - your own. Everyone else says you are wrong. So not only do I not have to prove their claims (you have to disprove them), but you have succeeded in proving my case.
I see problems with the L the R in trust and a spot on the obverse feild, and on the reverse I can't spot anything although maybe the right wing unless that is part of the design. I could see the head better. I'm not happy with this strike.
Your jury has ruled. Good thing the world doesn't set standards based claptrap talk over beers at your favorite bar. In the real world these things are decided by reproducible validated and confirmed fact....which you have none. Ruben
I started this thread for FUN. That was the point. There is no other point. However.... It is very easy to prove the legitimacy of 70 grades, you just have to do it. Measure the accuracy of the results of the grading process. Its something they should be doing prior to making claims about the grades, validating their process, with published data to validate their claims, open for review, and then continual review of the results (quality assurance). Is this business or is this kindergarten?
LOL - been reading through most of the posts. I do not believe the tpg's are consistent at any grade. That has been proven so many times it is ridiculous...so what makes everyone think they are consistent at 70???? That alone is reason enough to not look at 70 coins. Notice I did not pointedly say there are not 70 coins. As speedy says in my opinion only I would not buy or look for a 70 coin - and I would not trust that a coin was really a 70. Well, maybe if I got it for 69 money, then resell it at 70 money. This is an opinion only thread where nobody is really right or wrong. And yes I have seen a some 70 coins in hand that I did not think were 70's. lol - fun to lurk thread.
Which coin are we talking about? The unmarked ASE. The L runs into the ray and the R has a discoloration or something. Ruben
Oh - I missed the original posting. That was your coin. I think that coin is as close to flawless as I'd seen. I'd submit it unless somebody else sees something I don't. Ruben
Yep that is the commonly held belief which can only be dispelled through validation of the grading process and quality control.