fully struck Capped Bust Half ?

It matters because that is what was decided long before any of us entered the hobby. Long before the TPGs ever existed, before the first ANA grading guide even, it was decided by those in the hobby that the only thing that set Unc coins apart from circ coins was wear. If a coin had no wear then it had to be Unc.

It was also known that with some coins the entire minatge was weakly struck, not all the detail would be present on those coins. But - they were also Unc. This was known for a fact because the provenance of the coins could be traced right to the mint.

Then it was also decided that coins that were known to have never been in circulation, but yet exhibited signs of wear from being stored in coin cabinets could also be UNC. And to differentiate those signs from wear it was decided to call it rub and those coins were thus determined to be Unc.

These premises are the very foundations of coin grading and they were determined and universally accepted before any book on the subject was ever written. They are the rules that we go by - all of us.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. It is one of the few things that DOES make sense when it comes to the values of coins. For that is the way that it should be with all coins.

You see, the problem with the modern the grading system is not the standards that we use. It is with how those standards are implemented, how their implementation has evolved over recent years. For many, perhaps even the majority, in the market have decided to accept the way the TPGs grade coins today. They have decided that is OK for the TPGs to base grades on values rather than on condition. In effect throwing established standards out the window.

It never used to be that way, it is only in very recent years that it has happened. But happened it has and you, the market, for you are the market you know, has allowed it to happen.

Rather than changing our grading system, for there is nothing wrong with the established & written standards, we simply need to follow those standards. And forget about trying to set the value of a coin with grading. We need to grade coins based solely on the condition of the coin and allow the marketplace to establish value based on a person's desire to own that particular coin. Thus the grade of that coin would remain static once and forever and only the value would change as the marketplace dictated based on supply and demand.

Of course it would also be best if every TPG, every collector, every dealer, every coin magazine - everyone there is in the hobby - would adopt and adhere to 1 single set of grading standards. Then and only then would we have parity.

Now going back to the original comment of why it makes sense for an AU coin to sell for more than an MS coin - it makes sense because that is the one and only time in the system we are currently using where the coin itslef, not the plastic slab around it, establishes the value of that coin. It is because the market is making the decision on value - not the TPG. It is because the market is looking at that 58 coin and saying YES ! - this 58 coin is worth more than that 61, 62 or even 63 coin simply because we like it better ! It has more appeal to us.

Unfortunately this is the one and only instance in our current system where this happens. And I can only hope that it is the seed that grows into what coin grading should be. It is showing signs of taking root and growing. The idea is spreading out, more and more people are accpeting it. Five years ago you never would have even heard the term AU64 being used, but today it has become widespread and virtually everyone knows what is meant by the term. And more and more people are beginning to question the TPGs and the sytem currently in place.

Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

 

No, not just US collectors either. I too gave up collecting US coinage and collected only world coinage for several years - before stopping collecting completely. Point is though, world coinage is graded as well. And not just in the US but in Europe, Asia etc etc. Coins are graded. And in every case Unc is considered to be better than circ.

Now don't get me wrong. There are exceptions to every rule. It doesn't matter what the coin is, it can be a 1546 Real D'or in AU and it can be a nicer coin than some MS examples. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. And Uncs are generally considered to be worth more money because of scarcity. In most situations when there are fewer of something then those of the smaller number are worth more. And you can use the AU64 coin as a perfect example of this. For it will be much nicer and thus more desirable and more costly than other AU58 coins that are not as nice.

I really don't see any way to argue with that.

I guess that depends on how you define superior. Sure, many collectors actually prefer circulated coins over Unc coins. They think they look better, they think have more history, stories to tell etc etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But neither is there anything wrong with a collector liking Uncs better than circs. Each person has his own reasons for liking what they like and that is as it should be. It doesn't make one right and the other wrong. It just means people have different taste - a chocolate and vanilla thing.

Now value, value is something that should only be decided by the market. And if the market decides that Uncs are worth more than circs then that is how it should be. Likewise, if there are cases when a particular circ coin looks nicer, has more appeal than some Uncs, then that circ coin will bring more money in the marketplace than some Uncs - and THAT is how it should be as well.

You and I are on the same page in many ways. But to say that grading is not needed or has no place in the hobby - that I will never agree with. Grading will always have a place in the hobby. But I heartily agree that the system needs fixing for what we have now is just plain wrong.