Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 23780435, member: 46237&quot;]Ah I see. I think I understand your position better than I previously did. But here&#039;s the thing, why does wear matter above all else? Why should a coin be penalized down from 67 to 58 for a slight touch of wear that doesn&#039;t appreciably affect the eye appeal when a coin that is wholly unattractive and excessively baggy gets a 60 or 61? I understand wear is the standard, but why? What is the justification outside of the circular argument that wear matters because wear matters?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t know what you do with your slabbed coins, but all I do with mine is look at them. That being the case, I fail to see a justification for why anything should matter for grading over eye appeal. A better looking coin should get a better grade, according to the K.I.S.S. principle. I don&#039;t see why a common sense scale where better looking coins get better grades has to be messed up by this wear/no wear distinction, especially when people cannot agree on what wear even is near the AU/MS boundary.</p><p><br /></p><p>I can see for myself whether or not a coin has wear that bothers me, taken in concert with the many other factors that make up eye appeal of which wear is only one. I don&#039;t see any value in an artificial deflating of the grade just because someone considered wear to be special. Wear is not special. It is a surface condition just like marks, hairlines, luster, toning, strike, etc. Light surface conditions, regardless of source, should impact the grade commensurate with their severity. Not in some instances a 12 point deduction. It makes zero sense.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in