Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 23902145, member: 77413&quot;]Here ya go! A single, non-static photo for you!</p><p><br /></p><p>Joking aside, ICG gave it an MS62. That seems a bit of a cop-out, like splitting the difference between AU and a really nice MS.</p><p><br /></p><p>I mean, once you have decided it is MS, how do you figure 62? Color and luster are outstanding, and the reverse strike is great, with maybe a little weakness on the front. But, strike isn’t usually considered anyway. Surfaces are terrific.</p><p><br /></p><p>So this may be a pretty good example of a coin that confounds the grading scale. I agree with starting with “70” and then deducting for all flaws. Wear would just be one category, along with luster, color, and yes, strike, and damage, eye appeal, and so on.</p><p><br /></p><p>With such an approach we could retain the Sheldon number and keep all the work done grading millions of coins already. But the boundary between AU and MS could be taken off the label for coins where it doesn’t work. How about using “AU/MS” for coins that could fall either way?</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1547092[/ATTACH][/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