Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marshall, post: 2320202, member: 21705&quot;]Several factors come into play. Discoloration at the tops of the highest relief show wear. But it is often described as cabinet friction by sellers and overlooked for purposes of valuation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another problem is that some details in this series are rarely visible even on uncirculated coins because of of the striking process and differences in the impurities of the blanks. It is truly unusual to get a full strike.</p><p><br /></p><p>Value is not a result of grade. It is a mear tool to use in establishing a general market construct. The value is always a meeting of the minds between a buyer and seller.</p><p><br /></p><p>The grade approaches a less biased basis for comparison, but is inadequate as a truly objective foundation on which to obtain a value. Every grader adds or subtracts from their own STANDARD and different flaws or premiums are regarded differently.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would pose AU58 as a grade, knowing full well that grade inflation pushes this coin into the MS category and also realizing that it might only have been called fine in the early days of collecting when there were no standards for grading. But this is also with an awareness that few coins could possibly survive this long without some cabinet friction or damage to the condition (not a function of wear in this usage) of the coin so MY standard might be unattainable.</p><p><br /></p><p>My basis for the AU is from discoloration of the high points. Like I said, cabinet friction which I do not overlook for grade, but would for valuation. Hence , a disconnect of grade and value.[/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