Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 6599886, member: 4920&quot;]I&#039;ll answer that one generally. You should never take ANA standards literally. Take the statement you referenced, that AU58s are better than MS65s. Sometimes that&#039;s yes, sometimes it&#039;s no. Let&#039;s see the coin, then I&#039;ll tell you. Only a blundering nitwit would make a broad, categorical statement like that.</p><p><br /></p><p>And let me tell you one other thing. Grading standards weren&#039;t invented by ANA. They weren&#039;t invented, period. For Circulated grades, all ANA did was grouped some grades coincidental with levels of circulation wear for us. They&#039;re the ones responsible for that hierarchy we grade by, but that&#039;s it. Do you collect sports cards, antique watches, U.S. notes, stamps, fossils, comic books, <i>ad nauseam</i>? Condition. That&#039;s the criteria, the technical grade. We don&#039;t need ANA to tell us that for coins. And for Uncirculated, all we&#039;re grading on is bag marks and luster, principally, those two are the main criteria because presumptively there&#039;s no wear on these.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some prolific genius, and I&#039;ll not mention who because he was a member, said to me in another forum, were everything else equal, he&#039;d actually pay more for a coin direct from the Mint than one he got in circulation. Now, understand this, same exact MS grade. Why? Because the latter was in circulation. That made a difference to this idiot dealer who purports to teach us how to grade. If you don&#039;t get what I&#039;m saying, here, you missed the boat, entirely. Collect stamps.</p><p><br /></p><p>And nothing personal. Just hate idiots like this. That&#039;s why a guy like Wexler is a gem, just as an example. I can name others, as well as others of the idiots, but I shan&#039;t. Good enough answer?[/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