Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 2637391, member: 24314&quot;]We agree on this part, Yikes! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>BUT NOT THIS</b>:&nbsp; &quot;<span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">AU-58 coins have a slight rub with virtually <b>NO</b> marks</span>. If a coin has marks, then the numerical grade is lowered to AU-55...&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>While <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">this <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">is the written definition for AU-58 and the accepted definition for most including me, it is no longer followed in many cases by the TPGS&#039;s.&nbsp; These days, coins with hardly any rub yet having marks that would have dropped them into the &quot;old&quot; AU-Typical (AU-50) grade can often be found in AU-58 slabs.&nbsp; Especially gold coins.&nbsp; </span></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><span style="color: #000000">Note:&nbsp; I have read/heard/agree that the ANA screwed up the grading system by TRYING to combine the amount of wear and the condition of the surface (marks) for grades below MS.&nbsp;&nbsp; Such a shame and stupid - yet it&#039;s true.&nbsp; IMO, the TPGS are slowly trying to get back to the obsolete &quot;technical&quot; grading system where ONLY the amount of wear (amount of design details still visible) was used to determine the grade of circulated coins.</span>&nbsp; </span>[/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