Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2390952, member: 1892&quot;]I have no problem with this; I just don&#039;t think decimal places are necessary.</p><p><br /></p><p>How do I teach someone how many marks - and where - equal MS63 when I then have to say, &quot;but not when it&#039;s pretty; then that many marks equal MS64? And if you&#039;re not a toning fan, you might not even think it&#039;s pretty but you gotta give it 64 anyways?&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Bull. It&#039;s Net/Details grading in reverse - &quot;MS63, Net 64.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Bull. Where do the TPG&#039;s get off telling <b>me</b> what I think is a nice coin by forcing me up a grade for it?</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Save the numbers for technical grading</b>. Offer a + or a - for closeness to the next grade either way like they already do, some other special designation (maybe a scale of A-D or something) for surface designation (you gotta account for the near-PL, <i>blazing</i> luster and hammered-strike types as well as toning, and that scale can be positive as well as negative for poor strikes or subdued luster) and let the market decide whether they think <i>that&#039;s</i> worth extra or less money.</p><p><br /></p><p>Offer additional Registry pints for superior surfaces. The ones who use the Registry for the equivalent of....anatomical measurement will flock to it like the lemmings they are. The ones who use the Registry just to showcase their collections non-competitively won&#039;t care either way.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ugly toning either gets that minus I mentioned, or a Net grade of it&#039;s so bad you&#039;re busting the technical grade down. Toning that bad is <b>tarnish</b>, and probably qualifies as Environmental Damage.[/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