Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 4209923, member: 46237&quot;]I never said <i>you</i> were confusing them. I was making a general statement about grading.</p><p><br /></p><p>Believe me, I understand your argument. I am actually on your side here on a lot of your points regarding <i>wear</i>. I am firmly in the camp that wear is a lot less important to grading than people seem to think. I&#039;ve certainly debated Doug on that regard many times here.</p><p><br /></p><p>Wear is no more significant a detractor to grade than is any hit mark or blemish that occurred <i><b>after the coin was struck</b></i>. And while I don&#039;t consider wear to be in any way special, the key here is that wear occurs post strike, and weakness occurs during the strike. I am a firm believer that any coin that is not an error that is <i>as struck</i> is capable of being an MS70 example. Any differences due to die state or strike pressure only create varieties, not imperfect coins. You can have an MS70 weakly struck example of a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Quite an assumption. Not all collectors are looking for this, or they are perfectly satisfied with coins that do not have full detail, but have other qualities like circulation cameo, toning, prooflike surfaces, late die states, etc. I certainly have different sets that contain different types of coins, and eye appeal is eye appeal, regardless of the amount of details on a coin.[/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