Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2696704, member: 19463&quot;]Just an opinion from a non-competitive non-participant:&nbsp; Any price limit or lack thereof will still run afoul of the fact that coins more people consider worth having cost more than coin fewer people want.&nbsp;&nbsp; Rule four would seem to even the playing field a bit with the categories:</p><p>a. Eye Appeal</p><p>b. Value for money</p><p>c. Historical Interest</p><p><br /></p><p>a. favors high grade coins whether they are boring or interesting.</p><p>b. should offset the added value of expensive coins since a $10,000 coin should be 1000 times as interesting and beautiful as a $10 coin but there are still those among us who believe anything expensive is by definition better.&nbsp; These people drive across the street to pay more for gas or groceries.&nbsp; We also have to allow for the &#039;value&#039; of enjoyment as well as potential resale.</p><p>c. I&#039;d favor this more if it did not limit interest to just historical interest but allowed any kind of interest that we might discover.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I am in the minority in my belief that an aureus and a denarius both of Julia Domna with the same reverse would tie since the gain gold gives in &#039;a&#039; would be offset by &#039;b&#039; and tied in &#039;c&#039;.&nbsp;&nbsp; The winner would be determined by a decision on relative merits of style vs. value (not just resale but all kinds of value).&nbsp; In the end, the most important factor will be whether Price Waterhouse hands Steve Harvey the right envelope.[/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