Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;iPen, post: 2339616, member: 69760&quot;]Don&#039;t you need both photos (or in-hand examples or photo examples from experience/memory) <i>and</i> written criteria?</p><p><br /></p><p>To me at least, if I only read descriptions, what I would envision in my mind as what the criteria is may look differently in-person and to others (especially on the grounds of eye appeal).</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, if there&#039;s a weakly struck coin and I went by only the descriptions, then I&#039;d think that coin would be a lower grade than what it &quot;should&quot; be.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, what about small scratches that are a few mm in length? On, say, a Morgan dollar it may not distract at all, but on a three-cent piece, it&#039;ll look huge, relatively speaking, and it&#039;d deduct more from the coin&#039;s grade consciously and/or subconsciously. So, wouldn&#039;t the criteria depend not only on the written criteria, but the size of the coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>And, if we throw in the different design elements, complexity, device and field ratio, wouldn&#039;t a given scratch, bag mark, what have you, deduct points based on the coin&#039;s specific given design? So, if it&#039;s a simple design with an off-looking toning mark right next to the bust of the obverse, eye appeal may take a hit. But if it&#039;s a complex design with lots going on, the same size mark wouldn&#039;t take as hard a hit on eye appeal, right?[/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