Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2125342, member: 71723&quot;]You see, Lehigh, my contention is that we either need a technical grading system, a market grading system, or two admittedly side by side grading systems, one for heavily toned pieces and one for everything else. What we CANNOT have, I submit to you, is a technical grading system for ugloids, and a market system for &quot;attractive coins&quot;, whatever that means at any given point in history, that giveth (adds points) but taketh away (subtracts points) not. It simply makes no logical sense for at least two reasons. 1) rewarding toning PER SE is somewhere we REALLY don&#039;t want to be, because it establishes perverse incentives to &quot;manufacture processes&quot;. 2) we have already discussed above that dipping USED TO BE okay, but increasingly isn&#039;t any more (among the converted). We all know, or should, that many of today&#039;s nicest old coppers were probably oiled or lacquered somewhere in their long histories, and cleaning itself as a whole category was once not the crime it is today. It&#039;s why pretty strong evidence of cleaning in really old pieces is tolerated.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bottom line, Lehigh? I simply am not comfortable with the idea that matters of aesthetic tastes, that can, do, have and will continue to change over time get absorbed into something that goes around with the &quot;vestments of immutability&quot; that a coin&#039;s grade does, especially when we seal them in plastic. That is, of course, unless one&#039;s goal is forever needing to have everything regraded ad nauseum. If I were a TPG, or part of their &quot;network of highly ethical professional dealers&quot;, I might like that idea a lot. As a &quot;mere collector&quot;, not s&#039;much.[/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