Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1075470, member: 26302&quot;]But how do I prove it is from circulation? You have a worn coin in a 63 holder, lets take that as our example. How do you prove it was not circulated? You cannot prove a negative Lehigh, and your coin has impaired luster, so it is impossible for you to prove to me your coin is uncirculated. You may accept what you wish, but it is unprovable, like any photo I could find in HA archives, (whatever they are, I have never been there).</p><p><br /></p><p>This is not new, you are right that &quot;cabinet friction&quot; and the like has been treated differently in US coins for a long time. This is one of the biggest reasons I got out of US coins, I was tired of hearing excuses from dealers, &quot;weak strike&quot;, &quot;cabinet friction&quot; etc. To me, any loss of details is negative, and should not be allowed in a mint state holder. I was responding to the article that clearly, unequivacably stated it can be from circulation wear. I thought they were wrong before to have &quot;cabinet friction&quot; in MS holders, but now they ADMIT they slab as MS circulated coins. To me, circulated is no different than &quot;roll friction&quot; or &quot;cabinet friction&quot; since it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove such a compromised coin was not circulated. The only coins you can prove are uncirculated are ones without any friction marks or imparied luster.</p><p><br /></p><p>You are right I am old school, and I believe they have been wrong to accept &quot;roll friction&quot; as an excuse. If you accept &quot;roll friction&quot; as an excuse, then it is not much of a line to cross to grade a coin with the same details, but the wear from circulation, as the same grade. However, they are still referring to coins MS60 and above as &quot;uncirculated&quot; or &quot;mint state&quot;. Simply get rid of that notion, and make all grades numerical and I would not have an issue, and it would probably help the whole situation. I am just old and grumpy and hate seeing &quot;unciculated&quot; affixed to impaired coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>When I collected US I recognized this discrepancy in US grading and bought a LOT of AU coins that were superior to most 62&#039;s, just had a trace of honest wear. This is where my &quot;sweet spot&quot; in collecting was, and most of the time they were toned as well. While I thought these coins were good values because of how US collectors grade, I would have never thought they should ever be labelled 60 or higher, since this was supposed to be uncirculated, and my coins weren&#039;t. </p><p><br /></p><p>Chris[/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