Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Valentinian, post: 2288878, member: 44316"]Rating surfaces on a 1 to 5 scale is not detailed enough to describe a coin even if it were done well. The MS70 system for US coins has all the integers from 60 to 70 (11 grades) to describe coins supposedly without wear based on wear alone. However, for ancients if a firm reserves "1" for a terrible surface and "5" for excellent surface, that leaves only 2, 3 and 4 for surfaces in between. How does "4" differ from "5"? Well, with all ancient coins somewhere on the scale, "4" must be well below perfect and then, even if surfaces could be placed on a linear (one-dimensional) scale (and, they cannot), there would need to be some less-than-perfect surface (4.6?) that still gets a 5. I am old enough to recall when US coins were said to be "uncirculated" or not. Then there was "BU" and intermediate MS numbers, 65, between 70 and 60, then 63 between 60 and 65, and 67, then 61, 62, 64, 66, 68 and 69. And, that is for wear alone, whereas in ancients we have to deal with scratches, patina, porosity, etc. Clearly surfaces do not all fit into five categories. Even if they were on a linear scale they would be on a continuum. As noted in the original post of this thread, "5" does not mean perfection. If perfection is what you seek, even if the slabing is done well, you need to look very closely indeed at anything called "5" lest it really be "4.6" rounded up.[/QUOTE]