Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Insider, post: 2300591, member: 24314"]Yes, market grading was the next step: however Market grading DOES NOT describe a coin's actual condition.  Technical grading did accurately described a coin's condition.  ANA never employed technical grading after it moved to CO - although they said they did...LOL.  Tell a lie long enough (as in ANACS graded technically and was the first grading service) and people will believe it   The people there had no clue/were never taught/had no input into its development at ANACS while it was in DC where it was used ONLY to describe a coin for internal records, along with a photo of both sides and a weight to hundredths of a gram.  Technical grading does not work when you try to place a $$$Value$$$ on a coin.  That's because coins were graded by their condition of preservation from when they left the die.  A flat "O" Mint dollar with full luster and no marks was graded the same as a fully struck coin in the same condition.  Eye-appeal such as spotted toning did not affect the grade.  These examples are wide apart in value.  That's why market grading is important and drove the other system out.  Market grading attempts to put a value on a coin REGARDLESS of its actual technical condition...the AU's graded MS-64 we all write about..[/QUOTE]