Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 2304895, member: 46237&quot;]These other conditions you describe as wear are <i>not wear at all</i> but are wear-like contact marks. My point all along has been that damage is damage. It seems unjustified to slightly deduct (if at all) for one kind of contact mark but another kind relegates the coin to AU, when many times the evidence is there on the coin that it is not wear you are seeing. Read again this excerpt from SuperDave&#039;s post, because it speaks to the very heart of my argument:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s easy to do this for a series/date where you know weak strike occurs, because you are expecting it. Everyone can tell a weak strike on a walker. But look at an unfamiliar series of world coin or obscure die varieties for coins that don&#039;t typically have weak strikes and it&#039;s not so easy anymore. I&#039;ve seen the TPGs get weak strikes wrong, especially when there is circulation wear on top of a weak strike. My point here is that a weak strike can look like wear and it&#039;s something you need to carefully scrutinize the coin for to determine if it is wear or not, because it is important to know if the coin has actual wear or does not. The same goes for contact marks that may look like wear.[/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