Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2434069, member: 22331&quot;]I believe an average informed individual can detect a &quot;scratch&quot;, and separate from abrasions/nicks/gouges, etc.. A &quot;scratch&quot; is clearly defined in dictionaries (e.g. a thin shallow cut or mark).</p><p><br /></p><p>I think the average jurist would consider it strange that a TPG would grade a coin with a repulsive oxidative covering which doesn&#039;t meet &quot;the grade&quot; definition. It appears to be a common practice to grade and define surface exceptions as PL, DMPL, etc., in a title, but ignore or fail to note that a coin may have irreversible damage from oxidation, sulphur, etc..</p><p><br /></p><p>lt would appear illogical in applying a grade to a coin having surface damage that doesn&#039;t meet the letter of A.N.A. published standards, but disallow a grade to a coin meeting those standards, which may have been cleaned by an unauthorized source, or has a &quot;scratch&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>It would seem logical to just note TPG bias exceptions in addition to the objective grade as some TPG have done, (e.g. MS64 - Reverse Scratch), and allow the purchasing public to determine value. My recent example of the relatively severely damaged 1889cc Double Eagle, being offered by a premier auction house, being sold at a significant premium, seemingly belies some subjective worthless practices&nbsp; and claims.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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