Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mark_h, post: 2323769, member: 3726&quot;]You are definitely correct about using pictures. And it can be tough to tell what turned in a holder after it is looked at. And yes I do think originality of the surfaces of a coin comes into play with CAC.&nbsp; All that I am saying is that eye appeal is not what CAC is using to say it does or does not get a bean.&nbsp; CAC is trying to identify coins correctly graded or in the top tier of the grade for the coin.&nbsp; CAC will bean correctly graded coins that have 0 eye appeal.&nbsp; They will also not bean coins that are over graded, but have a really nice eye appeal.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yes I might very well be alone - I might technical grade, but I am not going to bump a coin or drop a coin based off&nbsp; &quot;eye appeal&quot; of a coin. And yes I have an ANA grading book - so if anyone wants to assume all MS-64 coins are quite attractive, or all MS-65 coins are very pleasing they can go for it.&nbsp; Personally I have seen some quite attractive 64&#039;s in hand that I would not bump to a 65 because of technical reasons.&nbsp; I am trying very hard to stay away from what tpgs might or might not do - and I never said what they do is wrong.&nbsp; I do not assume because I think a coin in a tpg 65 holder is a 64 that the tpg got it wrong.&nbsp; I might not buy the coin because of it or I might look more to see what the tpg saw that I missed.[/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