"Blessed are the peacemakers." Thanks for that, Sev Alex. However, I do not respond to what he might have said but to what he did say. Yet I do recognize that his choice of language and imagery may not have presupposed a reader like me, but rather the collector of US who might not have regard for the collecting of ancients by another evaluative frame of reference. His remarks had a frame of reference, and so do mine. I still have regard for his counsel as a guide for collectors of ancients, as I have for many years. And I have told him so, many times before.
@lrbguy , I will consider your point, and that of @Severus Alexander too. My paragraph at the end of http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/condition.html#II began with a reference to a spectacular $47,000 coin that might have been $470 in clear, but far from perfect, grade. I want collectors to be able to think the $470 example is special and collectable--nothing to be ashamed of. If you got that impression, I need to change the wording. To be not ashamed of coins that don't grade high is not the same as being ashamed of coins that do. I would never suggest being ashamed of great coins, not even the $47,000 sestertius. It is one thing to collect high-grade coins; it is another to discourage those who don't. I intended to say that we should not discourage collectors who have, enjoy, and are willing to share lower-grade coins. I thought I was clear that US coin publications do discourage the collecting of EF or lower-grade coins. Maybe not in so many words, but it is there in every issue. A collector's coins do not deserve distain because they are not EF. If someone doesn't want coins below EF, fine. Anyone can collect what they want. But, I hope that person will do nothing to discourage those who do buy coins below EF. Maybe I need to rethink how to say what I wrote. [Insertions in brackets here are not in the original and won't be in a revision] "It is not good for the hobby if fewer collectors want the myriad medium- and low-grade ancient coins that most can afford. [When you show coins] don't emphasize grade [to rub it in to those who don't have such high-grade coins] and don't subtly imply that [high] grade is the key to a coin's desirability. It's not." I might say "only key" but I thought the term "key" implied "the one" already. @lrbguy , I wonder if the Trajan DAC CAP denarius I showed in VF or lower grade, but pretty nice condition nevertheless, shows enough artwork for your purposes?
I don't collect Trajan, per se, so most of the time it would be just fine. However, if someone came along and asked, "What is that emblem on the shield" or "Is that really Victory in a Barge?" I would have to shrug my shoulders if that example was all I had. Then I would start searching for examples that make it clear. If you could think of grade as a utilitarian attribute rather than a status symbol it might suggest a different approach. As printed this is a condemnation of an approach without replacement. You might say, "An emphasis upon grade may matter when you wish to point out some elusive or misunderstood small details, but most of the time it has no bearing upon what you want others to understand about your coin. But please recall: there is no merit in having a coin that could make your point but you hesitate to show it because you are not proud of its appearance."
I think every collector at some point has to establish some form of criteria that he can be comfortable with when he is contemplating buying a coin. If that criteria involves some form of grade point or price point or any other factor, then he needs to find that standard that he can be comfortable with and try to stick to it. One of my criterion is that the more expensive the coin the fewer problems I am willing to tolerate. This is something that I found works for me and so I try to stick to it.
I wonder if you even need to go there. Your point is that there are reasons for collecting ancient coins of every grade, and that every ancient coin is of historical interest. So just word it positively.