Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1309325, member: 26302&quot;]Anyone else see this article in the Numismatist? A short little article, and I had mixed emotions on it. Its great to see an article on grading ancients in a general coin magazine, but I felt he got some key things wrong. Under grading, he named the grades and acted like AU and BU were accepted grades for ancients, (well he is the grader for NGC and they insist on using US grades for ancients), but then said it was a beginner mistake to confuse wear for weak strikes or worn dies. Now, I started in ancient because they graded the details on the coin, and didn&#039;t go down this destructive, delusional path of trying to differentiate between WHY detail was not on a coin, just that it was missing. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Do others here think his article was fair and I am just the odd man out? How do you feel about the US grading idea of grading BU a softly struck from a defective die ancient coin? To me, if 30% of the detail is missing, it should be a vf at best, even the day it left the mint.</p><p><br /></p><p>Chris[/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