Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 910767, member: 5629&quot;]I agree!&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp;&nbsp; But you&#039;ll only see that phrase once more in this reply.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I agree!&nbsp; But, then again, I also disagree.&nbsp; True, many of the things considered as damage are subjective.&nbsp; Yet, damage is damage.&nbsp; It does not matter the severity of the damage, it is still damage.&nbsp; Now, the affect damage has on the grade or description of a coin is based on the severity.&nbsp; And that is itself subjective.&nbsp; And it is also dependent upon the market acceptability at the time of grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>And because it is subjective, I would suggest it is preposterous to be preponderous in determining if one authority&#039;s determination is right while another&#039;s is wrong.&nbsp; It is opinion, not necessarily fact.&nbsp; One authority may append or describe damage to the grade of a coin, while another ignores it.&nbsp; They are both technically right, because they are both applying their own subjective opinion on the matter.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Again, it is still damage.&nbsp; Whether or not it is damage enough to warrant describing in the grade is another matter.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Is not corrosion itself the reason for toning?&nbsp; Toning does not &quot;become&quot; corrosion, it is simply corrosion to an exponentially lesser extent than what would cause pitting.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Dipping is exactly the alteration of the surfaces.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The problem I&#039;m having with all of this, GD, is that you seem to be saying all of this is not damage after previously showing the TPG list .98-Damage as separate in their 9x-nongradeable list, while things like whizzing, improper cleaning, altered surfaces, etc, as being non-gradeable reason outside of &quot;damage&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yet, you contradict yourself.&nbsp; In the very beginning you claim &quot;damage is anything that happens to a coin post strike&quot;.&nbsp; But, then you go into a whole list of blemishes, &quot;abuse&quot;,&nbsp; and practices of &quot;mishandling&quot; claiming they are not damage.</p><p><br /></p><p>In Michael Fahey&#039;s introduction in the ANA Grading Standards (5th Ed.) on <i>Basic Grading Techniques</i>, he claims:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Regardless if some find it necessary to establish certain forms of damage in &quot;a category of its own&quot;, it does not change the fact that it is damage.&nbsp; The conclusion of your post contradicts the introduction to this end.&nbsp; Either &quot;anything&quot; post-strike is damage, or it is not.</p><p><br /></p><p>Just as consideration of grade is subjective to the grader, so also is the determination of damage.&nbsp; Just as severity of detractions is subjective to the grader, so also is the consideration of the severity of damage.&nbsp; The important thing is that the grader is consistent in their subjectiveness.[/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