Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 910173, member: 112&quot;]For the most part, yes. Most people don&#039;t understand the difference between technical grading and market grading. The 1st and 2nd editions of the ANA standards were based on technical grading. But then the 3rd edition came out in 1987 all that changed and market grading was born.</p><p><br /></p><p>For MS examples technical grading was based on marks and their location. Luster only mattered in that there could be no breaks in the luster as breaks in the luster indicated wear. Quality of luster played no part. Strike played no part at all with one exception. Allowances were made for issues known to be minted with a weak strike. Quality of strike played no part.</p><p><br /></p><p>For circulated examples it was only the amount of wear present.</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s it.</p><p><br /></p><p>With market grading new and different criteria were added to what was already used. Quality of luster now mattered, quality of strike, and eye appeal. Market grading also made allowances for things like cabinet rub and roll friction. This is because it was recognized that the coin never actually circulated so light rub on the high points was permitted on MS examples.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now if you compare that, to what is done today, there really is no comparison. And that&#039;s why I say that market grading is no longer even used. It has morphed and changed into an entirely new and different grading system in recent yearss with completely new criteria that were never used before.[/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