Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 8051747, member: 105571&quot;]As often noted elsewhere on this Forum, the TPGs don&#039;t follow the ANA Grading Guide.&nbsp; Here&#039;s an example where they differ.&nbsp; This is my 1937 Walking Liberty Half, PCGS PR-63 CAC with obvious continuous hairlines on the obverse.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is, I think, another example that illustrates what CAC says about its mission:&nbsp; To validate the TPG&#039;s grade as a solid (B) coin or better (A) coin.&nbsp; In order for this mission statement to have any validity at all, CAC must use the TPG&#039;s grading definitions which are, by definition, market grading criteria.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, when we do a &quot;GTG&quot; (of a TPG&#039;s grade) or a &quot;Did it CAC&quot;, the whole premise of the exercise is within the framework of the TPG market grading criteria.&nbsp; It&#039;s nice to have your own standards apart from that commercial framework, but I think (IMHO) the bulk of the numismatic marketplace in more expensive U.S. coins is now premised upon that commercial framework.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not endorsing anything with these comments nor denigrating anyone else&#039;s POV, just explaining my logic about how I view these matters, FWIW.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1394391[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394392[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394393[/ATTACH][/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