Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3255379, member: 19165&quot;]Obverse only UDMs are worth a premium over a normal business strike. Maybe not to you, but to some people. Especially if it is a rarer date in PL+</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Insider is highly knowledgeable and well respected. For sure. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>At the end of the day, Messydesk is just some (highly respected and very knowledgeable) bloke. He&#039;s not the TPG. He&#039;s not the published standard. You said the standard had changed - I showed that it had not. </p><p><br /></p><p>I also stated that the *interpretation* of the standard, or how it was applied, may have changed. The standard itself has been constant at least since the earliest reference I can find, 1997, as described earlier.</p><p><br /></p><p>And, you&#039;ll see that John makes reference to Van Allen&#039;s standard - as I mentioned earlier, many authors have many different suggestions for what the standard should be.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>Point granted. I had not seen that press release before. But, you&#039;ll also note as appropriate to this thread: the standard is exactly the same. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;ll notice that post was not by NGC. It was by another hobbyist. He is not the authority. Depending on which book you read about prooflike coins, each author has their own opinion on what the standard should be. Read Halperin, Van Allen, QDB, ANA... each one says something different. </p><p><br /></p><p>Just because Victor posted something on an NGC forum does not mean that was the NGC standard. </p><p><br /></p><p>At this point, I really don&#039;t see any point in continuing arguing about this.[/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