Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 494258, member: 112&quot;]spock it seems you are making an assumption</p><p>when you say - </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;but we have not looked into how a 2008 P coin itself can be different if the dies are worn out and get replaced&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>That is definitely taken into account when using the system we have. The coins struck with the worn out dies get lower grades. The coins struck with the new replacement dies will get higher grades.</p><p><br /></p><p>The problem you have when you mention the &#039;22 no D is that all of the coins from that date/mint were struck with worn out obverse dies. There are no well struck examples, they simply don&#039;t exist. So you judge the coin based on the best examples that do exist.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And then you say - </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;my proposal is we are making a mistake even 2 coins of hte same year and mintmark cannot be subjected to the same standards if they are made using different dies for the purposes of consistency now this is not very common in the usa&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Why is it a mistake ? If you use the best example from a given date and mint for your standard, regardless of what set of dies produced it, you are still using the best known as the standard.</p><p><br /></p><p>Are you suggesting that we should now grade coins based on each individual die pair ?[/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