Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 497059, member: 307&quot;]Well, I still say that what it boils down to is this:</p><p><br /></p><p>It depends on whether or not you view coins as products of a production facility or as artifacts from that facility. The typical collector viewpoint is as artifacts of that facility. The pertinent questions are things like : Did they strike coins well a particular year as a whole or not? Are most examples from that date and mint sharp or are they mushy? Did they have to use more or less pressure to strike them in 18XX?</p><p><br /></p><p>Let me state again for the record that this <b>is</b> the current state of the hobby and how it views coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point of view was more as a product evaluation and it is a totally different mindset. So different that maybe it would be best to find another evaluation term to describe it OTHER than grading. Maybe a term that would go hand-in-hand with grading as sometimes I think that in terms of evaluation of coins, more info is usually better, but a lot of times it can become cumbersome to suggest this be added to the current grading process or the info given when a coin is properly graded.</p><p><br /></p><p>The end result of MY evaluation is that you could have a nicely displayed set of say, Jefferson Nickels and they would all pretty much look the same. An evaluation that can be spread across entire series of coins making a more uniform display for the collector.</p><p><br /></p><p>Honestly, that&#039;s who I have been thinking of this whole time, the average Joe collector. Not the Barber Dime expert, but more mainstream casual colectors that might display coins. Displays that might spark new collectors, and who knows... some of them could become more serious collectors if they want.[/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