Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="JPeace$, post: 2093651, member: 42727"]Now, before this turns into another huge grading debate, TPG's vs. ANA, the definitions for 67 are a bit more exacting.  It does mention the number and size of the contact marks allowed. What I find most interesting is this section of the 1st paragraph (after the preface): 7th edition:"As grading admits of a large amount of personal opinion and differences in interpretation, the information we present should serve as a basic framework.  You should gain additional knowledge through the examination of coins certified by commercial grading services, examination of coins offered for sale in the marketplace, study courses such as those presented by the American Numismatic Association, and inquiries to knowledgeable collectors and dealers." I plan on attending one of the grading courses offered by the ANA.  I've heard they are invaluable.  I can't attend this year, but plan to attend one next year. Because contact marks, surface abrasions, et al...are random, personal opinion plays a huge role in the grading process.  It's subjectively objective.  IMO, it has to be, since no two coins look alike.  That comment excludes the proofs and mint set coins being offered directly from the mint these days.  In general, I think the mint does an excellent job of providing high quality coins in those sets.  There are definitely exceptions as have been posted by members on this site and NGC's message board.[/QUOTE]