Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;halfcent1793, post: 3646370, member: 86853&quot;]I agree that this is true, but if we&#039;re going to have grading standards, shouldn&#039;t they be standard? Just because there seem to be a lot of 1881-S Morgans with very shiny fields, it doesn&#039;t make sense to me that it should be harder for them to be labeled PL or DMPL than other dates. </p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s worse than the TPGs calling AU coins UNC. In that case, they&#039;re saying a nice AU is worth &quot;UNC money.&quot; But why should one variety with a particular level of &quot;proofiness&quot; be called PL and a different one not?</p><p><br /></p><p>I guess the TPGs are trying to generate business by grading scarcer dates easier.[/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