Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 2328800, member: 44316&quot;]I feel a sigh of disappointment whenever the subject of grades comes up.&nbsp; Not because the contributions are wrong, but because of where the discussion inevitably, if unintentionally, leads.</p><p><br /></p><p>US coin collecting drifted toward dull and expensive when grade took over and became a measurement of how worthwhile the coin was. Doubtless even long ago a higher grade coin was worth more than a lower grade coin of the same type-- I stipulate that. But the emphasis on grade changed the game, and not for the better. All the publications emphasized the highest grade pieces. You could hardy feel good about your coins unless they were top grade. An interesting and beautiful seated Liberty half dollar in XF was no longer regarded as beautiful--the grade was too low. Beauty (which we know was/should be in the eye of the beholder) was redefined to be a number on a slab.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now US coin collecting is sterile. You don&#039;t even need to look at the coin--just read the condition off the slab. Some collectors abandoned US coin collecting for the inability to enjoy what they could afford. A few rich collectors at the top, unintentionally but inevitably, determined what was desirable and the rest were trained by publications (Coin World, etc.) to devalue their own collections and feel bad they did not have the best.</p><p><br /></p><p>This even happened in ancients to some extent. Before the internet and digital images, collectors wrote articles for <i>The Celator</i> (the collectors&#039; journal for ancient coins, since gone out of business) displaying their knowledge in their specialities. They were illustrated by their own painstakingly assembled collections and some examples were in low grade. It was the knowledge and thought that went into the article-worthy collection, not the condition of the individual coins, that mattered. That was encouraging to all of us.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then that began to change as authors found out that CNG would let them use a digital image of wonderful examples instead. So articles on &lt;any subject -- snakes, temples, CONCORDIA--you name it&gt; that would have been illustrated with examples anyone could afford began to be illustrated with top, expensive, examples. The subconscious message became that only top examples are worthy. The message to lower-end collectors that &quot;I could have a coin as good as that&quot; disappeared from print. Fortunately, it still exists here at CoinTalk. (Please, please, continue to show us your low grade coins with a comment about them. You will make everyone feel good!)</p><p><br /></p><p>I agree that ancient-coin collectors need to know about all the factors that influence desirability including grading. Grades used to perform the function that Ken described--they were a proxy for desirability before images were cheap. But the history of US coin collecting shows us that the more grade is discussed the more average coins are devalued.</p><p><br /></p><p>Recently we saw on this forum a spectacular sestertius that cost 100 times as much as a similar sestertius, fully legible and clear, but in lower grade. I hope most of our members would rather assemble an entire collection with love and care than own one coin worth that much. If you have the funds, go for it. Please show us your wonderful coins. But if you emphasize the grade over the history (as opposed to the history or type over the grade) you are unintentionally discouraging the rest of the forum members. It is not good for the hobby if fewer collectors want the myriad medium and low-grade ancient coins that most can afford.[/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