Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3438195, member: 15309&quot;]I never said that “those things don’t count” or that we “pretend they aren’t there.”&nbsp; All I said was that surface preservation isn’t the only element of grading and it shouldn’t be a limiter with respect to grading.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyone who grades solely on the basis of surface preservation isn’t employing market grading, they are using technical grading.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that, other than it is antequated and not used in the current marketplace.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, I’m not accusing you of technical grading.&nbsp; You take each element of grading into account, and then apply the most punitive form of grading, by using every element of grading as a grade limiter.&nbsp; For example, if you encountered a coin with MS66 surfaces, but subpar luster, you would most likely grade the coin MS64 because the luster was not good enough to warrant a gem grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>But hey, at least you didn’t call the coin an MS64.[/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