Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 3438217, member: 78244&quot;]No, because the luster is NOT MS-67 luster. It’s close but not quite there, so I’m okay with it as 66 luster given the Trueviews and the Heritage pictures. That’s an UPGRADE from the MS-65 grade for luster I gave in earlier posts before the additional pictures were revealed. Also, the obverse toning is not that attractive to me, so yes I downgraded it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Aren’t you the one who argues that grading is subjective so the TPGs can’t be faulted? Yes, I disagreed with PCGS and gave my reasons. If grading is as subjective as you like to make it appear (again, my grade is just 1 point off from PCGS’ grade), who are you to say I am wrong?</p><p><br /></p><p>Lastly, if it was my intention to radically change the result downward to make it appear that PCGS was grossly overgrading this coin, then why is it so close to the assigned grade (it is within the margin of error/subjectivity). I was actually surprised how close it was, but I left it as is because it was an honest assessment of the coin as I saw it. I used your numbers to compare, and again, very close. If I wanted to keep my altering of the numbers quiet, which I would do if I were as desperate as you want to portray me, then why would I explicitly use the numbers you gave to compare with my result? </p><p><br /></p><p>Your OWN breakdown of the grade indicated that PCGS overgraded this coin by giving it a + (&gt;66.5) when you originally give it a 66.2. My grade is 65+ (65.6). So am I really desperate to show that PCGS grossly overgraded this coin, or are you desparate to portray PCGS as infallibly correct?[/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