Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3438347, member: 112&quot;]I do that because that&#039;s what standards are all about Paul. For a coin to be worthy of any grade, it has to meet all of the criteria required for that grade, not just some of them - all of them ! And no, it doesn&#039;t matter how good the other criteria are, the sole purpose of having standards based on numerous criteria IS to limit the grades ! And it follows the same basic concept that has always existed, for as long as grading has existed, that no coin can be graded higher than its worst side. If one side is a solid 63 then the coin cannot be graded higher than 63, even if the other side is 67. And no it cannot be graded someplace in between the two either.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yes, you&#039;re right, it is a philosophy. And my point is and always has been the TPGs used to follow the very same philosophy I do. But they threw it out the window and switched to the one you and they follow now. And it wasn&#039;t in the early years that they did this - it was 15 years ago. And they have been loosening standards even more ever since then.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I&#039;ll grant you, yes PCGS made a change in 1987, they loosened their standards from what they were the previous year when they opened. But they followed the same philosophy I do until 2004. Grades were limited by the worst criteria. There was no net grading, and they stated so flat out time after time in the numismatic press.</p><p><br /></p><p>But today, net grading is all the rage, it is their standard way of doing things and has been for a long time now. And make no mistake, that is exactly what you&#039;re talking about - net grading. Boosting a coins grade based on one or two criteria and basically ignoring the other limiting criteria.[/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