Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 4611795, member: 26302&quot;]My points are not silly at all, it is you who cannot get it out of your head your US coin grading indoctrination. </p><p><br /></p><p>What is a &quot;grade&quot;? It is a measure of desirability. To say &quot;market prices&quot; should &quot;adjust&quot; is a cop out. Absent unusual things like toning, (personal preference), a 64 should always be more desired than a 62, a 61 should be preferred over a 58. It was NOT because of a flaw in the grading system. A touch of wear is NOT worst than a big ding or a weak strike. </p><p><br /></p><p>The TPGs are moving towards my point. I wish they would just drop the description altogether and just grade numerically 1-70, because old 58s deserve to be 62, and some 61s deserve to be 53s at best. I have ancient coins that are what you would call uncirculated, (same as they left the mint),, but I grade them VF, and that is ok. Some coins leave the mint today a 55, and that is ok.The mint screws up and can make junk.[/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