Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 1598511, member: 112"]There are no such indicators. Light wear on the high points of coins from being in a roll looks exactly the same as light wear on the high points of coins that were in circulation. Just like it is with AT & NT, nobody, absolutely nobody, can definitively tell one from the other. Do you know why ? It's because light wear on the high points is nothing more than breaks in the luster. And a break in the luster caused by 2 coins in a roll rubbing against each other looks exactly like a break in the luster on a coin that is slid across a counter top, or a table, or the sides/bottom of a change drawer. There is absolutely no difference between the two.  It is my understanding that it is both. Yes, they use a committee to avoid 1 grader making a mistake. But it is also my understanding that when there is disagreement that the coin goes back to the graders until there is agreement. That is the purpose of the finalizer - to make sure there is agreement. For what happens when the 2 or the 3 graders all agree - but the finalizer disagrees with all of them ? The coin goes back and is graded again until all agree. The finalizer is there because he has more experience than the others. His very purpose is to catch it when they make a mistake, in his opinion. But he cannot just say the grade is XX and pass it on for processing. For if he could they would not need the other graders, they would simply have finalizers grade the coins by themselves. The point of grading by committee is that they all have to agree in order to remove any question of doubt over the assigned grade. For how would it look in the eyes of the public if it were known that 2 graders said 63, 1 said 64, and the finalizer said 64 ? That wouldn't exactly be reassuring to the public now would it ? The point of grading by committee, and then using a finalizer, is to make sure that the grade is not determined by just 1, or 2, but by 3 (or 4 as the case may be) graders who all agree on that grade. That is why the grades assigned by the TPGs are supposed to be trustworthy. Because there is no disagreement. If there was disagreement - how could anybody ever trust them ? LOL ! Now that is what I call desperation. You know for a fact that they are wrong, but you are willing to accept it as being right anyway. THAT is a perfect example of the "blind faith" that I talk about ! You see Doug, you are doing the exact same thing, but you compartmentalize in your head a certain way that it hides the fact.  You claim that wear is wear and that all coins with wear should be considered AU and graded as such.  This makes things very nice and tidy, perfectly clean in the black and white world.  You then give me a hypothetical example about a rare coin with friction found in circulation that the TPG's grade as MS based on roll friction.  Did they get it wrong?  Well of course the answer is yes.  But in your world, you simply ignore roll friction all together.  You don't refute that it exists, rather you simply ignore it.[/quote] I ignore it ? Really ? Can't help it Paul, I'm sitting here laughing ! I ignore it ? Good Lord - I don't ignore anything. I see it, I acknowledge it, I point it out, I say that it is there and because it is there the coin cannot be MS. You see Paul, it doesn't matter how the wear got there. It only matters that it is there at all. It is when somebody says - yeah, I see that wear on the coin, I see those breaks in the luster. But that might have been caused by 2 coins rubbing against each other in a roll, so that wear doesn't matter. THAT is ignoring it ! THAT is pretending that it isn't there so the coin can be graded MS - when it really isn't.  A sealed bag of St. Gaudens ? Do you really believe such a thing exists ? Of course they did exist, at one time. But not for almost a hundred years now. The sealed bags of St. Gaudens, or any other gold coinage, disappeared with the gold recall in 1933. They all went back to the govt. Oh yeah sure, maybe a couple here, or a couple there, may have been stashed away by some really rich person. Or maybe a few were even sent to Europe, to be returned to the US years later. But the overwhelming majority of them all disappeared with the gold recall because the overwhelming majority of them were sitting in bank vaults. And those all went back to the govt. But to address your point, let's assume such a thing did exist. You yourself have seen Morgan dollars that came out of a sealed bag, so have I. So has just about everybody. But did any of those coins ever exhibit flat spots (other than those caused by weak strike) or wear ? None I ever saw did. Not a one, not a single one. What they did exhibit were bag marks and frost breaks. But that's it, they did not show wear. Gold coins coming out of a sealed bag would be exactly the same. What the TPGs, and anybody else who goes along with the idea, are trying to do is to find a way to grade coins that exhibit wear as being MS. And the only that they can do that is find some excuse, some explanation, for that wear to be there other than the coin having been in circulation and thus obtaining that wear. So they say that the wear could have, might have, maybe it did, come from the coin having been in a roll (or album or whatever) and two coins rubbing against each other. So that wear doesn't count. But did the TPGs, or any of those who also subscribe to the idea, ever stop and think for a minute - exactly how did those coins ever get into that roll to begin with ? What could have, might have, maybe did, go through before they were ever put in that roll ? Those are the same coulds, mights, and maybes as above - but shhhhh, they don't matter. Anybody ever talked about the "original bank rolls" of coins sold on ebay ? Do I really need to say anything else ?[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches