Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1934669, member: 112&quot;]Remember what I have always explained, that when grading to start at the bottom and work your way up, not to start at the top and work your way down ? Because before a can be graded up it first have to meet all of the qualifications and criteria of the lower grades ? Now read what it says on the next page where it describes the AU coins Richie - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>These coins may show minor weakness or friction spots even though they may never have been used in circulation. Such coins are difficult to distinguish and are sometimes considered to be Mint State rather than About Uncirculated, when they have superior eye appeal, strike, or appearance. </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>About Uncirculated - Small traces of wear visible on the highest points.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>AU58 - Has some signs of wear: Liberty&#039;s forehead, breast, knee, and nose; eagle&#039;s wings and breast.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Now go read the definition of wear in the ANA book - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>wear - The abrasion of metal from a coins surface caused by <u>normal handling</u> and circulation.&nbsp; </i></p><p><br /></p><p>The underlining is mine - meaning either normal handling or circulation can be the cause of wear. And what is the very definition of uncirculated ? A coin that has no wear. And how do you determine wear, even light wear on a coin ? You look for breaks in the luster on the high points. Every single person in the world who collects coins knows that. And every single person who collects coins also knows that even if a coin is actually found in circulation, like from a cash register drawer, as long as that coin has no signs of wear then that coin is MS can be correctly graded as MS.</p><p><br /></p><p>And that&#039;s it in a nutshell right there. That is the difference, spelled out, between ANA standards and PCGS standards. No matter where you look PCGS says over and over that the only way they consider a coin to be Almost Uncirculated (or lower) is if the coin was actually used in circulation. </p><p><br /></p><p>For example PCGS defines - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Brilliant Uncirculated -</i> <i>A generic term that is applied to any coin that has not been in circulation. </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>New - a term for a coin that has never been in circulation.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Mint State - The term corresponding to the numerical grades MS-60 through MS-70, used to denote a business strike coin that never has been in circulation.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Uncirculated - Term to indicate a coin or numismatic item that has never been in circulation, a coin without wear. See “Brilliant Uncirculated,” “Mint State,” and “new.”</i></p><p><br /></p><p>And that is the only place where PCGS mentions wear in their definitions. However, in their book they spell out their excuse - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Likewise there are other ways coins can have slight friction and still be uncirculated. When coins are in bags or rolls for example they pick up bag or roll friction.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Now it has been said that this &quot;friction&quot; does not constitute wear. But how does PCGS define friction ?</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Friction - Slight wear on a coin&#039;s high points or in the fields.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>So I submit to you that even by PCGS&#039; own definition, friction does indeed constitute and/or equal wear. But they created that very convenient excuse to get away from that. And of course they offer no explanation as to how friction from a coin being in a bag or roll, or friction from a coin being in actual circulation, can ever be distinguished one from the other. And the reason they offer no such explanation is because it is completely impossible to distinguish one from the other. It cannot be done by anybody, anywhere.</p><p><br /></p><p>And that&#039;s the beauty of this excuse that PCGS uses. All they have to do is claim that the the friction, the wear, present on the high points of the coin was caused by bag or roll friction, or flip friction, or album friction, or some other kind of friction, so it doesn&#039;t matter that the wear is actually there on the coin. All they have to do is &quot;claim&quot; that the wear was not caused by the coin being in circulation and thus the coin is MS.</p><p><br /></p><p>Well horse puckey ! If there is no way to tell that the friction/wear was specifically caused by bag, roll, whatever, then you cannot &quot;claim&quot; that it was caused by these things. Yes it might have been. But it just as easily might have been caused by the coin being in actual circulation because the wear, the friction, from all of these things is identical.</p><p><br /></p><p>Wear is wear, and it doesn&#039;t matter causes it. It only matters that it is present. And if it is present, then the coin cannot be MS. But if you wish to buy into the lie that it can be - have at it.[/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