Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 865364, member: 15309&quot;]Mark,</p><p><br /></p><p>I am not sure you understood my point.&nbsp; I am a huge advocate of the CAC.&nbsp; I have been since it&#039;s inception.&nbsp; I also would take JA&#039;s grading opinion over just about anybody&#039;s.&nbsp; However, the CAC does not adhere to strict ANA standards of grading.&nbsp; The CAC uses the same market grading principles that the TPG&#039;s use.&nbsp; Lest you forget, it was John Albanese who was one of the original founders of PCGS who left and founded NGC.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t think your numismatic knowledge is being questioned at all here.&nbsp; Doug applies strict ANA grading standards which basically state that if a coin shows wear, it is not mint state.&nbsp; You just can&#039;t expect two different sources using different standards to agree.&nbsp; Furthermore, I believe that Doug did admit that his evaluation of the coin was based on what he sees in the images posted.&nbsp; To me that means he reserves the right to change his mind if he saw the coin in hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the end, the coin is an MS64 based on current TPG standards and AU based on ANA standards.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think that is a condemnation of either the coin or your grading abilities.&nbsp; My original response was to clarify and make things better.&nbsp; I hope I have not stirred the pot and made things worse.&nbsp; If I have, please accept my apology.[/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