Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="eddiespin, post: 2087633, member: 4920"]Sure you got it. Just keep falling back on it when things get out of hand. It's the fundamentals. OK, to the questions. From what I've seen, and there are exceptions, most MS60-61s are dogs compared to AU58s. MS62, a little less so, but not by much. The reason being, to be AU58, it can't have flaws. Or, better said, if it does have flaws, they're, for the most part, innocuous, benign. The reason for that being, by definition, if the coin has circulation wear, which, if it's AU, it does, those flaws, again, are post-mint damage, and, if significant enough, the coin won't grade, or, for the market, the coin will "net grade." Thus, most of the time, the AUs are virtually flawless. When compared to the heavily-flawed MS60-61s, even most MS62s, probably, they're going to kill them in eye-appeal. Why accept paying more for the latter? They crossed that threshold. Being MS, they held up, they're everything the coins are supposed to be. Getting to the "In theory..." question, yeah, that's right. In fact, that's how I know you "get it." Let me say the thing, there. It's the TPGs would get laughed out of business if they got too carried away with market-bumping AU-58 to MS. That's not to say they don't do it, they do. However, instead of AU58 to MS61, say, it's AU58 to MS64. Again, most of the AU58s are that flawless, that's why. Therefore, in the vernacular, "AU64." I don't know if you've heard that one, yet.[/QUOTE]