Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 4499603, member: 78244&quot;]You are talking about an abandonment of standards. If the TPGs tomorrow decide to adopt the letter grades and abandon numbers altogether, does that mean that all standards are magically forgotten and coin shows will become a wild west of shillsters? Not at all. It would just be a different way of saying the exact same thing. 30, VF-30, Ch. VF all refer to the exact same thing. To say otherwise means you really have no legitimate argument against it.</p><p><br /></p><p>I can already hear your reply: “But they would never do that!” But that is beside The point of the simple hypothetical thought experiment. And it wouldn’t be a legitimate counterargument either.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There actually isn’t. I guess that’s why you never venture to opine on grades. Not once have I ever seen you participate in a GTG thread, except to yell at everyone who criticized the TPG for getting it wrong.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #4da6ff">[Citation Needed]</span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The adamant push for increased precision with numerical grades is actually far more complicated, letters or no letters, and it would be increasingly impossible to consistently ensure all coins in the precise grade level are exactly the same quality. What started with 3 UNC grade levels, became 5, then 11, and now we have 21. Which is more confusing/complicated: 5 grade levels within which UNC coins are classified, or 21?</p><p><br /></p><p>Careful how you answer, since you claimed that the latter system is “much simpler.”[/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