Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1000458, member: 112&quot;]They always have been open about it, and it&#039;s nothing new. As 900 said - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>- and he is quite correct. Even going back as far as the first edition Brown &amp; Dunn this has been the case. Same for the ANA guides. They have always made allowances for light wear on coins. But, the wear has to be considered to have been due to cabinet friction, roll friction and the like.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The PCGS grading guide states flat out that coins grading as high as MS67 can have light wear. That&#039;s where they admit it. And they always have.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>But as I have said above, not according to any grading standards ever written, clear back to the very first. The deciding factor has always been whether or not the coin has ever actually been in circulation.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>There never was any switch. The two terms have always existed side by side. But that doesn&#039;t mean that I don&#039;t get your point either, I do.</p><p><br /></p><p>To me, wear is wear regardless of how it occurred. I do not now nor have I ever agreed with allowing coins that have light wear to be graded as MS anything. And yes that includes light wear from being in a coin cabinet for a 100 years. Wear is wear. But the numismatic community has never seen it that way - ever.[/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