Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2013878, member: 19463&quot;]When I wrote my grading pages I started to propose a two number system (0 through 9) rating the quality of the coin in terms of the Conditions of Manufacturer and the Condition of Preservation but decided that it was still not something that the world could handle since it is simply impossible to rate and compare a coin which has problems with centering with one which has a problem because of ghosting due to a thin flan.&nbsp; I decided it was better just to add words to describe good and bad points but such complexity does not fit on a tiny label and does not dictate whether one should prefer one coin over another.&nbsp; My COM is rather like the current &#039;Strike&#039; and COP is a bit like &#039;Surface&#039;&nbsp; but the two put more emphasis on when a coin gained its faults.&nbsp; Modern coins use &#039;Post Mint Damage&#039; for COP since all coins are assumed to have left the mint in MS 60+ (the expansion of higher numbers to consider strike factors is a more recent development).&nbsp; I followed the then prevailing system that did not apply MS or even AU to ancients although I admit that there are a few coins that seem better than just EF.&nbsp;&nbsp; If anyone has not seen it, my 1997 Grading Pages are here:</p><p><a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/grade.html</a>[/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