Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1990083, member: 26302&quot;]Thinking about this coin, it&#039;s exactly what drove me from US collecting. This coin would be slabbed Unc. However, it looks like this. This is why I agree with the way ancient coins grade. This coin left the mint an XF. It is exactly the way if left the mint, of course, but it left the mint missing a lot of details. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. But in ancients we have no problem calling this coin an XF even though we know it&#039;s not worn. Why does it matter? If a coin collector we can agree want perfect coins, why is a weak strike or worn dies an acceptable excuse as to why it&#039;s not perfect, but wear is not? I never understood that in US collecting, and still don&#039;t. I know the history, I know this decision is like 180 years old, but still it was a serious error, one which US collectors should man up and fix.</p><p><br /></p><p>Btw, no offense meant to you coin Matt.[/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