Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Smitty, post: 1376708, member: 35044&quot;]GD, I&#039;m going by how Scott Travers defines the &quot;rules&quot; of grading. If the industry wants &quot;subjective&quot; grading then they&#039;ll never solve their problem of inconsistency. Maybe they don&#039;t want to.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is not like comparing two paintings. Each coin has &quot;one&quot; design from a master engraving. We supposedly know what a &quot;perfect&quot; specimen is. As I said, computers are excellent comparators. All you need to do is define the rules down from perfection. Flaw detection at a microscopic level is already done in many industries.</p><p><br /></p><p>Can computers think? That depends upon what your definition of &quot;thought&quot; is and what thought you think is required to grade a coin. If increasing levels of grade steps depend upon a decreasing level of flaws, then computers absolutely have the thought required. If grading is subjective and inconsistent, then no.[/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