Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 3103222, member: 71723&quot;]I’ll not comment on your first longer paragraph because I agree with all that. Where I disagree, and I fear we’ll ALWAYS disagree on this part, is your fetish for immutability. Standards not only MAY change over time, they very nearly MUST. Why? Because we learn things as a hobby and industry. We improve. We learn our old ways are no longer adequate, if they ever were. Any grading system in which a fundamentally more desirable coin has a lower grade (within a particular issue, of course) is inherently inadequate. And yet that is BOTH the status quo ante and the status quo. Yes, that means not only do I think PAST changes in standards are justified, but that additional ones are needed, ... BADLY!</p><p><br /></p><p>A grade needs to MEAN SOMETHING, something far more useful than “mark counting”. Oh, and “monstercam” is right. This is mostly an MS range problem. But I’d expand it to the upper half of AU as well. I am in favor of the ABSOLUTE ELIMINATION of any grading analysis that has this sentence structure: “It can’t be a Grade X because it doesn’t have Attribute Y”. That is merely intellectual laziness.[/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