Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1622842, member: 26302&quot;]The decision to say how it was created is by definition mint state, and all coins, regardless of how poorly they are made, are mint state if still in that condition. What this means is you do not deduct for grading weak strikes, rusted dies, worn dies, planchet defects, planchet marks, etc. However, ANY damage done by wear is immediate lowering of the grade. This is why you can have a bad planchet, weakly struck from rusted dies POS have the same grade as a sharply struck pristine issue. However, put one tiny wear mark on the sharply struck pristine issue and immediately is &quot;circulated&quot; and MUCH lower graded than the ugly, poorly struck POS. Even though 99% of all non-collectors and &quot;non-educated&quot; collectors would pick the well struck coin with a tiny wear mark as the superior coin to collect.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is the error I believe the earliest collectors made, and perpetuate today. How about simply evaluating a coin based upon % of perfection? Deduct grades for ANYTHING wrong with it, be it bad strike, planchet marks, rusted dies, or wear. Treat ALL defects equally, and grade according to what % of a perfect strike is left. </p><p><br /></p><p>Granted, US collectors would have to get used to the fact that some issues may have left the mint only a 45, but THAT IS OK. Grades should simply be a measure of how close to a perfect coin a specimen is, not WHY it is.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is how ancient collectors grade, and its much easier. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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