Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2157866, member: 71723&quot;]You ask an eminently fair question there, Ed. The <i><b>starting point</b></i>, and that&#039;s all it is for some coins, and fully enough for others, is the technical standards from the correct guides. (I use that adjective to distinguish from Photograde, which is crap in my opinion.) For a typical mid-grade &quot;honest circulation wear&quot; coin, that&#039;s enough, you&#039;re done.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some coins - those with unusually good or bad lustre, unusually good or bad strikes for the issue, toning, within the high AU range or the lowest BU range, require an adjustment for market desirability. Why? Because it makes no logical sense for a higher numeric grade coin to be less demanded in the market, and hence valued, (within the same date/MM/denomination) than a lower one.</p><p><br /></p><p>The price curve can never be allowed to &quot;bend backwards over itself&quot;. In mathematical terms, both the curve and its inverse must represent &quot;functions&quot;. Under strict technical standards it does, in the mid AU to low MS range, and again at the stratosphere. Market grading &quot;smoothes out&quot; the wrinkles in the price v. grade curve so that the higher value (again within the single coin number) always has the higher grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is also why damaged coins should never be given a numerical grade. They are &quot;off the maIn sequence&quot; and cannot fit within a single price v. grade curve that doesn&#039;t bend backwards upon itself.</p><p><br /></p><p>None of that requires me to &quot;play along&quot; for my own pieces, just be aware of them for grading purposes.[/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