Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 7852873, member: 46237&quot;]That is circular logic. Identifying wear is only important because you feel the need to define the boundary between circulated and uncirculated. Except that you don&#039;t need to do this to grade coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is the obsession with wear that I&#039;m talking about.</p><p><br /></p><p>In a wear-agnostic grading system, there is a holistic condition continuum from 1 to 70 where the source of impairment is not factored in. As such, the need to identify wear is obsolete as denoting whether or not circulation has occured is irrelevant to the scale. You can have uncirculated coins in the 50s and circulated coins in the high 60s. The scale only needs to indicate the relative quality.</p><p><br /></p><p>We all understand that coins with wear can frequently be higher quality than coins without wear. Follow me here, what that above statement means is that wear <i>cannot be used</i> to denote quality in a grading scale.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now the question you need to answer for yourself is if the purpose of a grade is to identify the quality of a coin for the market, or if the purpose of a grade is to identify the state of the coin. But if your purpose is to identify the state of the coin, I ask to what end? Is that really useful, or are you simply doing it because that&#039;s how it&#039;s always been done?[/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