Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cplradar, post: 7852982, member: 108985&quot;]I don&#039;t even know what this means, but the core premise is wrong.&nbsp; What does &quot;the bias of technical grading&quot; mean?&nbsp; And nobody uses technical grading.&nbsp; I wish they did, because it would be easier.&nbsp; You would NOT be able to get a concensus of grades on coins without agreed criteria and such criteria without&nbsp; real knowledge of the properties on the minting process and how coins wear would never be accepted by knowledgable collectors who KNOW how coins are minted and what flaws can occur for any series, how they wear.&nbsp; Your suggest would render the Bust Nuts at the John Reich Society and idiots because they drive deeply into die states and grade accordingly.&nbsp; Your proposal depends on two flawed hipothesis... one is that we can get agreement without strong criteria and experience, and that amatures with minimal training can determine coin quality.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is like when we were kids and made fun at Rothko paintings.&nbsp; We thought we were the experts on art.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is a lot that goes into judging cultural artifacts and art objects in general.&nbsp; And you hypothesis wouldn&#039;t stand a chance of proving axiomatic in any art field, whether one is&nbsp; would be determining the value of an Old Dutch Master, or Ming Porcelain vase.&nbsp; All these objects need to be studied and understood in the context of the culture and technology that they were created in and the purpose of their design and history.&nbsp; And this includes coins, that are made to be circulated in commerce and whose aesthetic quality is a happenstance of their function.[/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