Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 404709, member: 307&quot;]sorry, just getting back in and I would like to chime in again. As I stated in my post, whether or not someone CHOOSES (I don&#039;t know how to bold, LOL) to consider the coin that we used as an example as a VF or an XF is up to them, and that choice is subjective. I think you speak to a comment I made some time ago that I felt that it couldn&#039;t be, and that was my choice, but I can see through fleshing out my own idea where I may be able to accept it.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I would like for you to consider though, terminology aside, is something that I think people who think like me are going through in their process. When I speak of technical grading I am referring to the aspects of grading that aren&#039;t dependent on, nor really discuss value or worth. The technical aspects of the coin&#039;s detail relative to when it was struck. I realize (and I am sure you&#039;ll tell me) that this is probably not the correct usage of the term, but what many of us think of as technical grading. The reason that I want to put the terminology aside is to get at the meat of the issue which I believe is why a coin grades a higher grade when it is a rarity vs. when it is a common date.</p><p><br /></p><p>I, and I believe many others, have an issue with a coin getting a better grade than it technically is due to it&#039;s pedigree or rarity. This is I think the lynchpin issue. If the coin would be a VF as a common date, then it should be a VF as a rarity and it&#039;s value doesn&#039;t come in to play in this determination. We see the potential value pulling the grade upwards and we don&#039;t see any justification for it.[/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