Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 408289, member: 112&quot;]But it started on that path back in the early &#039;70s Mike when techinical grading is all there was. And it came about, as they explain quite well in the ANA guide, out of necessity. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t think really disagrees with that Mike, especially not me. Yes, I admit it happens, but that doesn&#039;t mean I like it or agree with it.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>I know what you mean and I agree it is not semantics at all. My personal preference has always been that once a grade is asigned to a coin that the grade should remain static. But how we arrive at that grade is the real question. And that is the part that people in general never seem to understand.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>As we have seen through all of these discussions, where most people get hung up is first when they try to define what grading criteria will be used in order to grade a coin, and second when they try to define which of those criteria are part of the technical grading system and which criteria are part of the market grading system. </p><p><br /></p><p>I also think it has become obvious that just about everybody actually uses market grading even if they don&#039;t realize it.</p><p><br /></p><p>So as you say Mike, keeping an open mind is very important. For it allows us to see what the facts really are instead of what many think they are.[/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