Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2108688, member: 71723&quot;]Wow, guys. I just read this whole thread end to end in one sitting. Some observations:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) Charges that CT moderators are throwing their weight around by ending every argument with references to their resumes and whipping out the CT Rule Book? (religious capitalization for sarcasm reasons) &quot;Say it ain&#039;t so, Joe.&quot; Sounds eerily familiar to me. It&#039;s largely why I&#039;m seldom here.</p><p><br /></p><p>1a) Numismatists, especially those of us of a certain age and experience (I&#039;m 59, and I&#039;ve been collecting for 52 of those years.) are used to being the &quot;smartest guy in the room&quot;. When a whole room (actual or virtual) of SGIR types get together, egos start rubbing up against one another REAL fast.</p><p><br /></p><p>1b) Let&#039;s not get into numismatic resume &quot;you know what&quot; measuring debates, okay? I&#039;m an ANA National Volunteer and regular Board of Governors meeting contributor and one of Pennsylvania&#039;s _2_ Numismatic Points of Light named by ANA Prez Walt Ostromecki. We ALL have our resumes. I _GIVE TO_ the numismatic hobby writ large (time, treasure); I don&#039;t take much from it any more.</p><p><br /></p><p>2) On the substance: I swear to the deity that the latest version of the Official ANA Grading Standards for United States Coins book (7th edition - the one that renders ALL the previous ones obsolete and pointless, BTW) contains, WITHIN ITS OWN PAGES, numerous caveats about slavishly following what is admittedly their &quot;technical&quot; grading standards. The ANA has &quot;bought in fully&quot; to market grading, as should we.</p><p><br /></p><p>I particularly point you to chapters entitled, &quot;Grading: Importance and Evolution&quot; {Just sit there a minute and let that word &quot;evolution&quot; sink in a bit}, &quot;Advanced Grading Techniques&quot; {which is to distinguish it from an earlier chapter using the modifier &quot;Basic&quot;}, and &quot;Closer Focus on Certain Aspects of Grading&quot;. Why do we wax so nostalgically poetic about technical grading when the people who wrote the book (literally wrote the book) don&#039;t themselves fully believe in it any more?</p><p><br /></p><p>3) Market grading HAD TO replace technical grading. It was inevitable. Why? Because we have come to a place where AU55-58 coins are selling for more than MS60-62 coins under technical grading standards. That made for a nonsensical system. AU58 coins tend to be beautiful. MS61 coins tend to be &quot;ugly stick&quot; victims. The entirety of the 58-62 range is in total flux. Grading should not be about counting ticks and bag marks, and it had become so under technical grading. A higher grade number MUST equal a higher value. Nothing slabbed years ago that is within 55-63 grades is relevant any more. Your old 58&#039;s now need to be 61&#039;s or 62&#039;s, and maybe vice versa, too. Remember - it&#039;s now &quot;okay&quot; to engage in, wait for it, ... &quot;evolution&quot;. See? If the market values Coin A more than Coin B OF A PARTICULAR SERIES / DATE / MINT MARK, then Coin A needs to have a higher grade than Coin B, minor rubs or bag marks be da(rned). {almost broke a rule.}[/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