Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 492196, member: 307&quot;]This is where I think you take something simple, call it complicated and tell us that it is just not possible by saying &quot;it&#039;s just that simple&quot; and I don&#039;t think that I could disagree more.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I think would be more fair would be to take each series and break it into master hub changes. This is to make it fair. Something that compares apples to apples. You take the design (not a particluar coin in the series) and determine what a full strike is (this is MS-70), where the high points are (Mint State grades), and in what ways the design degrades as it wears.</p><p><br /></p><p>From this you can determine a coin&#039;s depth and quality of strike based on something concrete, not base it on known examples of this date and mint. You judge Mint state coins by depth of strike and placement of bagmarks, not overall appeal. The eye appeal and toning are attributes that dictate a coin&#039;s value more than it&#039;s grade and therefore should be left to those that deal in exchanging coins for money, not those grading them. This would remove &quot;market grading&quot; from the picture. These elements are totally subjective and a key reason why many object to them being an integral part of a coin&#039;s grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>This take on grading is simple. It employs one standard per master hub across many dates and mintmarks, and I believe is more fair, less subjective, and easier to not only explain, but to grasp.</p><p><br /></p><p>We can discuss it&#039;s merits based on particular coins in particular series used as examples and I welcome the discussion, but if you ask me, it&#039;s not just that simple... it can be, though.[/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