Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1386485, member: 112&quot;]You are correct. The TPGs do make allowances for these older coins that they would never make for other coins. In other words, they cut them more slack.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It is true that some of these coins are known for being weakly struck. But too many people, including the TPGs make use of that excuse when grading these coins when they should not be using that excuse. You see, you can tell the difference between a weak strike and wear. So just because one of the coins has a flat spot or a break in the luster, that does not mean that that flat or break in the luster is because of a weak strike. A whole lot of the time it IS due to wear.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You are correct that they do not take the population into consideration. But they do not grade them all by the same rules either. Just like with any coin, allowances are made for specific dates that are known to have been weakly struck. Or more weakly struck than other dates. Not all dates and varieties were weakly struck. Some of them are known for having pretty good strikes. And those known to have been weakly struck are graded differently than those which are known for being well struck, or better struck.</p><p><br /></p><p>And there is something that most seem to forget about these coins. Many of them had huge, for the time, mintage numbers. Even the 1807 had a mintage over 750,000. Quite a few of them run into the millions.</p><p><br /></p><p>And few really have any concept of the population numbers of these coins. I did a study on them almost 10 years ago. Even back then NGC and PCGS alone had graded over 26,000 of them as AU or better. So many of these survive in much larger numbers and higher grades than anybody would expect.[/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