Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Conder101, post: 2453371, member: 66&quot;]Said no?&nbsp; PCGS was the one that proposed it.&nbsp; The market said no.&nbsp; PCGS would probably still like to switch to it for the very reason that it would mean the thirty million coins they have already graded would have to be regraded (and paid for) again.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The ANA used the same adjective system that had been around since the 1940&#039;s and just stuck Sheldon&#039;a price multiplier numbers to them (numbers which had been abandoned by the EAC community seven years earlier because they didn&#039;t work.&nbsp; The ONLY advantage the numbers provided was to let a novice know what order the adjectives belonged in.&nbsp; (which is only needed to know if the &quot;Good&#039;s AG, G, and VG are better or worse then the Fine&#039;s F VF and XF)</p><p><br /></p><p>Another problem with the numbers is they imply a mathematical precision to grading which just doesn&#039;t exist.&nbsp; There is no machine (at least none since PCGS scraped their Expert system) that you can plug your coin into that will scanning it, make measurements and counts, apply formulas, do some number crunching and spit out that your coin is a MS-64.875 (Which they would round up to 65, today to 64+).&nbsp; PCGS scraped the system for two reasons, one the human graders too frequently disagreed with the machine grades (the machine can grade precisely and consistantly), and two every time you put the same coin back into the machine you got the same&nbsp; answer.&nbsp; It would eliminate crackouts and resubmissions.&nbsp; A significant source of income.[/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