Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 904271, member: 112&quot;]I&#039;m going to have to be the contrary one again I guess. All three of these comments indicate to me what I see as the problem with grading - people don&#039;t follow established standards. They instead choose to make up their own standards that suit them and meet their own personal criteria. </p><p><br /></p><p>And guys, it&#039;s not personal. It&#039;s just the way it is. PCGS doesn&#039;t even follow its own standards, so I guess why should you either.</p><p><br /></p><p>This to me is just not the way it should be. Grading standards are established for one reason - to give <u>us all</u> guidelines to follow when grading coins. And when we choose to ignore those standards and instead follow our own ideas and/or criteria - that&#039;s when we get into trouble.</p><p><br /></p><p>Think for a minute about who, meaning the individual people, were that established the grading standards we have. When you read the list of names that established the grading standards, both those of PCGS and the ANA, you read a list of Who&#039;s Who in the numismatic community. Every single name is recognized by most. Every single name is among the most respected, the most trusted, the most relied upon list of people that there is in the numisnmatic community. </p><p><br /></p><p>And so when you make statements that are contrary to the grading standards established by these people, are you saying that you know more than they do ? That for some reason you are right and they are wrong ?</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m sorry guys, I may be an egotistical so and so, heck I admit I am, but I&#039;m not going to pretend even to myself that I know more than the combined knowledge of those guys. When it comes to grading coins, I&#039;m going to follow the standards they established. And the grading stanards they established are quite plain. They are not ambiguous nor do they leave room for adjustment in our thinking. They say pretty much flat out that in order for a given coin to be this grade then these criteria must be met. And if they are not met, then the coin is not worthy of that grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>So to your question Paul - <b>Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?</b> - a most emphatic yes is the correct answer.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why ? All you have to do is read the standards.</p><p><br /></p><p>From PCGS - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>MS/PR65: Minor marks/hairlines though none in the focal areas, above average strike</i></p><p><br /></p><p><i>MS65: Gem Uncirculated There may be some scattered marks, hairlines, or other minor defects. If the flaws are in a main focal area, they must be minor and few. Hidden marks and hairlines can be larger. On dime-type and smaller, they almost always must be in the devices or must be very minor if they are in the fields. On larger coins, there can be marks/hailines in the fields and in the devices, but no major ones.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Now that&#039;s pretty plain. There is no ambiguity.</p><p>It says flat out that there can be no major/significant marks in prime focal areas if a coin is to be graded MS/PF 65.</p><p><br /></p><p>From the ANA - </p><p><br /></p><p><i>General Descriptions</i></p><p><i>MS65 - Contact Marks:&nbsp; Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Morgan Dollars</i></p><p><i>MS65 - Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>MS65 - No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS67 except for a few additional minute bagmarks or surface mars.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Jefferson Nickels</i></p><p><i>MS65 - No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS67 except for some small weakness or blemish. Has full mint luster, nut may be unevenly toned, or lightly fingermarked. A few minor ticks or marks may be present.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Now again, that is pretty plain. And again it says that there may be no major/significant marks in prime focal areas.</p><p><br /></p><p>So somebody please tell me, where does the idea that we may choose to forgive or allow significant marks in prime focal areas on coins graded MS/PF65 come from ? Where does it say that the rest of the coin can make up for a significant mark in the prime focal area ? </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ll grant you, judging what is a significant mark and what isn&#039;t is subjective to a degree. But when they use words like minor, minute, light, it pretty much pins it down doesn&#039;t it ? </p><p><br /></p><p>Is there any way that on the coins presented as examples in this thread that the marks in question could be considered to be light, minute or minor ?</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;d have to say no to that. And I don&#039;t really see how anybody else could say anything different.</p><p><br /></p><p>So again I will ask - where does the idea that we may choose to forgive or allow significant marks in prime focal areas on coins graded MS/PF65 come from ? Where does it say that the rest of the coin can make up for a significant mark in the prime focal area ?</p><p><br /></p><p>And if you can&#039;t answer these questions then how can we choose to say anything but a resounding NO to the question posed by Lehigh ?[/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