Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 905510, member: 5629&quot;]I know your post was directed toward GD, but I would like to interject just a few things:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This comment is debatable as to the degree of ambiguity, but the guidelines do have a level of ambiguity <b>because</b> grading is subjective.&nbsp; Even with the technical traits of grading, there is some subjectiveness.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Please refer to the general guidelines on page 22.&nbsp; With regards to contact marks: MS-67, 3 or 4 miniscule, none in prime focal areas; MS-66, several small, a few may be in prime focal areas; MS-65, Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, at first reading, it appears that if you count more than &quot;3 or 4&quot; miniscule marks on the coin, it cannot be MS-67.&nbsp; However, these are general guidelines.&nbsp; The size of the coin makes quite the difference as well.&nbsp; A large coin, such as the Morgan in question, would merit the higher grade with more marks than a small coin such as a dime or $1 gold.</p><p><br /></p><p>Obviously, this is ambiguous and subject to the consideration of the grader.&nbsp; However, it is not so ambiguous as to be impossible to consistently determine the difference.&nbsp; But, that is not to say, either, that you will come to agreement on the subject.&nbsp; You will be absolutely correct according to your philosophy, just as GD will be according to his.&nbsp; Yet, there will be the point at which your philosophies come to agreement: that point at which both of your personal standards will not tolerate the damage and detraction to honestly claim the coin to be in the higher grade.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Again, subjectiveness. Some find corrosive damage of any kind to be detracting and grade accordingly.&nbsp; Others absolutely love the coloration that natural toning has, and the way it appeals to their senses.&nbsp; This same subjectiveness is given to the size and detraction created by damage to the surface preservation of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>On this point alone, the determination of grade based on technical merits comes into debate. What is the largest acceptable size?&nbsp; 1/2mm, 2/3mm, 2mm on a silver dollar?&nbsp; Using Ruddy&#039;s photograding or the photograding used in Halperin&#039;s NCI standard could help to make this determination, but even then, the ambiguity on this matter is just another instance of subjectiveness.</p><p><br /></p><p>That is why a coin may be MS-67 to you and MS-66 to Doug, but the grave differences between an MS-67 and MS-65 may be so clear, even with the ambiguity involved, that you would both likely agree more than disagree on the grade if given only MS-67 and MS-65 as possible grades. Just my opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Approximately 3 to 4 marks on an average sized coin.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This one clearly depends on the grader&#039;s vision and overall view of the coin as a whole.&nbsp; When grading, we know that we should hold the coin at arm&#039;s length and get a good overall view of the coin in general.&nbsp; This helps us to determine the coin&#039;s overall eye appeal and the level and severity of any damage to the surface area.&nbsp; I would believe we could agree that a &quot;very minor&quot; imperfection would be one that is lost to us at first sight when taking in the overall preservation of the coin, but becomes apparent only upon closer inspection of specific areas of the coin&#039;s surface.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yet again, this is completely subjective.&nbsp; There are a number of qualities about a coin that may distract our eyes away from these &quot;very minor&quot; imperfections including luster and strike, that others may not be detracted by.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I would have to disagree on this one point.&nbsp; It is making an assumption that any grade at all is an absolute truth.&nbsp; This is just not so.&nbsp; Absolutes are objective.&nbsp; Grading of coins is subjective to many things, including one&#039;s own grading philosophy.&nbsp; The Halperin NCI standard is one of the more objective photograding standards, but still holds much room for the grader&#039;s subjective opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Where the problem lies is not necessarily in any fact that the individual cannot make the determination, so much as the subjectivity in grading results in one person&#039;s opinion stating one grade, while another person&#039;s opinion claims a different.&nbsp; This is why many TPGs grade by quorum. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Grading coins is subjective. You would both have to agree first that coin grading is objective and then agree to the standard to be used.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, I didn&#039;t post this to debate your opinions, except where the standard referenced shows some level of objectiveness that should allow for some agreement as to definition or term, such as &quot;how many&quot;.[/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