Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 3257526, member: 24314&quot;]I really wish I had not opened this discussion before leaving work.&nbsp; I wish this site had a LOL option and a way to safe drafts before posting. </p><p><br /></p><p>C-B-D, posted:&nbsp; &quot;I counted 9 marks in hand. And I don&#039;t own an ANA grading guide, so I&#039;d love to know what that old book says. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>Good Eye!&nbsp; the largest is on the coat.&nbsp; I cannot believe you do not have an ANA Grading Guide.&nbsp; Folks, do not follow this example.&nbsp; Grading &quot;GUIDES&quot; are good, especially the introductory info. </p><p><br /></p><p>Seven small marks and one very large all hidden by dark toning yet visible in an image puts your coin in the MS-65/66 range.&nbsp; No visible hairlines due to toning and above average luster (66 to 67) is good giving a bump for color if you like it.&nbsp; However, the eye appeal is in the MS-62/63 range as it is generally acceptable and rather attractive.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, your coin would have been maxed out as a 66.</p><p><br /></p><p>1916D10C, post: &quot;What&#039;s the matter, you can&#039;t face facts when they&#039;re staring you in the face?&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>While you are on your way to becoming a knowledgeable numismatist, I&#039;m afraid that some of your pasts posts have indicated that you are not yet qualified to distinguish facts from falsehoods.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>1916D10C, posted: &quot;No further comment required. Kudos to Jason for nailing this one, dead center in the middle of the target.&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, it the target is uninformed misinformation.&nbsp; IMO, Jason lacks a basic understanding of CAC.&nbsp; Perhaps a conversation with JA or at least read the link from that other TPGS website.&nbsp; Folks over there actually deal with JA, buy the big ticked CAC coins, and talk with him.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>1916D10C, poster:&nbsp; &quot;It is their business model, and also their own claims that they &quot;verify a coin is solid for the grade&quot;, which is a complete joke. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie52" alt=":hilarious:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie52" alt=":hilarious:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie52" alt=":hilarious:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p>If PCGS and NGC cannot maintain enough consistency with their grading and standards to satisfy collectors, to the extent that now the TPG&#039;s need their grades verified by some other company or person, what is to stop another service from coming along to verify their grades, and so on and so on?? [<span style="color: #ff0000">Nothing but money and the desire to try</span>].&nbsp; Are we going to get to a point in the hobby where slabs are so covered in &quot;verification stickers&quot; of other companies to such a degree that we can no longer even view the coin inside the holder anymore? How many more services do collectors need to shortcut the hobby and avoid learning on their own?? How many more services are needed so collectors don&#039;t have to select coins or make decisions for themselves based on their own tastes, but instead, solely rely on and trust the &quot;experts&quot; to do it for them?</p><p><br /></p><p>ETA: Don&#039;t get me wrong, I&#039;m not saying for one minute I know more than JA or he doesn&#039;t know his stuff; to say so would be extremely presumptuous. All I&#039;m saying is Jason&#039;s assessment is spot on as far as what they are doing.&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;[<span style="color: #ff0000">I disagree<span style="color: #ff0000"><span style="color: #000000">].</span></span></span></p><p><br /></p><p>TypeCoin971793, posted: &quot;A question I asked in another thread but was never answered was this:</p><p><br /></p><p>“So coins are graded by PCGS or NGC, and they are set to an <i>instantaneous standard.</i> <span style="color: #ff0000">Yes, that&#039;s how it works.</span>&nbsp; In <b><span style="color: #ff0000">theory</span></b>, this should be the standard to which all other coins are compared to. But as the standard changes, coins are graded to a new standard, while the other ones stay graded to the old standard.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Great explanation.&nbsp; Except for the fact that you&#039;ve pointed out: THERE IS NO STANDARD AND THE INSTANTANEOUS STANDARD CHANGES. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; Therefore, the &quot;<b><span style="color: #ff0000">theory</span></b>&quot; is flawed and has no bearing on reality.&nbsp; As standards evolve, many coins are regraded to the new &quot;non-standard.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;Which is correct? Which standard should I be comparing to. Now let’s factor in the yearly cycles of tightening/loosening standards. <b>Which are right? Which are obsolete? Which should be compared to as the standard?</b> If the answer is “all of them”, then <b><i>there is no standard</i></b>; it’s completely arbitrary. If the answer is “the newest one,” then [<span style="color: #ff0000">there is no standard so</span>...] the grades of everything else becomes obsolete.”</p><p><br /></p><p>Definition of “standard: “An idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.”[/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