Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 3657400, member: 78244&quot;]Have I not already admitted that? Why do you act so shocked?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And who made you the arbiter of who is winning or losing this debate? I’m taking your debate tactics and throwing them right back at you.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Surface preservation+strike+luster=eye appeal. These are all technical aspects that result in the eye appeal expected for a grade. Bumping up for eye appeal is unnecessary and wholly redundant.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Where have I tried to argue that attractive toning isn’t attractive or pretty? Again, I had taken your arguments and thrown them back at you.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Nope. Never said that. I simply said that surface abrasions cause much more damage to the surface than the toning toning process (in the early stages) does. That’s why it is silly to downgrade a toned coin as “damaged”. Unless I am mistaken, this is something we agree on.[/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