Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 3660172, member: 24314&quot;]<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"><i><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">Say it ain&#039;t so... IM supposedly arrogant opinions, I need to start with this first paragraph</span>.&nbsp; </i> </span></span></p><p><br /></p><p>Lehigh96, posted:&nbsp; &quot;I think we should leave the analogy that AU&#039;s are graded MS alone for now.&nbsp; That is another discussion that has its own unique argument: **Is coin to coin contact that manifests itself as wear the same as wear from circulation?&nbsp; Or should it be graded like other <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)">coin to coin contact (eg bag marks) and still be considered uncirculated?**</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)"><i>First, IMHO, anyone who calls themselves a knowledgeable numismatist or gets out of one of my individual grading sessions had BETTER KNOW THE easily determined difference between &quot;stacking rub contact&quot; and friction wear (cabinet friction)!&nbsp; They look nothing alike.&nbsp; AU coins are NOT Mint State in spite of what happens in the commercial world.&nbsp; Furthermore, I think you should edit your post as<span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"> <b>BAG MARKS DO NOT take a coin out of the MS grade range</b></span> - except again in some cases as done by uninformed rookies and sometimes in the commercial market to lower the value of a beat-up coin!</i></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">&quot;We both agree that if a coin has a patina that improves its eye appeal, then the VALUE of that coin should increase. [<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)"><i>100% in agreement</i></span>! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />] Where our opinions diverge is whether eye appeal should be even considered in the grading process at all.&nbsp; If you eliminate eye appeal and focus solely on the surface preservation of the coin, you are advocating technical grading.&nbsp; If you consider the four elements (surface preservation, luster, eye appeal, strike) of grading in the grading process, then you are applying market grading.&quot;&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">You told us your qualifications so here are mine so I can properly address the paragraph above: </span></i></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">Most do not know that I am the sole person (with the approval of Charles Hoskins) to devise the TRUE &quot;Technical Grading system&quot; used for our internal records at ANACS in DC (NOT in CO as they <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie30" alt=":bucktooth:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> had no clue although they called their system &quot;Technical.) <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp;&nbsp; So, in the &quot;true&quot; technical system the aim was to be able to ID a coin if seen again, lost, or stolen.&nbsp; In addition to its technical grade we had a weight and image.&nbsp; The ONLY consideration was the condition of preservation of the coin from the time it left the dies.&nbsp; Therefore, the only way to lower the grade of a MS coin was to add marks.&nbsp; A weakly struck coin with no marks was the same grade as a strongly struck coin.&nbsp; The COMMERCIAL VALUE of a coin was of no consideration.&nbsp; If a coin was toned or weakly struck, it was noted.&nbsp; If I took a perfect gem coin and put a hole through it near the rim at 12 OC it was a gem w/a hole.&nbsp; We described the coin as it existed.&nbsp; The technical standard was very strict.&nbsp; MS = no trace of wear.&nbsp; There was no AU one day and MS the next as exists now.&nbsp; Grading circulated coins was very close to as it has always been (before gradeflation0.&nbsp; Eye Appeal was not considered but unusual eye appeal was noted:&nbsp; Choic Unc (old MS-65), weak strike &amp; splotchy toning.&nbsp; Unc (old MS-60), rainbow toning.&nbsp; Unc, excessive marks.&nbsp; </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)"><br /></span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">Technical grading of MS coins is DEAD - except - p<i>roblem coins were graded exactly as they are now.&nbsp; Grade the coin state the problem.&nbsp; NO NET GRADING allowed. </i> ANA grading standards were virtually DEAD from the beginning and their grading service had to change to the commercial standard that dealers evolved into what we have today.&nbsp; </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)"><br /></span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">That said, I teach technical grading first and then explain market grading which involves VALUE and a great deal of knowledge that must be learned outside of a class.&nbsp; I have not been a dealer for almost forty years.&nbsp; I am NOT QUALLIFIED to put a price on a coin with out looking at a Graysheet to get an idea.&nbsp; At work I am first on most boxes looking for the +/- issues of each coin.&nbsp; I have little idea of the value of the coins I grade and wish to keep it that way.&nbsp; I grade coins and let others value them!&nbsp; </span></i></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 102)">I do know this from experience.&nbsp; I can teach anyone who is not color blind and can tie their shoelaces in one try to grade a Mint State/AU line coin using strict technical standards in a very short time.&nbsp; They will also know the difference between loss of surface from compression vs friction.&nbsp; </span></i></p><p>[/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