Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3660109, member: 19165&quot;]Let me clarify, because this is a subtle point: I&#039;ve made peace with grading based on the production values of a coin. Many Lincolns of the 20&#039;s and 30&#039;s are known for abysmal strikes. Many O-mint Morgans have awful strikes. Many S-mint Franklins have awful strikes. I&#039;m now ok with grading a coin based on the date/mintmark based on how that issue is known to appear. A &quot;good&quot; strike for a 1953S would be an absolutely horrific strike for a 1948D Franklin. I can adjust for that. </p><p><br /></p><p>Even this is somewhat of a controversial opinion. I can see arguments both ways. If the details aren&#039;t there, they just aren&#039;t there - for a certain series, these are the details required for a 65 strike grade, and some dates just won&#039;t ever get there. Technical graders often grade this way - certain dates just won&#039;t ever make 66 because they just don&#039;t ever come struck that well. I can see where they&#039;re coming from, but this is not how modern grading works. </p><p><br /></p><p>What I&#039;m saying is, assuming all other things are equal, I absolutely don&#039;t want a really rare issue to be graded differently than a really common date just because it&#039;s a rare date. A 1909S VDB should be graded exactly the same as a 1909S Lincoln. One is worth multiples of the other.... but the production values are basically the same. Therefore, the grading should be the same. However, looking at graded examples I believe it is clear that they are not. This is where I often disagree with the TPG grades.[/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