Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 1512870, member: 37839&quot;]Books, I think the reason why ANACS has a better &quot;perception&quot; has to do with their treatment of older &quot;problem&quot; coins,and the fact that they almost created the niche of finding a way to deal with them.&nbsp; As you know, there are lots of important, valuable and attractive older American coins.&nbsp; THe Bust halves are most typical of this--most of those on the market were cleaned, some heavily, and with damage to the coins.&nbsp; They were collected in the days where cleaning wasn&#039;t the sin it is today, and as such, there are so many of them that have been harshly cleaned, whizzed, buffed,etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; Many of those coins were automatically body bagged by PCGS and NGC right off the bat--just sent home in flips with &quot;no grade.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; What ANACS created was the &quot;details&quot; slab, wherein a nice coin, but a coin with problems could find a home in a holder--say for instance, an AU Bust half with wonderful details, but the victim of a cleaning.&nbsp; The coin still looked attractive enough, and had sufficient value to be slabbed, and thus, it was--with a designation for its problem.&nbsp;&nbsp; This added to the financial marketability of said coins, and their general acceptance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, ANACS was great on the attribution of varieties of older coins as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; The IGC &quot;portion&quot; of this conglomerate did far less in this area.&nbsp; These are the two primary reasons that I feel ANACS has merit in excess and separate from IGC.[/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