Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3524575, member: 46237&quot;]Ok I will try. How about this?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t disagree with you. Wear is a type of damage (to be clear - I&#039;m not using the numismatic meaning of damage here - I&#039;m saying that wear/rub damages the surfaces of the coin). As wear happens in a rather uniform and understandable way on a given type, this type of damage (non-numismatic - I&#039;m talking about <i>literal damage</i>) has been used to grade the state of preservation of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>But the problem created by using damage from wear to grade the coin is that it doesn&#039;t leave any way to grade coins that don&#039;t have damage from wear. Which is why we use 61-70 instead of just a single grade for 60 representing no wear. Obviously there are states of quality that also apply to coins without wear.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I&#039;m advocating for is solving this problem by saying <i>wear is not special</i>. Instead of using wear to grade the coin, you use <i>any</i> damage, including marks, hairlines, hits, rub, etc. which accounts for wear and also accounts for marks on non-worn coins. This way you have a continuous scale from 1-70 without a break when you encounter coins with no wear. As a side effect of this, it no longer becomes important to distinguish mint state coins from <i>virtually</i> mint state coins.[/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