Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3532473, member: 15309&quot;]</p><p>I have not ever opened a bag of Saints, but the last time I discussed this topic on this forum with Doug, I reached out to Saintguru (JB) on the PCGS forum who has extensive experience with the series.&nbsp; I asked him about the assertion made in <i>PCGS THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION</i>, that <span style="color: #0000ff">&quot;the only Saint-Gaudens double eagles that do not have luster breaks on the breast and knee, usually caused by contact with other coins, are the proofs and counterfeits&quot; </span>(Chapter 5:&nbsp; Elements of a Coin&#039;s Grade, Wear).&nbsp; His response was that he agreed with the statement in the book.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know which set is his, but he has a top 20 set of Saints in the PCGS Registry and Steve Duckor was his personal mentor.&nbsp; In other words, I trust his opinion on Saints unequivocally .&nbsp; And if you are saying that there are in fact Saints that exist that don&#039;t show any friction, I will refer your own response that you gave me about Doug&#039;s use of absolutes (<span style="color: #ff0000">highlighted in red below</span>).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I agree that the use of absolutes leads to many disputes, but knowing Doug&#039;s black and white nature, I can&#039;t simply assume he was being hyperbolic without confirmation.&nbsp; I know he is reading this thread, perhaps he will opine.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I was playing devil&#039;s advocate here, using Doug&#039;s own rhetoric to prove a point.&nbsp; By disagreeing with my contention above, you are agreeing with my larger contention that roll friction and incomplete strike are determinable, and coins that show this should not be graded as AU coins.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #330066"><br /></span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #330066"><br /></span></i></p><p><span style="color: #000000">In this paragraph, you seem to parse that from a technical standpoint, the coin is AU, but that based on the commercial market grading standards, the coin is graded mint state because they believe the friction was caused by coin to coin contact.&nbsp; This is the standard that the TPGs use, the standard that I agree with, and the standard I have been defending this entire thread.&nbsp; If you are also agreeing with it, I really am loss as to why we are still debating this.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>My point is that the coins that are currently net graded at MS61 or MS62 actually have MS64 luster, strike, and eye appeal.&nbsp; If we move to a system where we grade the coin numerically and then assign the AU or MS moniker based on wear status only, every coin that has been net graded by the TPGs over the years will be undergraded by several points.[/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