Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2092431, member: 112&quot;]Nobody is disputing that, least of all me. My point is that they should not.</p><p><br /></p><p>So tell me, if your thinking is correct, and an &quot;as struck&quot; coin with die cracks, roller marks, whatever pre-strike flaw, should be graded as any other, then why does PCGS consider coins with planchet flaws as being ungradeable ?</p><p><br /></p><p><i>93|N-3 Planchet Flaw - Metal impurity or defect in the planchet – depends on severity</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>Why do they also grade some coins stricter than others like the early S mint Morgans, or more leniently than others like some of the O mint Morgans ? They are both &quot;as struck&quot; but yet are graded entirely differently than each other.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why is the corrosion on early copper coins completely ignored and the coins graded normally, but if the same corrosion is on later copper coins then the coins are ungradeable ? They are both &quot;as struck&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are quite a few things that can be added to this list. And that&#039;s my point, the TPGs do not apply the rules consistently, they just do whatever their customers want them to do.[/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