Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 2092497, member: 46237&quot;]I realize this is your position, but you offered no proof other than to say it was common sense. Clearly it is no more common sense than to suggest that toned coins should not be gradable.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I never said I gave planchet flaws a pass. A planchet flaw is clearly a flaw on the coin. In fact I specifically said that an unblemished planchet was required for an MS70 grade. Having said that, as planchet flaws are original to the coin, they <i>should</i> be graded with more leniency than is given to similar flaws imparted post mint. If a planchet flaw is severe enough but the coin is otherwise original, the coin should get an error designation rather than details. Why give a details designation to a fully original coin just because it has an original defect that puts its value out of line with the actual grade?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Coinage itself is inconsistent; complex and full of exceptions. Series/dates/mints that are exclusively weakly struck, varying composition, varying methods of manufacture, varying storage conditions, etc. It is not a surprise that the grading rules are likewise complex and full of exceptions.</p><p><br /></p><p>Are there instances of inconsistency with TPG grading? Of course there are. On the whole though I think they are attempting to consistently apply a sophisticated ruleset with exceptions selected for the series/dates/mints that warrant them.[/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