Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 2093408, member: 46237&quot;]Let&#039;s take that philosophy further. Since wear is wear, then a detrimental condition is a detrimental condition. It doesn&#039;t really make sense that 1-58 are <i>circulated</i> grades and 60-70 are <i>uncirculated</i> grades anyway. It leads to scenarios like the AU64. As you pointed out, it is sometimes impossible to tell if the coin is actually circulated or not, and why should it matter what the source of wear (or any detrimental condition) is anyway?</p><p><br /></p><p>So let&#039;s say a coin has very light cabinet rub and that would equate to a detrimental condition equal to a one step deduction. Then you have another coin with a bag mark that would equate to a detrimental condition equal to a one step deduction. Why should the minor detrimental condition of very light cabinet rub take an otherwise MS70 all the way down to an AU58?</p><p><br /></p><p>Why differentiate between minor conditions like &quot;wear&quot; and a &quot;bag mark&quot;? That&#039;s plumb silly, as a minor condition is a minor condition, and the <i>condition</i> suffers for it, regardless of the source.[/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