Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 2093801, member: 46237&quot;]To further this point, I wouldn&#039;t even call that market grading, but rather a warranted grading exception for this series. This is a perfect example of what I was saying regarding the TPGs being consistent with their application of complex grading rules. It only appears to be inconsistent if your expectation is black and white.</p><p><br /></p><p>But grading is not black and white. We know more about the quirks of many series and the underlying causes behind them than we did 30 years ago, and the internet has allowed for the rapid dissemination of information and new ideas. Grading has evolved and matured as a result, and has taken on a higher degree of complexity to match the reality.</p><p><br /></p><p>The TPGs are pragmatists. They do not blindly adhere to a black and white grading approach for scenarios in which that approach does not make sense in practice. Grading rules take into consideration those very real and differing aspects between coining periods and between series (differing alloy composition, storage/transportation methods, and methods of manufacture and the resulting effects like die cracks, weak strikes, etc.). As we learn more, grading will evolve further, and the TPGs will adopt new standards and exceptions to keep up with the realities of the market.</p><p><br /></p><p>If a black and white approach to grading (wear is wear) leads to the dubious conclusion that uncirculated examples of an <i>entire series of coins</i> are actually all circulated, isn&#039;t that clearly an indication that the approach is flawed?[/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