Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2095657, member: 22331&quot;]Not meaning to become involved in a fray over seemingly undocumented grading standards, I&#039;m confused about the wear discussion, and especially when the subject is St.Gaudens Double Eagles of which I&#039;ve been an avid collector of a selection suspected to be unmatched in this venue.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m to believe because of the degree of individual investment in products understood to be guaranteed and graded to published standards admissible in court, that litigious action involving the advertised &quot;standard bearers&quot; is inevitable.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m to understand there are two TPG &quot;standard bearers&quot; who if adjudged would be&nbsp; held to a published standard, which I believe is the &quot;OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS FOR UNITED STATES COINS&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe only that written standard defining specific requirements for a numerical grade would be allowed where written description is substantiated by definitive arrowed sketches as one would see when viewing an autopsy report. All other unsupported standards are believed moot, but inadmissible.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe you&#039;ll find the acceptable published &quot;standard&quot; definition for a MS60 &quot;Mint State&quot; St. Gaudens coin is: A strictly Uncirculated coin with NO TRACE OF WEAR.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe to have many of these TPG graded St. Gaudens coins in my voluminous collection which would support the published standard, and refute some unsupported assertions in this thread.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe one could find evidence of wear, or not, for themselves by viewing specimens in eBay auctions: #200983040692, 171699144681, 201296446980.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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