Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="eddiespin, post: 2419657, member: 4920"]This is important because it goes to our value systems which in turn go to how we grade. So, this being my big opportunity to get it off my chest, I'll take it. Let me just call this guy, "Anonymous," so as to not give him away, as he's a very highly-respected member of the numismatic community. And, BTW, I know you're not following this, just yet, but you will. You see, I once had the utter nerve to ask this big brain, Anonymous, "If you graded a coin MS64, then found out it was gathered in circulation, say, in change through a McDonald's drive-up window, would that make a difference in your grade?" He said it would. That blew me away, as circulation doesn't mean jack to me. Likewise, you're looking at imperfections on the surface, inferring they're the type that signals circulation. Ask yourself, why is determining that even important to you? If the devices are mint state, who cares whether the coin was in circulation? Making circulation your value, standard, I'm saying, leads to all kinds of crazy, arbitrary things. Let me give you just one, the one you just mentioned. PCGS and CAC are the "experienced evaluators," and that's how we now grade coins, on "experienced evaluations" of circulation? They just pulled a fast one on us, taking our eyes off wear on the devices and putting them on the question of circulation, and their "experienced evaluations." If that's where our value, standard is, evaluating imperfections for evidence of circulation, I give up. From here on in, it's whatever they say. But at least they didn't say it's "AT." <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches