totally confused. difference between proof and ms?

It's not different, it's just less. It's still wear.

Look, try this on for size. What is "Mint State?" To many collectors, these days, I'll tell you what it is, it's nothing better than a meaningless status symbol. They can call their coins "Mint State." If there's wear on the coin, all they need to do is fiddle with it, call it something else, and they're there.

Let's see if we can give meaning to "Mint State," make it meaningful. Mint State. The State of preservation of the coin is Mint. Golly, I think we just did!

And wear, that's a State of preservation less than Mint.

As a consolation, consider this. If indeed 90% of Saints are AU, that only raises the value of AU Saints to what your MS Saints with "cabinet friction" or whatever you call it are trading for. They're not going to trade for less. The market forces of supply and demand and PCGS (oh, you didn't think PCGS is a market force?) aren't going to have it any other way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Agreed....but if there are 2 kinds of wear, only 1 is the dividing line between MS and AU.

The TPGs agree with it. Bowers and Akers have signed on to the grades for many prestigious collections, coins, and slabbed product.

If you have your way, then a ton of coins are going from MS to AU....we need grades all the way from AU-50 to AU-59 in 1 grade increments. You're still gonna have the entire 10 grade levels (AU-50, AU-51, AU-52, etc.) swamped by tons of coins such that it will be difficult to tell AU-55's or AU-58's apart. You really will need the "+" and "*" designations.

Is this more or less ridiculous than re-classifying several million coins from MS to AU ?

In theory, yeah. But theory and practice are totally different.

You'd have to FORCE the entire AU-quality of formerly MS-graded coins down to AU...true MS coins will now sell for even more, but the AU's will bring down their former MS pricing levels.

In theory.

I don't think that would or could happen but even if you could magically make it happen, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think worrying about wear on the high points of some soft-metal coins is splitting hairs. We may not like the way the hairs have been split, but it's done and I think even GD would think it's not going back.

Let's concentrate on more accurate grading given CURRENT rules and getting rid of counterfeiters, coin doctoring, etc.

 

You're all over the place, now. Let me just stop you, here. There are not "2 kinds of wear." That's the presumption you have to shake. There are different degrees of wear. Why? Wear is wear.

Let me be more succinct. Think what you're saying when you say there are "2 kinds of wear." You're saying there are "2 sources of wear." You're saying there are "2 modes of onset of wear." I agree. Everybody does. As a matter of fact, there are many different sources or modes of onset of wear. That's hardly full of news. Do you want to differentiate wear on the basis of what you can imagine is the source or mode of onset of the wear? Have at it. Nobody's stopping you. We're just laughing. Why? When something is smack up against one's nose, and one doesn't see it, well, that's kind of odd.

Let me be even more succinct. Look at the coin, keep your eyes trained on the coin. DON'T FOR ONE SECOND LET YOUR MIND'S EYE CAUSE YOU TO TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE COIN. One doesn't grade coins with one's mind's eye, one grades them with one's eyes. You start grading coins with your mind's eye, you're in trouble, as that's illusory, and a hard habit to quit. Grade them, rather, with your eyes, and on what your and everybody's eyes can see, rather than on what your mind's eye can imagine, and you got it. And that's all there is to it.