Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;BUncirculated, post: 1541198, member: 29581&quot;]Now how can PCGS take roll friction into any account when they can&#039;t distinguish the difference between roll friction, pocket friction, and Mike&#039;s cabinet friction, or any other type of friction, which is the sole cause of wear on a coin?</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s a contradiction Paul and IMO, a serious enough contradiction to to have a profound impact on their reliability as well as their reputation, and consistency in grading. </p><p><br /></p><p>That chart I cut and pasted in my previous post, twice now for two people, says nothing about roll friction, or any friction for that matter. It does mention of marks, hairlines, and also mentions strike fullness. </p><p><br /></p><p>Reading their standards for 60-70, no where does it mention anything about certain types of friction wear being excluded for any of the uncirculated grades. </p><p><br /></p><p>NFN, though they may not be worded identically, but they are saying the same thing as the ANA standards, which PCGS used up until they wrote their own grading standards for their graders to adhere to. </p><p><br /></p><p>It shows a lack of consistency in their grading to allow certain types of wear to slide into an MS grade, when there is no real distinction, or ability by anyone including the TPGs, to be able to distinguish the cause of the wear, which really is an insignificant point when you get right down to it.[/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