Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1543572, member: 15309&quot;]If the ANA grading standards say that minor high point wear from roll/cabinet friction does not make a coin a circulated coin, then what you just posted is wrong.&nbsp; Remember, this isn&#039;t the TPG standards, this is your precious ANA standards that I am talking about.&nbsp; How can you point to the ANA standards as your basis for the &quot;wear is wear&quot; philosophy when the ANA standards themselves don&#039;t agree with you.</p><p><br /></p><p>Furthermore, are you claiming that Morgan Dollars from a sealed bag have been circulated?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The remainder of Doug&#039;s post and that thread is related to the TPG grading practices and how Doug classifies them as value grading rather than market grading.&nbsp; <b>That is why I omitted it </b>and none of that is relevant to our current conversation.&nbsp; All we are discussing is whether or not the ANA&#039;s grading standards allow for high point wear on MS coins under certain circumstances.&nbsp; That&#039;s it, nothing else!&nbsp; Stop trying to muddy the situation with irrelevant nonsense.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>PCGS was founded in 1986 and NGC was founded in 1987.&nbsp; I don&#039;t care when your article is dated.&nbsp; Doug&#039;s post clearly shows that the market grading standards published by the ANA were done so in 1987 which coincides with the inception of PCGS and NGC.&nbsp; To say that it was not possible to be a collaborative effort is disingenuous to say the least.&nbsp; Furthermore, if the ANA grading standards are so different from that of the TPG&#039;s, why has the ANA endorsed NGC as the official grading service of the ANA since 1997?[/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