Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2093909, member: 112&quot;]They are not on the same page at all, not even close. If you read the ANA grading book, and read the PCGS grading book - they are entirely and completely different. What&#039;s worse, PCGS does not even grade coins based on the standards written in their own book.</p><p><br /></p><p>Codicils and footnotes ? Huh ? </p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s pretty simple, you can Google it, you look it up in any book you want (except the PCGS book) and the very definition of an MS coin is a coin that shows no wear. That&#039;s it, period.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is no exception, there is no excuse, there is no anything, that ever says that the wear can be caused by this or caused by that and therefore that wear doesn&#039;t count and isn&#039;t really wear at all. The definition is simple, straightforward, and explicitly clear - it says than an MS coin, and uncirculated coin, is one that shows no wear. There are no quantifiers or qualifications - wear is wear, regardless of what causes it.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is in the PCGS book, and ONLY in the PCGS book, where you will find that wear from this or that doesn&#039;t matter. And that the only wear that does matter is wear that is received from a coin being in actual circulation.</p><p><br /></p><p>The problem with that, and it should be extremely obvious, is that there is no way, none, to tell what actually caused any wear on a coin. The only thing you can tell is that the wear is indeed there, or not there.[/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