Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 2095973, member: 15309&quot;]There is nothing absurd about that quote, especially when you understand the context in which it was written.&nbsp; Calling a coin that has been a pocket piece for 7 years uncirculated because it was never spent is absurd, especially when the coin in question is a gold bullion coin that are never used in commercial transactions. </p><p><br /></p><p>There is a fundamental difference in grading philosophies.&nbsp; Your philosophy is an absolute, &quot;wear is wear&quot; and any coin with wear can&#039;t be graded higher than AU.&nbsp; You are well aware that coins can develop high point friction without ever being in circulation, you simply don&#039;t care.&nbsp; PCGS is also aware that coins can develop high point friction without ever being in circulation.&nbsp; They address this problem with series that are plagued by the problem by insisting on a higher level of proof to deem a coin AU than simple high point friction, which can be obtained very easily by roll/bag friction.&nbsp; If the wear does not extend to the fields or does not show a dull discoloration, they consider the high point friction to be roll/bag friction and grade the coin as an uncirculated coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>Their grading policy regarding roll/bag friction is logical, clear, and accepted by the numismatic community.&nbsp; You are free to disagree with their opinion.&nbsp; But what gives you the right to tell others who believe that the PCGS philosophy is the correct one that they are wrong?[/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