Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2096540, member: 112&quot;]Oh, something simple Paul, it&#039;s called logic. Every single business strike coin released by the mint for use in circulation has been put into bags, so all of them are subject to high point friction from being on those bags. And since high point friction is nothing but a euphemism for high point wear, then all of them, all coins, are subject to this high point wear from being in bags - not just Saints.</p><p><br /></p><p>And before you try and tell me that isn&#039;t so because Saints are gold and the metal is softer than silver and copper, what about all of other gold coins that are not Saints ? They are made of exactly the same gold alloy that Saints are, and they were all issued in bags, so how can this rule apply to just Saints and not to them ? Obviously it cannot.</p><p><br /></p><p>But wait a minute, if you actually read the PCGS grading standards that rule does not apply to just Saints, it does apply to all coins. So what PCGS tries to get people to believe is that any coin with high point wear can still be graded as MS because at one time it was in a bag with other coins. So that wear <u>might</u> have been, <u>may</u> have been, caused by friction between the coins while they were in the bags. </p><p><br /></p><p>Then they provide even more qualifiers and make statements like - </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;The larger sized coins are allowed more friction than are the smaller coins.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;The softer the metal, the more friction is allowed.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Coin of older types are allowed more friction than are modern types.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>You see Paul, you said it quite well. Yeah, a lot of people &quot;choose&quot; to believe in the PCGS philosophy. Why ? Because it allows them to have their AU coins graded as MS. They <u>want</u> their coins graded as MS, they <u>don&#039;t want</u> AU coins. So they believe what they want to believe. In spite of the fact that logic dictates otherwise. In spite of the fact that wear is wear regardless of what caused it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then there&#039;s those nagging contradictions like your claim that - </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So what contradiction ? How about this one ? The PCGS definition of AU58 - </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;There will be slight wear on the highest points of the coin. In some cases, 5x magnification is needed to notice this wear, and in sometimes it can be noticed by slowly tilting the coin in the light source.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>It doesn&#039;t say anything about needing to see wear in the fields for the coin to be AU. It says, and quite plainly, slight wear on the highest points. And that this wear can be so slight that 5x magnification is sometimes need to even see it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I will agree with you, when it comes to actual grading PCGS will not grade coins as AU unless there is wear in the fields. But their own written and published grading standards say otherwise. I&#039;d call that a contradiction. And that&#039;s just one of many.[/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