Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2448209, member: 19463&quot;]I suppose this is just an opinion but I consider &#039;good for the grade&#039; to have a rather specific meaning.&nbsp; In general, I do not see it as appropriate to use for higher grades but starting at Fine, there are certain coins that are most certainly more desirable than most that would be graded in a like manner but that simply can not qualify for a higher grade.&nbsp; The Titus above is a perfect example of this since the head detail can&#039;t allow VF but that coin is way better than the average Fine.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Orfew&#039;s Caesar is as worn as a coin can get and still be identifiable on the reverse but those familiar with the type can name the animal and see legend below not expected on a coin gradable as Poor.&nbsp; The obverse is really bold for a coin that worn and the banker&#039;s mark does not destroy the portrait.&nbsp; Most people would have to assign that coin a split grade (VG/Pr?) but someone looking for a Caesar portrait might be quite happy to have a coin with nice smooth surfaces.</p><p><br /></p><p>Good for the grade coins will have centering that shows legends and surfaces that show little texture (roughness, porosity) which are only compromised by what we call good old honest wear.&nbsp; When you get to a grade of VG or below, you hope that the bad points are mostly on unimportant parts of the coin.&nbsp; I do not care if the back of the portrait blends with the field but I want the nose to separate clearly.</p><p><br /></p><p>When legends start to disappear we can prefer that the letters that leave are not as important as the ones that stay.&nbsp; Denarii of Otho are often seen worn to VG but a &#039;good for grade&#039; coin will retain the letters OTHO even if the rest of the legends are gone.&nbsp; Other coins are made special by some dating device.&nbsp; If what makes a coin special is that device, a &#039;good for grade&#039; coin will be readable there.&nbsp; I&#039;d rather have a &#039;good for grade&#039; Fine than a so-so VF in many cases or a completely unworn EF that can not be identified to date, ruler or mint without resorting to style or die identification.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/die02.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Above are three coins from the same die of Septimius Severus that have the relatively scarce obverse legend ending in IICO.&nbsp; The middle one is off center losing the important letters. The one on the right has them weakly; the one on the left shows them clearly.&nbsp; Were the two on the outside to be carried in pocket until they were worn equal to the center one, the right one would lose the IICO while the left one would be a Fine &#039;good for grade&#039; which I would rather have than the middle coin on the day it was made.</p><p><br /></p><p>Aegina turtles might be quite worn but &#039;good for grade&#039; if they have a head, tail and four legs even if worn to Fine while there are EF&#039;s missing five of the six appendages.&nbsp; The requirements to be &#039;good for grade&#039; will obviously differ from type to type and coin to coin but, largely, it means that the coin is better looking than a coin bearing that letter grade needs to be.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know if NGC ever grades a coins as VG 5/5, 5/5 but that sounds like a coin I would love to own.</p><p><br /></p><p>Who has a better definition?[/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