Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;robp, post: 5007588, member: 96746&quot;]I think a lot of the issues arise from a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The paucity of slabbed examples for many types, particularly the esoteric, tells me that they have relatively little experience with some of the rarer pieces. All the above pieces would fall into that category. In a worst case example, a unique coin with a unique design means you have no reference point. The same could also be said for the many types where there is only a single slabbed example, albeit of what is a relatively common coin. Just as I wouldn&#039;t expect to grade US coins to a given slab number without a level of experience, they are probably in the same boat with many foreign issues. I have a few Peck 1053 pattern halfpennies and the grading on them was all over the place just as with the above pieces. Then there is my formerly 65 slabbed 1673 1/2d which was actually 1675/3/2 (they couldn&#039;t even get the date right), or my 1721 halfpenny that was in a 65 slab, but when I took it out found a significant flaw in the edge, which according to previous posts should have been downgraded for that, being a defect, after all, most of the laminating flan Victorian decimal patterns appear consistently with a 63 label. And best not get me started on 64 Cameo patterns that should be in an unc details (repaired) slab or similar.</p><p><br /></p><p>I appreciate there is supposed to be a set of rules, but it doesn&#039;t explain why they seemingly fail to stick to them so frequently.[/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