Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="mikenoodle, post: 405345, member: 307"]Doug, you have to look no further than fundamental science to observe my point. Aristotle had definite ideas of motion and how the universe behaved, Galileo had a keener understanding and improved how we think of bodies in motion. Newton then evolved this thought a bit further until Einstein gave us the theory we use today. My parallel is this: Our grading system is not perfect, nor were Newton's laws of motion in predicting the movement of our universe. Einstein improved on them more, but yet his theory still doesn't account for some bodies' motion. In other words, even Einstein's theory is not 100% accurate and will have to be improved upon but in the interim, it is the best we have to work with and so we use it. A brockage error is still a brockage error, and I am NOT calling it an off-center strike. Those issues are either black-and-white or a matter of terminology. Grading clearly is not. I am advocating that we continue to refine the standards that we use to grade coins so that we can all grade them more accurately and more importantly, we can all somewhat agree on the grade. This happens though the EXCHANGE of ideas, not the proclamation of what is right and what is wrong. That is what I have been trying to get at.[/QUOTE]