Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;iPen, post: 3189469, member: 69760&quot;]But what about hand antiquing say, half the mintage of a given circulation type? So, let&#039;s say half of the 2019 circ strike ASEs are given an antiquing finish wherein Mint workers antique the coins by hand. The other half would be regular circulation strike offerings. IMHO, I think that the process alone matters, even if all of the medals were holed by hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, if <i>all</i> of the medals were holed, then they&#039;d probably strike it with a hole in it already. But as far as holing the medal by hand, I personally think that that is damage, which is why I am confused by the TPG&#039;s grading philosophy. But then again, there may be an ancient minting process that required holing coins by hand after the design was struck... so then that philosophy wouldn&#039;t hold up completely.</p><p><br /></p><p>And, holing and antiquing seem to be on two different sides of the fence to many numismatists. While some others will say that any work done by hand after striking is damage. I&#039;m not sure how I feel about these &quot;gray&quot; area finishes, but I&#039;m leaning more towards anything that is done after the strike, especially by hand, is <i>technically </i>damage. That would of course exclude ancient coins made by say hammering by hand, and other <i>striking</i> processes that are similarly done by hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>But overall, I think we&#039;re in agreement and I&#039;m echoing our sentiments about this grading philosophy.[/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