Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GoldFinger1969, post: 4027599, member: 73489&quot;]<b>Comments on the Numismatic News article:</b></p><p><br /></p><p>(1)&nbsp; The dichotomy between AU58/55&#039;s and MS60&#039;s has been well-documented.&nbsp; It&#039;s a &quot;glitch&quot; focused on appearance between great-looking CIRCULATED coins and mediocre-looking UNCIRCULATED ones.&nbsp; It may or may NOT be because of improper grading, IMO.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m a bit confused by the article though:&nbsp; <i>is the author saying that we the buyers should NOT be pricing AU&#039;s higher than low-60&#039;s MSs....or is he saying that the AUs should be MS&#039;s and the MS&#039;s should be AU&#039;s ?</i></p><p><br /></p><p>If a coin is TECHNICALLY Mint State and another is TECHNICALLY About Uncirculated, don&#039;t blame the buying public if they want to pay a bit more for the AU over the MS.&nbsp; Same thing with bills:&nbsp; lots of AU&#039;s look better (margins !) than low-MS 60&#039;s because the paper imperfections in the AU might not be visible under normal circumstances.</p><p><br /></p><p>(2)&nbsp; <i>Is the author complaining that the low-60&#039;s MS should be low-AU&#039;s, priced below true AU58&#039;s ? </i> I don&#039;t think he&#039;s saying that the AU&#039;s should be MS based on price paid by the public, right ? </p><p><br /></p><p>(3)&nbsp; I don&#039;t see decimal or 0-100 grading coming anytime soon.&nbsp; JMHO.[/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