Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 7859124, member: 46237&quot;]It&#039;s kind of offensive that you assume that because I disagree with you on how something is done that it must be because I am uninformed.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am at a loss as to how to get through to you and others who are like minded that I am talking about a completely different method of evaluation that is not wear-centric. You and others seem unable to contemplate my scale from a non wear-centric point of view, and as such your criticisms are all based on wear. But in this system the wear is unimportant so you are quite spectacularly missing the point.</p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;re telling me that a coin with a touch of rub isn&#039;t mint state. I KNOW that. What I&#039;m telling you is that it is unimportant! Qualitatively a virtually uncirculated coin that otherwise has the appearance of a 64 IS BETTER THAN a dog of a 60 that is uncirculated in absolutely every way that matters. Common sense dictates that the better quality coin have a higher grade. Once you need to explain to someone why the nicer of the two coins has the lower grade, you should realize the system is a failure as the grades do not properly establish a quality hierarchy.</p><p><br /></p><p>Preferring an ugly dog of a 60 over a beautiful virtually uncirculated coin just because &quot;wear&quot; is nothing short of snobbery. The truth is that wear is just like any other type of surface damage. It doesn&#039;t do anything magical to the coin. The part of the grade to do with surface issues should only take into account their location and severity. It should not treat any one type of issue as being more significant than another.</p><p><br /></p><p>Please wrap your head around the concept that you can grade coins in a totally different way without putting any special significance as to whether surface issues have occured from wear friction or from another means. In my system I only care if damage occured post strike. Any post strike surface issues lower the grade commensurate with their severity and location. Period. You don&#039;t need to single out wear. It&#039;s not special. It just happens to be the most significant contributor to surface damage in coins as they become more circulated. On virtually uncirculated coins, wear is so insignificant as to almost not merit consideration.</p><p><br /></p><p>I know that&#039;s not how you think it should be done because you&#039;ve been drinking the wear kool aid for so long. My difference in opinion is not because I am uninformed, but because I can see that the existing system doesn&#039;t work and I&#039;m not afraid to propose something without those limitations, even if it is a radical departure.[/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