Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Jaelus, post: 7859181, member: 46237"]This more than anything else you've said demonstrates that you're not getting my concept. I've heard so often here that wear is wear. The concept being that it doesn't make sense to treat wear differently based on the source. I agree with that completely. My concept is a natural extension of this. A surface impairment is a surface impairment. Meaning you grade based on the location and severity of an impairment (wear is just an impairment) and it doesn't matter what the source of the impairment is. It only matters that it happened post strike. That the MS70 is not mint state in my example after the light rub is not the point. The point is that the severity of the rub is exceptionally minor and the impairment should be judged solely on its location and severity. Please pay close attention to the truth in these next few sentences. The objective reality is that the coin has an extremely tiny impairment. That it is from wear does not inherently carry any special significance. It is only your belief that wear is special that makes you feel it should drop a mind-blowing 12 steps, when a different equally tiny impairment in the same location would only be a two point deduction. The key here is that your placement of special significance on wear is an arbitrary construct that works against precisely defining the state of the coin in an objective manner.[/QUOTE]