Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 7868403, member: 24314&quot;]Jaelus, posted: &quot;It&#039;s also easier to teach people to grade on this scale. I have a Peace dollar that is a 58. In hand it looks superior to my 65. Aside from the very slightest rub, <b>it <i>presents like </i>a 66.</b> [<i><span style="color: #660033">Bingo!&nbsp; That is exactly what a strictly graded AU-58 is supposed to look like back in the day.&nbsp; A $20 Saint as this was an exhibit in a Federal Trade Commission court case.&nbsp; I graded it AU-58.&nbsp; Most dealer &quot;experts&quot; graded the coin MS-65.&nbsp; The coin had A TRACE OF (friction) WEAR.]</span></i> It&#039;s very easy to explain this looks like a 66 with virtually no wear so it is a Q65+ AU. What&#039;s hard to explain is why a coin that puts my MS65 (Q65 MS) to shame should be relegated to a 58.&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>Jaelus, posted: </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;As an antiquarian, a large part of my library is books related to numismatics, dating back to the 17th century, so I have some insights into changing trends and what is or is not acceptable on subjects like conservation. What connoisseurs like is itself somewhat subjective, however, the reason connoisseurs prefer uncirculated coins is <i>not</i> because the coin is uncirculated, but because there is a strong correlation between great eye appeal and uncirculated surfaces. <b><span style="color: #b30000">You seem to imply that those connoisseurs would prefer an ugly toned and extremely baggy MS60 over a beautiful AU58 and it&#039;s just not the case.&quot;</span></b></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="color: #660033">Bingo! You have stumbled into one of the main reasons the &quot;TRUE Technical Grading System&quot; used to identify coins did not work in the commercial market resulting in the establishment of PCGS.&nbsp; Since a coin&#039;s EYE APPEAL presented a very huge variable in determining its condition and thus identification, it was one of the variables such as strike or value that was not needed.&nbsp; That coin would be graded exactly how it is today using marks: MS-65, Choice (that was 65 back then) Uncirculated; weakly struck with ugly toning</span></i>. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Jaelus, posted: &quot;Yes I would <i>not</i> grade that as MS64. [<i><span style="color: #660033">CAC &amp; professional graders have.&nbsp; They and not you evaluated the coin and what we think is just an opinion based on our personal standards that HAVE NO STANDING in the grading system.&nbsp; You don&#039;t mind the wiggle room and REJECT a strict &quot;line&quot; for MS that you believe has been crossed with this coin.]</span></i> It&#039;s a circulated coin so it should not be in an MS slab. I would grade it as AU64 or Q64 AU depending on which notation style you prefer. The problem is not that the coin is in a 64 slab, it is that we have coupled the &quot;MS&quot; prefix to 60-67, ignoring the absolute fact that coins with a touch of rub still increase in quality well past 58.&quot; <span style="color: #660033"><i>[I agree. T</i><span style="color: #660033"><i>hat&#039;s why the AU/MS line should be extremely tight so a coin is not AU one day and MS-something the next.&nbsp; Grade any coin for what it is (example: AU-53 and price it as MS-whatever.&nbsp; Then no knowledgeable dealer/collector/TPGS professional would disagree on its actual condition.&nbsp; </i><span style="color: #660033"><i>The first question I ask students is what is the purpose of grading.&nbsp; They ALWAYS reply to put a <b>value </b>on a coin.&nbsp; As long as that remains the case there will not be a precise, unchanging, simple to understand grading system as we once had. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />post: 7864461, member: 46237&quot;]A fair point, but I&#039;m not sure in this example you can decouple quality and value.] </i></span></span></span><span style="color: #000000">For example take two of the exact same coin, one MS70 and one MS60. Give each a touch of rub and grade them both AU58. One is going to be a lot more valuable than another, but it&#039;s also because of the increase in quality - and that difference in quality between those coins and the spread inbetween them is worlds greater than what can be described in one grade. Which is exactly why market grading exists.&quot;</span></p><p><br /></p><p>baseball21, posted: &quot;Agreed.&nbsp; If anything the letters just confuse people. <i><span style="color: #660033">[Perhaps, those are just a few <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie30" alt=":bucktooth:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> people.]</span></i>[/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