Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 7869340, member: 22331&quot;]I believe if the old objective standards were applied to &quot;market graded&quot; coins, we would no longer see an example as this &quot;P.Q.!!!!! Gem&quot;:</p><p><a href="https://www.ebay.com/itm/353486453223?hash=item524d6f39e7:g:7X0AAOSwxdtgldyG" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ebay.com/itm/353486453223?hash=item524d6f39e7:g:7X0AAOSwxdtgldyG" rel="nofollow">https://www.ebay.com/itm/353486453223?hash=item524d6f39e7:g:7X0AAOSwxdtgldyG</a></p><p><br /></p><p>A coin that has appreciable &quot;rub&quot;, scratches in fields/devices, extensive bag marks, lacking uniform luster, shouldn&#039;t have MS grading, much less Gem P.Q.!!</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe this is a possible extreme example of why coins in of such condition may deserve AU grading.</p><p><br /></p><p>I suspect a MS66 graded comparable could be found in lesser condition than one of my believed technically graded CACed less than MS65 grade (e.g. MS64+). Coins without wear signs, a few surface disturbances (i.e. sans bag-marks, rub, wear), having beautiful uniform &quot;cart-wheel&quot; luster in fields.</p><p><br /></p><p>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