Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;longnine009, post: 32316, member: 1886&quot;]Why not just keep the current system (since no one is going to abandon it anyway) but explain how the final grade was arrived at--how much weight was given to srike, luster, surfaces etc. Then the &quot;market&quot; would be a real market where buyers decide if they see the same things in the same strenghts. If they agree they&#039;ll pay if the don&#039;t they&#039;ll walk. That&#039;s how real markets are suppose to work. </p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s probably true&nbsp; that coin collectors can&#039;t grade the same way as the grading companies do. Why should they? How are they expected to learn anything from a net grade that tells them nothing as to how and why a grader came to that grade.&nbsp; Yet we&#039;ve been told almost from day one that to learn market grading we should buy lots O&#039; slabs and study them carefully.&nbsp; What are we studying, the Enigma machine?&nbsp; If you have no feed back as to what you see in&nbsp; strike, luster, surfaces ect.&nbsp; on a coin&nbsp; compared to what the grader says is there, where is the learning process? Where is the learning process in anything that has no feed back loop?</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t believe the problem is with&nbsp; numerical grading itself. It&#039;s just a short hand for discriptive grading. If grading is to be more advanced than pointing and grunting, discriptions, whether in long hand or short hand are necessary. The problem, IMO, is that a net grade with no break down as to how it was arrived is an&nbsp; un-decipherable discription better suited for&nbsp; cartels than&nbsp; free markets.[/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