Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 5130230, member: 15309&quot;]The problem being discussed here is specific to the AU58 grade.&nbsp; All the lower AU grades have enough loss of detail and luster that the preservation of the surfaces shouldn’t matter. When discussing AU58s where the friction is restricted solely to the high points and will in many cases be as slight as friction that we excuse as roll/cabinet friction, why should every coin be relegated to AU58 grade with an AU58 price, irrespective of overall surface quality.&nbsp; As has been discussed, often an AU58s will have better eye appeal and quality than coins in the MS60-62 range.&nbsp; I have absolutely no problem with the TPGs adopting AU grades to recognize both that the coin has wear (AU) and a numerical grade commensurate to the surface preservation (63-67).</p><p><br /></p><p>This coin is a decent example of what I’m talking about.&nbsp; The TPG has said the coin is an AU58 due to trace high point wear.&nbsp; But it also has premium gem (66) surfaces</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/iCPkSjt.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/H43Nikz.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>So I would have no problem if they graded this coin AU66 and let the market determine the price.&nbsp; The reason this coin is not a great example is because in AU58 it is a $2 coin and in MS66 it is a $25 coin, so who really cares, right?&nbsp; But imagine you had a coin with a $500-$1000 price spread between AU58 and a gem grade.&nbsp; It would seem criminal to punish a gem grade coin with a touch of high point wear that much.[/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