Quote:
zxcccxz, and there in one or two lines we define the difference between technical and market grading!
Both need to address the fact that gold is a soft metal and the early coins really did circulate and accumulate the marks from it.
Technical grading says this amount of contact and wear = this grade, this amount more is this lower grade. And if it means there is no such animal as an XX-## then s'beit, there are just no coins with that amount of wear.
And then the slippery slope appears. What do you mean there is no such coin as an XX-##? I want to buy one... So then you adjust things saying from here to here is the best 10% of reality so those are your XFs. This is the next 25% which must be your VFs. And now you are grading on a curve.
Yup - market grading - where all our coins are above average (with apologies to Garrison Keillor).
And I didn't say Guess the PCGS grade, so I can't vote you off the island :-)
Indeed. This is where I get a little cranky, because I do not agree that coins of the same series and type should be graded different simply based on factors such as rarity or collector pressure. Sure, a difference in strike or similar factors are fair game IMO when grade scaling based on Mint or date, but scaling a coin's grade or giving it a problem-free designation simply based on there being a lack of problem-free specimens is wrong. I understand that gold is a soft metal and that the larger coins are more susceptible to rim dings and such, and so it's fair to be a little easier when grading them as compared to copper or silver or smaller coins. However there shouldn't be such a large disparity between coins of the exact same type, size, composition and era simply based on collector pressure.
This is all my opinion of course, I'm not a huge collector of US gold, and the few that I do have are not rare dates either, so what do I know. Your coin is still very nice, but I thought I'd explain my reasoning behind "XF-40 Details" is all.
First Page
Posted 06/02/2015 12:56 am
