I find a 70-point grading scale that uses less than 70 values and then throws in pluses to be absolutely ridiculous. Use integers, use real numbers, add some symbols, maybe some letters. It all seems very logical.
But I also don’t want to have to resubmit all my 58s to stay as highly ranked as I am in my Circulated/Everyman Registry Type Sets, so I’m glad so few voted yes.
@MarkInDavis said:
I find a 70-point grading scale that uses less than 70 values and then throws in pluses to be absolutely ridiculous. Use integers, use real numbers, add some symbols, maybe some letters. It all seems very logical.
I'm guessing pluses were used because all integers above 60 were already in use and that's where additional resolution was needed at the time.
Of course, just imagine all the opportunity if decimals were used like 69.5
I always chuckle when people say there are AU58s that look better than 65s. Sure I have seen a few that are better than low end 62, maybe a handful of “yah but” 63s. Plenty of 61, 62 & 63s that could technically be 58s but those exceptions. The vast percentage of 58s are just high luster AUs and suffer from the typical ailments of low range UNCs. I can’t recall seeing one that truly outshined even avg GEMs
Comments
I find a 70-point grading scale that uses less than 70 values and then throws in pluses to be absolutely ridiculous. Use integers, use real numbers, add some symbols, maybe some letters. It all seems very logical.
It makes sense to me that there should be 59s.
But I also don’t want to have to resubmit all my 58s to stay as highly ranked as I am in my Circulated/Everyman Registry Type Sets, so I’m glad so few voted yes.
Mr_Spud
All AU59 would do is encourage people to submit for low MS like AU58 does now.
We brokedicks would jump on that 59+ pitch in ads. I like the sound of that: “crack out artist”.
I'm guessing pluses were used because all integers above 60 were already in use and that's where additional resolution was needed at the time.
Of course, just imagine all the opportunity if decimals were used like 69.5
I always chuckle when people say there are AU58s that look better than 65s. Sure I have seen a few that are better than low end 62, maybe a handful of “yah but” 63s. Plenty of 61, 62 & 63s that could technically be 58s but those exceptions. The vast percentage of 58s are just high luster AUs and suffer from the typical ailments of low range UNCs. I can’t recall seeing one that truly outshined even avg GEMs
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
And the Landslide is beginning to form...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Don't you think these fine tuned adjustments can just be made by the collector using their wallet? James