RWB

True. But, it's a good way to get kindling for the hearth.

"Reply All"

Entirely valid and reasonable; and also shows how to ignore the advantages of appropriate technology, and misdirecting human ability to mundane applications.

The entire mint set for 2005 sells for a few dollars - far less than the dime for which someone paid $$$ to have stuck in plastic. Most mint set coins from 2005-2010 will grade Unc-67 or 68 -- sometimes a little better. Modern proof and mint sets often sell for less than original issue price. There are a few exceptions, but not many. They are wholesaled by the thousands.

If the OP wants to get into 1936-42 proofs, try the book United States Proof Coins 1936-42.

Can't wait for the matchbook covers.....They will be really hot!

RE: "... that would pretty much make a mockery of plus grading." Well, yes, because that is what 'plus grading' is. ALL assigned grades are bins with ranges. Little + or - or other squiggles are all based on these bins having no error margin, or having consistent overlap. The bins are nothing more than margin of error deviations from a non-existent "standard."

I do not feel any of the purposes or results have been accomplished. All of the so-called grades are biased and tainted by extraneous beliefs, assumptions, and greed. The only way to have truly honest coin/medal "grading," is to deliberately separate grading functions from market forces/valuation. That requires clear, known standards, uniformly applied; and total separation of condition assessment from all value opinion or assumption.

Agreed. With condition established by empirical standards, the subjective elements naturally become value adjustments based on the kinds of things you mentioned. TPGs no longer involved in valuing a coin; that is not their role. The purposes are: Consistency of condition determination. Separation of condition from value. Freedom from arbitrary market forces. Placement of subjective factors in the market. The results should be: Consistent grade regardless of when or by whom graded. Absence of grade inflation. Prices that reflect the real subjective market value of each piece.

Depends on how "done" you want 'em.

Broken News! Just checked the live 24/7 ANA Cam direct from Colorado Springs. Shows a baby giant panda emerging from an egg....Wow! ANA museum is really something. No people visible.

RE: "A standard can be defined. It is a set standard. In your example, as the science of measurement improved, the way to measure the standard changed. The same has happened to grading." Nope. I don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling that the writer of the above is clear about the meaning of a "standard" ...but anyway, it does not matter. There is no standard and never has been. In part that is because more money can be made by float than fix. Deception is easy that way.

My little images do not come from the Nikon "raw." Mine are already dressed up. Naked pixels are not a pretty sight.

Gray scale is fine. The artifacts prevent the image from showing the full resolution of the CCD and lens - that was my complaint. In other words, by using poor digital compression, you've lost much of the detail. (Note that this did not happen with film.)

? None at this address. I'll check the stable. One of the talking mules said he was a "stable genius" so I'll ask the horse and goats

RE: "But even "technical grading" without regard to market conditions can be subjective." If "technical grading" is based on an accepted, defined standard and empirical data, then it is subjective only in the standard, not the data. Science is constantly refining standards to remove variables and incorporate measurement improvements. The original definition of the meter was The meter was originally defined as "one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle." That was followed by increasingly precise and invariable definitions: from 1889 to 1960 as the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar (the “International Prototype Meter”) preserved at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris; from 1960 to 1983 defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red radiation of krypton 86 under specified conditions; [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meter] If there is no initial point, or no support for acceptance or improvement, then the little house of cards falls - which "grade inflation" and continued disagreement about basic issues indicate has happened.

Yes, you are mistaken. I assumed nothing about possible replies, so there was neither surprise or disappointment. They are nebulous which might also be useful to know. My personal opinion was/is not part of the question or responses, even though some seem to have assumed that.

Finding answers is why one asks questions; however, the answers might not be what the questioner expects. Individuals have personal perceptions, but multiple individuals often share concepts. The result can be a consensus.

For those, maybe WD-40 would be better?

Go to VAMworld.com to see detailed variety listings and photos. Suggest you post your photo on their discussion board for additional feedback.

It got too hot. Oxidized copper.

Pull out your daughter's E-Z-Bake oven. Brownies by light bulb.

No. I was asking a question - but not getting answers (with a couple of exceptions). The terms are tossed about as if "everyone understands them," yet when asked, few have a meaningful response -- more like "floating definitions." This is a problem - especially when applied to pseudo-accurate numeric grading. That is: piling ambiguities does not improve a "system."

That would be nice! However prices for rare gold and proof gold coins were stagnate until the late 1960s. To "clean up" you'd want to buy around 1925 or maybe 1938, then hold until the early/mid-1990s. The numismatic adventures of Rep. William Ashbrook (summarized in Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908) will give you an idea of prices and availability of what are now $500k coins.

However, the reality is that very few collected gold coins - even when they had the means. The relative proportions of collector income/enthusiasm groupings might be derived from average proof coin sales in the 1880s or 1890s. We have to also remember that there were no mintage listings or other aids for gold coins. There were a few scattered things for silver but not much, and almost nothing for minor coins. Letters to the Mint from collectors demonstrate that certain coins were known to be difficult to find - subsidiary silver of the 1880s for example. But there was not a peep about similar tiny mintages of gold.