10-17-2002, 10:57 PM
Gentlemen,
I think you are confusing two different issues - condition and rarity. Rarity is determined by many factors, and one of them is the condition. I am not saying that a very worn and damaged medal is worthless, on the contrary, to me it is much more interesting, but it's a matter of personal preference.
Grading is used to describe condition only. Age, rarity, variation are totally unimportant for the purpose of grading. Krause system is far from perfect, but it has an advantage of being recognizable. When I describe a medal as XF, a customer would know that we are talking about minor wear. In more complicated cases I would certainly offer more information, like "old traces of polishing", "5% enamel damage", "major scratch at 12 o'clock position", etc. I also use "+"s and "-"s to indicate slightly better or worth condition. I believe this offers much more information then just "5 on a scale of 1 to 10", which BTW nobody uses except for Paul.
If I were to grade Eugene's medal, I guess I would describe it as "missing enamel at the top hand, otherwise XF". I agree it's not exactly a short description, but a piece of this magnitude deserves a very detailed description.
Dietrich, I understand what you are saying and very much respect your position, but in this case we are just talking about a system of convenience.
Alexei
I think you are confusing two different issues - condition and rarity. Rarity is determined by many factors, and one of them is the condition. I am not saying that a very worn and damaged medal is worthless, on the contrary, to me it is much more interesting, but it's a matter of personal preference.
Grading is used to describe condition only. Age, rarity, variation are totally unimportant for the purpose of grading. Krause system is far from perfect, but it has an advantage of being recognizable. When I describe a medal as XF, a customer would know that we are talking about minor wear. In more complicated cases I would certainly offer more information, like "old traces of polishing", "5% enamel damage", "major scratch at 12 o'clock position", etc. I also use "+"s and "-"s to indicate slightly better or worth condition. I believe this offers much more information then just "5 on a scale of 1 to 10", which BTW nobody uses except for Paul.
If I were to grade Eugene's medal, I guess I would describe it as "missing enamel at the top hand, otherwise XF". I agree it's not exactly a short description, but a piece of this magnitude deserves a very detailed description.
Dietrich, I understand what you are saying and very much respect your position, but in this case we are just talking about a system of convenience.
Alexei
