<https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/425649-buy-the-coin-not-the-holder/#comment-9778907>
<http://schema.org/text>
"To the extent that you're saying that an AU50 coin (even one correctly graded) isn't, in fact, \"almost [or about] uncirculated,\" I certainly agree. Heck, even the AU55 that I bought doesn't make me pull out the magnifying glass to see signs of circulation (unlike my 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent--AU58--which shows no obvious signs of wear).  \n\tBut I don't particularly care about the label, only the number.  I believe that coins' conditions cover a wide range, and a 70-point scale (or, more realistically, a 30-point scale) can be more useful than bunching a fairly wide range of conditions into one grade.\n \n\n\n\tSo yeah, let's call 40-55 \"extremely fine,\" and reserve AU for 58.  Just like we have a 20-point range for \"very fine.\"  But, in my opinion (and I readily acknowledge neither particular expertise nor a long-term passion for serious collecting nor caring about determining how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin--I'll never own a valuable MS67 coin, and I have a great deal of trouble convincing myself that dividing \"uncirculated\" coins into eleven classifications makes any sense), that's shifting deck chairs on the \"Titanic.\"  \n\tTo me, as a guy who has spent (to me, at least) a lot of money on this hobby, and expects to continue buying rare, fairly high grade coins (but not MS65+) for the foreseeable future, the issue is the meaning of a particular numerical grade, not the words (e.g., \"AU\" or \"EF\") attached to the number.  I would prefer a world where \"50\" meant something quite predictable, and I'm not finding that.\n \n\n\n\tMark\n \n"
<https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/425649-buy-the-coin-not-the-holder/>