Leaderboard

Hi Gents/Ladies Cremation has happened and my mates / Mrs Peter friends didn't let me down. I'm at home emotionally and physically drained. I pity some of the Bury St eds pubs as a quiet wake at one of our village pubs was getting boozy and the majority were going into Bury. Before she started telesales from home. She was a dinner supervisor and teachers assistant at the village primary school. We got some beautiful cards from some of the kids,they referred to her as Superwoman Simpson. She would peel kids oranges and apples and walk around the playground holding some of the kids hands. She also dragged my 2 daughters to the school at 7am so working parents/single parents could drop off their kids and go to work. The Head Mistress told me she never got paid for this but Alison always thought outside of the box and saw the bigger picture. I surely will miss her. We still get a Terry's chocolate orange left on our door step at Xmas. My fondest regards to you Forum friends Peter Simpson

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws? Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash. In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise. In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)! Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.