for GD who says that he sticks with a definition regardless...I would ask him to remember when he decided to change the definition of the word dealer. When he said that a part time coin dealer is not a dealer in the real sense of the word....that only full time dealers are real dealers...I had to remind him that the definition of dealer is: One that is engaged in buying and selling It says nothing about full or part time. Providing this definition (a guideline if you will) didnt seem to change his opinion on the matter...thus he was going against the established definition of the word. Standards, guidelines and definitions change through time...in 30 years much can change and the 'pillars' of the hobby are human...not perfect and what they write is not, nor should it ever be considered sacrosanct. I would also say that its best not to follow 'pillars' because they you perceive them as such...but to examine and critique what they produce with no regard to them being perceived as 'pillars'. In such a subjective subject I would never lay down and accept something as law or the only acceptable way. In this I agree with Bonedigger when he says think for yourself. just 2 cents...I have found this line of discussion very interesting.
Kinda funny Drusus, but if you go back and look, those who are coin dealers also agreed with my definition. I guess perhaps I should a different question in regard to the discussion at hand - how can you take aspects of market grading, add them to existing practice for techincal grading - and still call it technical grading ?
maybe another question to ask the group is this: If we were to re-write the standards for grading, what aspects of the current system(s) would you include? Would there be any elements that you would add that currently don't exist in grading standards? Is there a hybrid of technical and market grading that we can develop and evolve past the current standards? Something that works better?
A shame coin dealers dont set the definitions of words...those words are defined by word 'gurus' who know much more about words and they have set the definition for this word long ago. My only point was, you dont stick strickly to an established definition when it suits you or, more importantly, when you think (possibly rightfully so) a certain situation calls to deviate from it or maybe that the definition isnt completely correct. My only point here. I dont agree with the definition of 'innovate'. I'll go back to reading. I dont want to derail the thread.
To be quite honest, there's not much that needs changed IMO. Do away with any value connection at all. Everybody follow the ANA standards and you're done.