Featured An examination of the counterfeit slab epidemic. Scope and advice.

good one. The point of telling him my career was @Marshall insinuated that I'm a "millennial pollster". I was just helping him see just how far off and ridiculous he was.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you for your service. Your tours sound eerily like my third son who began as a private in Iraq (4th Armored), a tour in Afghanistan (101st Airborne) as a sargent and another after completing his Honors in Engineering at Michigan Tech and Officer Training for a second tour in Afghanistan (101st Airborne) as a lieutenant. He just recently received a medical discharge as a Captain for a progressive illness unrelated to his service. (Myotonic Distrophy)

Now to avoid the confusion, the 12.5% figure was for 100 coins in slabs so 12.5% of 1% to arrive at your .00125 figure. I do not question your training, just whether you have been taught why you're making your calculation rather than how to make your calculations.

My criticism is primarily with the education establishment for ignoring theory in pursuit of function. You may disagree, but I've lived it and you at best can only read about it. In some ways, you are a victim.

 

Slab kits for sale? Is this something new? Lighthouse Everslabs have been around for years... what’s the big deal? I buy them, does it make me a counterfeiter?

 

These are not Lighthouse Everslabs. They are deceptive copies of PCGS and NGC slabs. Big difference.

Good try though.

 

I only brought up my service to counter your ridiculous comment and false stereotype of millennial pollster. I thank you for your son's service and prefer not to discuss that subject any further.

12.5% of 1% is obviously .00125. I don't know what you think you are instructing me on. The discussion surrounding .00125 was the probability that a slab was fake. If you have 100 slabs, the probability that they are fake is still .125%. The probability doesnt change because there are 100 slabs. 100 just becomes the n in the probability equation. I certainly hope you don't tell me that if there's 1,000 slabs, that the chances of them being fake are 125%. It's admittedly been almost 2 decades since I dealt with binomial probability, but a probability cannot be greater than 100% (or actually, 1), so this fails the common sense test. I admit that it's been a decade or two since I've messed with binomial probabilities, but I'm quite certain that isn't how it works. The theory doesnt fit the math you tried. It is precisely because I'm capable of doing more than absentmindedly converting .125% into a decimal by moving it two places that I've called this out.

You also have no idea what or how I was taught (well over 20 years ago when I started learning fractions and decimals), so I find it ironic that you feel equipped to comment on the subject. Even more ironic, is you have done exactly what you've accused me of and gotten the solution incorrect. It appears the the only person incapable of applying theory and falling victim of their education is you.

And since I know you'll never admit to being wrong and retract your incorrect statements, I'll go ahead and sign off with a fitting meme.

 

Wow, went to the Atlanta ANA and checked back to see this one still going and going...

It's always interesting when one has to list his credentials in the heat of the argument to help support his point of view, or gain empathy for his/ her position? I do respect any and all who have served this Country though.

At the Show I attended a Money Talks presentation about the counterfeit "issue" and the ACTF- most of the attendees were unaware and quite interested in the subject matter even though the material was somewhat dated. I have attached the file here to add to the pile...

 

I literally explained to you why this was incorrect.

 

Okay so .00125 is the same as .125%. IF we agree that this is the number of fake slabs in the population, it just means that on average there are 1.25 fakes for every 1000 slabs. It is NOT the same as probability of pulling a fake slab from the pool of all slabs or having a fake slab in a random 100 slabs.
First we do not have a perfect random drawing because not all slabs are available to pull from equally, plus no one just randomly select a slab to purchase. That said, IF we had a huge bag of all the slabs , both fake and real, and we some how could randomly sample that bag the correct equation for pulling a fake slab would be the inverse of the probability of pulling a real slab 100 times in a row. A pool of 8 million would render the sample size of 100 as insignificant for the with or without replacement as someone pointed out. So .99875 would be the probability of pulling a real slab from the pool based on our math assumption (which we know is flawed).

However the equation, I believe, would be 1-(.99875 to the 100th power). I am on my phone and can't make a 100 superscript after the 5. Whether that totals .125 I don't know...calculator on the phone is also a challenge to figure out...

 

You were and are using the wrong equations for this theoretical situation as is @Seattlite86.

 

He accused me of being a millennial pollster and claimed I'm a victim of subpar education. I simply clarified just how wrong he was on all accounts, except that I'm a millennial. I've received one if the best educations in the US and provide a service to the US. I didn't bring up my credentuals for any other reason, so spare me the claim that I said I'm a soldier to win the argument. My position on the OP's post should be treated no differently were I to be out of work, or retired from being a mail clerk. It changes nothing. I just despise those who have a narrow and negative view of millennials like we are scourges on the earth. We are literally your generation's products and also your future.

Yes you did, which had me scratching my head on why he still thinks it accurate, or why @Marshall trying to defend it and tell me I have it wrong because I'm a victim of my education... anyway, thank you for providing the formula for it and clarifying the number.

 

Usually if you turn your phone to landscape, you will get a scientific calculator screen.

 

So my calculation comes to .117572 or 11.7572% chance (if I did it correctly).

 

This is correct for a single random sampling of 100. @Jaelus got this right in the beginning but then changed the probability equation that he used the first time.

 

Who's generation? You don't know me and quite frankly I'm sick of your sad opinions and views; pretty pathetic to screw up a discussion of an important topic with your rubbish. I hope an admin comes forward to put this out of its misery...

 

I should've used "their" to be more general; didn't mean to imply you were included in that note, it was just a general statement. And I didn't screw up the discussion, I brought up several significant flaws with it only to be lambasted with personal attacks. You're certainly not helping with distracting from the conversation. Pot... kettle...

 

I will add that it's tiring to hear naysayers just sayings fake whatever because it is not affecting them now or they just don't perceive it so it cant be a real problem. Covid-19, fake slabs or coins, heart disease, racism, climate change, the list goes on and on. These are real problems that need our attention and should not to be marginalized. So someone used the wrong word to try to throw light onto the problem of fake slabs. Doesn't have quantifiable statistics. Does that mean the whole premise is false? No. Even with all the scientific proof and quantifiable data that HAS been presented and is undeniable regarding climate change, people still say it is a hoax. And don't go asking me where that data is and show me now. It is out there and you can look it up for yourselves, as Will Rogers used to say.

 

The issue with this article is two-fold: it overstates the current problem, and then comes to an illogical conclusion. The answer was "stop buying from the company who created the most secure method to avoid this, you just have to pay for it" instead of "be more careful with both and consider these suggestions." Should more be done to combat these? Certainly. Does that burden fall on the TPGs? I'm not convinced they haven't both responded well enough to help combat the issue. If someone really is concerned about fake slabs, buying only PCGS Gold Shield is the absolute safest method on the market. Spend a little more, be more secure.

 

Education is always the first step,of course. How do we get the word out to the newbies who get their information on coins from Utube? For those folks that can't afford the coins that come with Gold Shield, even if they knew what that is? Civil discussions on these matters are paramount. I agree too much reliance on TPGs, top tier or not, is not a good thing. As others have said, the market will tell whether the TPGs have responded adequately to protect their product. ultimately every fake slab out there diminishes their brand name.

 

I think the answer is no change to what we already say anyway: buy the coin, not the slab. Learn about the coin before buying and be sure to get the best deal. I don't see how this article contributes anything, or changed that advice, all it does it take an unneccessary dig at PCGS.

 

If you want to be technical, the average global temperatures have been on a rising trend for centuries, and they have been in flux for billions of years. That is a fact. Is it completely due to carbon emissions? That is where the conjecture in the scientific community is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/05/03/breaking-news-the-climate-actually-changes/



In the period between 1870 and 1900, when factories were puffing out smoke like never before seen, global temperatures actually went down for several years. Same thing happened after WWII. Hmmmm...