CAC Launching Grading Service

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

We'll see. BTW, I'll bet what is going on in the streets of France and Great Britain (unreported by our press) will eventually happen here.

 

Not quite. There was a full article on the strikes in France in the WSJ this morning. And WSJ has had articles in the last few days about the French refinery strikes and the strikes that are delaying the repairs to French nuclear power stations.

WSJ has had full coverage of the financial and political travails in GB over the last few weeks.

I won't take this any further as I am sailing dangerously toward forbidden waters.

 

I believe this is an oxymoronic situation where both parties are correct in their opposed positions where neither can singularly correct a believed illegal situation, requiring judgements by multiple courts.

An employee of a violating firm has concern for his position, and a firm client has concern for their investment.

Neither can accomplish change without assistance from others, either firm management, or court recognition of legal violation.

The firm management realize that they can acquire a figurative "loaf" of investments, a "slice" at a time, and a client may not have anything but the remaining empty wrapper stating value within.

An estate filing similar to action cited, or a litigious filing by a wealthy individual showing that unsupported changes caused a potential/realized loss will probably be the avenue for change.

The mechanism can be easily implemented by 2 actions, as seen by multiple actions against other firms who've repeatedly been corrected by the courts.

JMHO

 

What?

 

I prefer "Huh?" over "What?".

 

The long and short story is it's believed that clients are having their investments value stolen by illegal law violations, which knowledgeable individuals claim can't be reversed.

Believed subpoenas and precedents in a lawsuit would effect change.

JMHO

 

My preference is 'come again?'. Or......

 

Trying NOT using the words "believe" or "believed". And maybe try to tie it into the subject of the thread or at least reference whatever it is you are talking about?

 

I realize by the past essence of your posts that you lack understanding, as others responding, making statements rather than clarifying opinions.

Those words are legally necessitated in a response to a stated quote/?!

Just as you don't respond when suggesting a response by me related to initial thread subject! DUH! Arf, Arf, WOOF, to match your communication.

 

I have spent a lot of effort trying to decrypt the gentleman's meaning in his various posts. In this thread, I believe he is saying that coin owners have or will have their assets' values degraded (a monetary loss, therefore a potential legal tort) by changes in the grading standards. He uses a civil case where there was egregious mischaracterization that constituted fraud to justify his position.

Granted that tort cases in this country sometimes defy common sense, I don't believe that his argument would hold up if a particular or a class action suit was filed. The court case he cited demonstrated the variable nature of grading when performed by acknowledged experts. Secondly, so long as the service offered by a new grading standard is explicitly defined, therefore no fraud, then potential customers have the option of partaking or not.

I would suggest that his arguments would be clearer if he could refrain from the excessive use of adjectives and adverbs. Simple, declarative sentences work best.

 

These pretzels are making me thirsty! Back to the topic at hand, I may have missed it, when do they open for business (or have they?) what's it cost and who can submit? Is eBay going to accept their grades for listing purposes?

 

.

...and my opinion is this is nonsense, without a formal basis to establish fiduciary expertise.
Being able to offer an acknowledged expert Opinion without fiduciary responsibility is legal gobbledygobbledness.
Thus, my "What?" post.

 

Therein lies the problem. This is a coin forum. It is not a legal forum. Posts continuously written like a legal brief, or insinuating legal action or recourse, seems to put members off.

 

I'm certain if I reviewed with you the arguments/actions presented in the RICO charged action of the PCI affiliated lawsuit: https://forums.collectors.com/discu...arly-1-9-million-for-misrepresented-pci-coins
We'd concur upon lack of due process, improper procedure and application in applying RICO violation charge.

Regardless, current grading practices may be identical? , and the process is subjective when an objective system hasn't been voided, but changed to be subjective by photo.

JMHO

 

We are talking about an estimated 6-9 digit value amount problem in a forum where Dollar Silver Eagle value disparity has seemingly been a greater concern?

SOOOORRY! Enough Said!!

I bow to your agenda!!!

 

Question for you. How many people on this forum do you really think relate to a 6-9 digit value to their coin collection? I'm very sure there are a couple.

 

I never did cotton much to small-print-speak. Why try and start now? I'm nearly dead anyway.

 

Try to make sure you find one of these and drop your votes come November.


By the way, I am pulling for a CAC service to come in and shake up the Market,

 

2023

Havent announced prices, sounds like current CAC members will be able to submit but will need to do an application to do so. They're still working out all the details with everything which JA has said a few different times that he just doesnt know the answer to somethings yet.

What has been said though is they arent looking to be the highest volume and at least for now plan to keep who can submit limited instead of just letting anyone that wants to do it like the other TPGs.