Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;BooksB4Coins, post: 2745091, member: 36230&quot;]Fair enough, but when &quot;teaching&quot; a child to walk do you expect them to hurdle first, or take it in baby steps? Your point is most certainly excellent, and not that you care, but is also one I personally agree with. However, when so many are so easily tripped up by a single letter, is it really wise to possibly confuse them even more by jumping into the single squeeze discussion? Perhaps it is; I really don&#039;t know. Just playing devil&#039;s advocate here.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, and in regards to those who have &quot;profited&quot;, I cannot help but to view this in the same way I do grading as a whole. The standards I was initially taught were much more conservative than those used by the then-new PCGS or NGC, and have stuck with me to this day. Now, it&#039;s hard to reasonably argue that standards haven&#039;t become even more liberal, but I don&#039;t make the rules and have no real choice but to go with the flow. The majority think higher grades are automatically better, and that problems are not always a problem, so no one is going to listen to anything I say when the big boys tell them otherwise. Point is that since the majority seem to accept single squeeze &quot;anomalies&quot; as &quot;doubled dies&quot;, who are we to argue against it, especially if they&#039;re helping to bring new blood into the hobby? Even if they were referred to as something other than &quot;doubled dies&quot;, if people wish to search out, collect, or even pay up for them, so be it. It&#039;s not like this info isn&#039;t out there for those so inclined.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in