Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3053146, member: 112&quot;]I see <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>OK, let&#039;s do it this way.</p><p><br /></p><p>These are the grand totals of PCGS population numbers - covering all coins, all denominations, all dates. Between the end of 2003 and the end of 2005 those numbers had changed, you might say they had swelled some.</p><p><br /></p><p>End of 2003&nbsp; &nbsp; MS70 - 215&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; (17 years worth of grading)</p><p>End of 2005&nbsp; &nbsp; MS70 - 14,958&nbsp; &nbsp; (2 years worth of grading)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>End of 2003&nbsp; &nbsp; PF70 - 4,711&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; (17 years worth of grading)</p><p>End of 2005&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; PF70 - 23,188&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (2 years worth of grading)</p><p><br /></p><p>Those are hard numbers, documented facts. And you want to tell me that&#039;s not worth listening to ? That changes like that, over that time frame, are due to submission dynamics ? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Do you really think anybody would believe that nonsense after looking at those numbers ? There&#039;s only 1 thing that can account for changes like that - loosening the grading standards to the point of idiocy.[/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