Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="mikenoodle, post: 1011720, member: 307"]I love you Doug, did you know that??? LOL And I mean that with all sincerity. I love that we can go back and forth as we have (for years now) and neither of us takes it personally, no matter how brutal we are with each other. I wish others would give and take like we do without letting their feelings (or pride) get in the way. That said, this is purely a semantical argument. The two definitions that you posted are quite different. The first is fine, but the second has a different meaning. The second clearly says "A perfect coin!" and I don't think that there's much wiggle room in that sentence. The sentence after that one doesn't really qualify or change the meaning either. It merely states that "even with 5x magnification there are no marks, hairlines or luster breaks in evidence". This does not inherently change the meaning of the previous sentence, in fact it may imply that one shouldn't even use 5x magnification when grading an MS-70 coin. As that is what this thread has been all about, I think that it has been correctly pointed out to the OP that some magnification is necessary to grade coins at that level. Their unfortunate use of the words "A perfect coin!" is clearly not what their standard is nor is it how they use that standard. To say perfect means perfect, period. Whether under 5x, 10x, or 100x magnification, it doesn't matter. Had they said that the coin was perfect under 5x magnification as they had in the first definition then there would be no argument, and the standard would be quite clear, but the "lingo page" definition is not the same, so I don't know which to go by. Therein lies the rub. Poor communication is all too common these days. Allowing people to use the language as they wish is why people are unable to clearly communicate their message. In the case of PCGS, it could be that this is intentional, but it also may not be, I can't speculate what their motives or thoughts are. There are, however, advantages to being vague in business dealings and so the thought in and of itself is not completely absurd. But if we want people to all operate within the same wavelength, then we should be clear in our messages, not just say things as we wish and expect people to read between the lines and come to our way of seeing things. I am not the one making the personal choice to define the word "perfect" as I wish, they are making a personal choice to describe the standard on the "lingo page" as perfect, not perfect at 5x. People don't need to "get over" literal meaning, it is the responsibility of the writer to be clear. Communication is a skill. Language is how it is accomplished. The onus is clearly on the author to say what they mean when they state their criteria. If you take liberties with the language then it is not a surprise when people become confused. According to the "lingo page" standard it is not a figuratively perfect coin, it is a literally perfect coin (because of their choice of words) and any attempt to adjust what I think to "interpret" what they said is their shortcoming, not mine. If I were describing their standard, then you would need to consider what I meant, but when they state their standard, you should take them at and by their words. People weren't concerned about this term at first because coins weren't being graded MS-70 until years after the standards were established. No coin graded MS-70 and as many feel that the literal meaning was "what they meant", it was only from this point forward that people started to object. Many feel that the advent of PCGS and NGC graded coins at MS-70 may have been more of a business decision than a sudden appearance of coins at this level. As for the arrogant comment, it comes from your suggestion that "I finally get it" when it is clear (to you) that they didn't mean what they have stated.  We both understand what they mean, and I am pretty sure that you know that we both do. So you should realize that my lightbulb is still on. I didn't "get it" for a second and then suddenly lose my understanding. Personally, I wish that they'd word the standard consistently because the two that you quoted are inconsistent and clearly (to me) don't mean the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches