Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 2120717, member: 4920&quot;]Kurt, congratulations, I think you reached the first plateau. It&#039;s these standards. They&#039;re arbitrary and capricious. When the TPGs say &quot;market acceptable&quot; translate that as meaning &quot;in the market for their plastic acceptable.&quot; Sure, it&#039;s pretentious. When they themselves don&#039;t know what they mean by the standards, that&#039;s what it is. But, understand, that plastic that coin is in is their trademark. In short, it represents the level of quality in grading they desire to project to the public. That&#039;s their choice. And these standards they&#039;re applying are arbitrary and capricious. And there&#039;s no getting around that. A delusional consumer has a need to believe otherwise, that&#039;s his or her problem. &quot;Subjective?&quot; Huh? Subjectivity enters in only when applying rational, definable standards. It presumes rational, definable standards, going in. Luster, strike, wear, those are all rational, definable standards. Arbitrary and capricious. Arbitrary and capricious are not rational, definable standards. Arbitrary and capricious are bogus standards, incapable of rational definition. That&#039;s the problem. It&#039;s also the reason the TPGs love the standards. Just condition the consumers to swallow them, i.e., grade their coins by them, then keep feeding the consumers a steady diet of them. Screw the standards. Get off them. Give them up. Judge the toning, not on the standards, but on whether the toning impaired the surface. If it didn&#039;t, that coin is fine, and entitled to a grade. Do you like it, is the toning appealing to your eyes? Collect it. Do you not like it, is it unappealing? Don&#039;t collect it. Real complicated...[/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