Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1075514, member: 112&quot;]Let&#039;s see now, you have so far admitted, either here or in other recent threads, that the TPGs have intentionally changed their grading standards for - moderns, coins with roll friction, toning, and key date rarity.</p><p><br /></p><p>So why is it Paul that if the TPGs have sold out their integrity regrading these things, that you find it so hard to believe that they have sold out their integrity regarding the rest of the coins ?</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s like saying - I really trust this guy because he only lies about certain things and he&#039;s only told a few lies so the rest of what he is saying must be true.</p><p><br /></p><p>You claim your arguments are logical, but I fail to see the logic in that.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The fact ? How do you know it is a fact ? The wear might be from roll friction, but it could just as easily be from circulation wear too could it not ? Do you know how to prove that the wear is from roll friction ? No, you don&#039;t. Neither does anybody else. There are certain indicators that can be used, but nothing proves it. It calls for an assumption.</p><p><br /></p><p>My contention is that this assumption has become waaaaaaaay too commonplace. And that the only way it could become that common is if the TPGs have intentionally changed their grading standards. And not just with the things you have aleady admitted that you believe they have changed about - but about all coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now whose argument is more logical - mine, or yours ?[/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