Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 8607923, member: 112&quot;]Rich I&#039;m not sure what you&#039;re trying to say here because, and maybe I&#039;m misunderstanding, but it kinda sounds like you&#039;re contradicting your first 2 sentences with your next 3 sentences.</p><p><br /></p><p>And besides, reversing, and or the tightening of current industry grading standards is exactly what PCGS and NGC did when they came into existence. Tightening up current grading standards was precisely their stated reason for coming into existence. What I&#039;m suggesting has already happened once, so there&#039;s no reason to think it can&#039;t happen again.</p><p><br /></p><p>It should also be noted and remembered that the ANA tightened up their previous grading standards immensely during the same time period that PCGS and NGC came into existence. In point of fact PCGS and NGC copied the very concept of tightening up standards from the ANA.</p><p><br /></p><p>And nobody got sued for doing so.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Rich, about all I can say is - using that reference to even suggest that similar suits against NGC or PCGS could be won is like trying to compare apples to watermelons.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, sure PCGS and NGC could be sued and in fact have been sued in the past going clear back to 1989 after the coin market imploded. But all previous suits have been settled out of court. And neither has ever been sued for changing grading standards.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course anybody can be sued for almost anything. But in this case I don&#039;t think there would ever be any chance of winning that suit, especially given what&#039;s already been done.[/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