Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 3238000, member: 112"]I asked the question, how do you define improper storage ? To which you answered - And you also made these comments - Both of which pretty much state flat out that a collector has a responsibility to protect his coins from both mechanical and/or environmental damage. So far, I don't have problem with that, in fact I even agree with it. I would even go so far as to say that your definition of improper storage covers a part that I left out of my definition for improper storage - "Improper storage is defined as any storage method that is conducive to toning." - I left out the part about protecting them from mechanical damage. It was an oversight. But it is also where we part ways. You see, you also said that albums, coin envelopes, cardboard coin holders of any kind, wrapped in tissue paper, paper coin rolls, etc etc were all acceptable forms of proper storage. But is that really true ? Albums are famous for putting slide scratches and hairlines on coins, both from the slides themselves and from particles of cardboard dust being dragged repeatedly across the coin when the slide is moved. And those cardboard dust particles also cause very unsightly spotting on coins. And albums are also well known for being directly responsible for fingerprints ending up on coins. And when coins are left in albums too long the coins develop terminal toning. Cardboard 2x2s, again famous for scratches, cardboard dust, contact marks right through the mylar. Flips, well both kinds have their problems. Both are well known for causing rub/wear on the high points of the coins as they move around inside the flips, the vinyl flips have the PVC residue issue, the non-vinyl flips the scratches issue as the coins are taken in and out. The paper envelopes, famous for terminal toning, same for tissue paper etc etc. Basically everything in the list is very well known for causing harm to coins in one way or another. Bottom line, not a single one of them, by your own definition, can be defined as being acceptable for proper storage because every single one of them is very well known for causing mechanical damage to coins. This much at least is undeniable. Now you try to cover the toning issue that all of these storage methods have by saying this - And that's really the crux of the entire discussion isn't it. I mean, none of the mechanical damage I've noted above relegates a coin into problem coin status, well except for staple scratches when they're severe enough, or terminal toning which pretty much all of them are known for causing. So all we're really left with is the toning issue, namely it being acceptable or not acceptable - AT/QT. But who decides whether it is or isn't ? It's been stated that the market does. But is that really true ? I think not. We're the market, people, collectors are the market. And the people are not making any decisions on this matter at all. The TPGs are the ones making the decisions with their labels. If the TPGs say the toning is questionable the so called market goes right along with them. Just like they go right along with them when they say coins with wear on them are MS. Whatever the TPGs say is what the so called market agrees with. As a general rule, if the TPG says it, then as far as the so called market is concerned - it simply must be so. And I don't disagree with your comment that toning itself is not considered environmental damage Paul. In fact I agree with it completely. What I have a problem with is the completely arbitrary decision being made that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Which is exactly what the TPGs do ! And there is no basis for that decision, none at all. And there is absolute proof of that. Countless numbers of toned coins have been submitted and cleanly graded. Only to be rejected at a later submission and labeled QT. Or, countless numbers have been rejected at the first submission as being QT, and then cleanly graded on a subsequent submission. There is no consistency, none. Every time a toned coin is sent in the decision of if it is QT or not is made by 3 or 4 people - NOT the market ! But if you send it in again, a different 3 or 4 people, and sometimes even the very same 3 or 4 people, reverse their previous decision. So I ask you, is there any way that you or anybody else cannot see a problem with that ? Is there any way that you or anyone else cannot say that this methodology is ridiculous ? All they are doing is guessing - every single time ! They, the TPGs, don't know because they can't know - it's impossible. Nobody ever knows ! Your reasoning that improper storage is valid qualification for a coin to be labeled as QT is just so much hogwash ! It's a bunch of hot air being blown around in an effort to justify something for which there is no justification ![/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches