Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 1347947, member: 22331&quot;]<b>Definitions</b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Doug, I&#039;m sorry but I beg to differ with you, as the OP question was seemingly naively specific. </b><b>I personally haven&#039;t ESP capability to read ones&#039; mind when it is asked</b> &quot;Why would someone clean a gold coin?&quot;<b>. Nor would I propose to be the authority of what is meant when TPG use a vague word having specific meaning to describe perceived subjective conditions. The question was quite specific, and I provided a verbose, but somewhat specific answer.&nbsp; </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b></b><b>If</b> <b>TPG were to use words as &quot;scoured&quot;, &quot;abraded&quot;, &quot;altered&quot;, etc., I wouldn&#039;t take exception to their efforts. These words are definitive, consuming less label space, why aren&#039;t they used? Because, I believe the figurative &quot;Elephant in the room&quot; where definitive words may adversely affect some interested parties. In my opinion, and I believe a panel of objective disinterested jurors, it could easily be shown that use of this word is improper.</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>&nbsp;</b><b>I believe that if an action were adjudicated, where damages were cited, caused by the use of a general word, a word which isn&#039;t used consistently in the professional grading industry, an objective finding would support the complainant. Unless there are specific criteria stated for application of this general word, which I suspect would apply to the majority of &quot;circulated&quot; coins, I pose that the word isn&#039;t adequately definitive. If it can be shown that &quot;cleaned&quot; coins can receive a differing result by other equally qualified professionals within, or without of the same organization, I suspect that damages could be affirmed.&nbsp; </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>If we view the facts about the frequency of &quot;cleaning&quot; and subsequent submission by benefiting parties, I believe objective individuals will take exception to only few having authority of definition. I pose that neither you nor I have that ultimate authority to define the word </b><b>&quot;clean&quot; </b><b>or add perceived adjectives. </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>An authoritative definition of the word clean, is simply: &quot;</b>Free (remove) from foreign matter or pollution<b>&quot;. </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>After viewing the </b><b>vehemently guttural hostilities posted in this thread when a simple question is asked about a commonly spoken vague word, I feel as I queried the use of a commonly spoken ethnic word at a NAACP meeting.</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>Just my humble opinion folks. I&#039;m sorry, the &quot;Devils&#039; Advocacy&quot; made me do it. </b>:hail:[/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