Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="imrich, post: 994534, member: 22331"]Another "Opinion" Thank you for your allowed, valued opinion. However,  like an anus, virtually everyone possesses same. The total worth is generally established by the viewer, and various extenuating factors. Bear with me, as I review extenuating factors, and your previously stated understandings/credentials, as follows: "Cleaning is cleaning, whether you label it that or conservation, and whether you call it market acceptable or market unacceptable. And what is market acceptable at one point in time, might not be the next. I speak as a dealer of 30 years and a former grader at NGC for 7 of those years." I respect your right to opinionate, but would prefer continuity. I believe you now state definitively that "dipping" (cleaning) IS "doctoring", providing a definition that appears to validate your stated opinion. Your previous statement of understanding/credentials states that this action may or may not determine whether it makes a coin "market acceptable or market unacceptable". If this action makes the coin  "market unacceptable", and reduces coin "value", the practice doesn't meet your definition of "doctoring" as defined " "improved" to make it more valuable". Adjudication would need to define intent (e.g. wiping debris from a date with your thumb to view date), and thus determine possible validity of your "opinion". I believe that the current litigious process argues that "dipping" isn't "doctoring", so I'd rather defer to judicial rulings/acceptance to establish the validity of opinions. This post isn't intended as criticism, but merely a presentation of an old "Devils' Advocate".<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> [/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches