Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 911082, member: 112&quot;]NP you are arguing semantics based on your personal definition of what damage is. What I presented is the general consensus of the numismatic community, I happen to agree with that consensus. If you don&#039;t, OK.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding this comment, it was my intent that when conflicting judgements arise from two different authorities that one should examine the evidence of past decisions by various authorities on whether or not something is damage or not. And that one follow the majority of those decisions to arrive at their answer for the coin in question.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, if one can find 10 examples of coin being called damaged, when those examples have similar damage to the coin in question, and one can only find 2 examples where said coin was considered not be damaged - the preponderance of evidence sides with the coin in question to be considered damaged. </p><p><br /></p><p>I mean 10 to 2 is pretty strong odds. Those are betting odds. And when you have conflicting opinions what you are doing is betting on the one you think more likely to be right in his opinion. The stakes you are betting is the value of <u>your</u> coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>So while you are correct in that it is indeed a subjective matter. I rather think that most people are going to side in favor of the odds.</p><p><br /></p><p>But you think what you will.[/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