Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rhoggman, post: 401683, member: 13987&quot;]Personally I am very interested in how perspectives could change if they grade to a more strict standard.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It makes sense that in the current market people would play the crack out game for a while, but this could only last for so long.... As prices regrouped, which would be market controlled, in the end someone would end up losing market share, and I doubt it would be to the service that grades more acurately. After a while it would be pointless to play the crackout game because premiums would already start being paid for coins in the new holder. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In the end it would all come back down to the coin and not the holder, but it could mean bad things for other TPG&#039;s.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also I mentioned in other threads that PCGS and NGC may likely have to have an answer for the visual population report. Also if submission are down a good way for them to increase revenue, and keep market share would be for them to have a reholder campain at a nominal fee. By doing this they too could take pictures of coins, and offer a visual population report. This would also be a good way to get the population reports back in check as they could slowly phase out the old numbers. At the very least this would be a huge benefit to the coin community because we all know know the numbers are completely out of whack. With the advent of computer imaging software it may be possible to use a visual population report as a way from keeping population reports from being scewed by resubmissions and cross overs. Maybe not so much the cross overs as there would have to be cooperation between the various TPG&#039;s.[/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