Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Insider, post: 3297054, member: 24314"]baseball21, posted: "Unfortunately at the end of the day any real talks always seem to turn into gotcha games and the most important thing always seems to be this,</p><p><b>One thing people should keep in mind is that when it comes to the old days were better posts and how things have gone down hill <span style="color: #b30000">there are posters defending their careers and legacies</span> at the time and the changes threaten that.</b></p><p><br /></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>This is the third time you have made is accusation without any backup. </b>The rules here say that members don't need to defend their, ah...Let's say honest opinion by identifying the <span style="color: #b30000">posters</span> here on CT you talking about. Your silence says it all. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie85" alt=":smuggrin:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p>Jaelus, posted: "It's a circular argument many of the old timers here go to again and again. Essentially that "the standard is correct because it is the standard." <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie20" alt=":banghead:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><i><span style="color: #b30000">[No, the OLD standard was correct because IT WAS THE STANDARD. It was easy to understand and easy to apply. It still is. In the OLD standard, MS coins were free from wear. Powerful people changed the standard WHILE CONTUINING TO PUBLISH IT as if it were still true! The NEW "Standard" that introduces more subjectivity is what exists today. That does not make it correct, or easy to apply. That's why CAC was needed. Talk about a circle. The graders grading the graders who have already been graded by the grading Finalizer. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie98" alt=":wacky:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></span></i></p><p><br /></p><p>"They do not care to visit the possibility that the standard itself may be lacking, and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption of the infallible. They are so opposed to progress that they do not see evolving standards for what they really are: clear evidence that the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place."</p><p><br /></p><p><i>This statement is pure NUTS! But let's examine it...</i></p><p><br /></p><p>1. "...the standard itself may be lacking [<i><span style="color: #b30000">What was lacking in the old standard</span></i>?], and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption [<i><span style="color: #b30000">I consider calling an AU coin MS to be a huge corruption</span></i>] of the infallible."[<i><span style="color: #b30000">infallible </span></i>? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie5" alt=":confused:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ] </p><p><br /></p><p>2. "..They are so opposed to progress." <i><span style="color: #b30000">Progress is good. Dumb the folks down and take the grade jump profits to the bank</span></i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. "...the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place." <i><span style="color: #b30000">Yeah, decades of numismatists were wrong but it sure made it more difficult to over grade coins. Thankfully, the grading issue was corrected by 1988. <span style="color: #330066">NOT!</span> <span style="color: #0000b3"><b>STILL NOT.</b></span> and <b><span style="color: #b30059">NEVER</span></b> going to happen using the present "standards" some of you favor. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie7" alt=":p" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></span></i>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Insider, post: 3297054, member: 24314"]baseball21, posted: "Unfortunately at the end of the day any real talks always seem to turn into gotcha games and the most important thing always seems to be this, [B]One thing people should keep in mind is that when it comes to the old days were better posts and how things have gone down hill [COLOR=#b30000]there are posters defending their careers and legacies[/COLOR] at the time and the changes threaten that.[/B] [B] This is the third time you have made is accusation without any backup. [/B]The rules here say that members don't need to defend their, ah...Let's say honest opinion by identifying the [COLOR=#b30000]posters[/COLOR] here on CT you talking about. Your silence says it all. :smuggrin: [B] [/B] Jaelus, posted: "It's a circular argument many of the old timers here go to again and again. Essentially that "the standard is correct because it is the standard." :banghead: [I][COLOR=#b30000][No, the OLD standard was correct because IT WAS THE STANDARD. It was easy to understand and easy to apply. It still is. In the OLD standard, MS coins were free from wear. Powerful people changed the standard WHILE CONTUINING TO PUBLISH IT as if it were still true! The NEW "Standard" that introduces more subjectivity is what exists today. That does not make it correct, or easy to apply. That's why CAC was needed. Talk about a circle. The graders grading the graders who have already been graded by the grading Finalizer. :facepalm: :wacky:[/COLOR][/I] "They do not care to visit the possibility that the standard itself may be lacking, and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption of the infallible. They are so opposed to progress that they do not see evolving standards for what they really are: clear evidence that the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place." [I]This statement is pure NUTS! But let's examine it...[/I] 1. "...the standard itself may be lacking [[I][COLOR=#b30000]What was lacking in the old standard[/COLOR][/I]?], and dismiss evolving standards as being a corruption [[I][COLOR=#b30000]I consider calling an AU coin MS to be a huge corruption[/COLOR][/I]] of the infallible."[[I][COLOR=#b30000]infallible [/COLOR][/I]? :confused: ] 2. "..They are so opposed to progress." [I][COLOR=#b30000]Progress is good. Dumb the folks down and take the grade jump profits to the bank[/COLOR][/I]. 3. "...the original standard was incorrect or insufficient in the first place." [I][COLOR=#b30000]Yeah, decades of numismatists were wrong but it sure made it more difficult to over grade coins. Thankfully, the grading issue was corrected by 1988. [COLOR=#330066]NOT![/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000b3][B]STILL NOT.[/B][/COLOR] and [B][COLOR=#b30059]NEVER[/COLOR][/B] going to happen using the present "standards" some of you favor. :p[/COLOR][/I][/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
Distinguishing Between "Condition" and "Grade."
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...