Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 1033386, member: 22331&quot;]<b>Current Litigation Disallowing &quot;Cleaning&quot; As Doctoring</b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b><font face="Arial">I believe one would need to be isolated from past threads in this forum, defendant objections to &quot;dipping&quot; as a &quot;doctoring&quot; alteration, and tentative court acceptance of the argument pertaining to this commonplace activity in current litigation, etc., to accept other than which I stated.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">I personally have viewed this practice prior to submission, and been informed on numerous occasions by individuals proudly displaying the grade results of their efforts.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">I&#039;m to understand that PCGS will not include this practice as a &quot;doctoring&quot; condition in their litigation, as I believe it would surely diminish their credibility, establish their past acceptance of continued &quot;doctoring&quot; practices which are commonly acknowledged by the collecting community. </font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">The NGC past affiliation, and grading of &quot;conserved&quot; products, substantiates recognition of this, and other practices. </font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">I believe one would find the practice has </font></b><b><font face="Arial">long </font></b><b><font face="Arial">been discussed by others in numerous forums as commonplace activity, just that quantitative evidence hasn&#039;t been established.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">&nbsp;</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">The argument of &quot;top tier&quot; TPG denial indignance is analogous to paraphrased Winston Churchill asking a woman if she would sleep with him for an extremely large sum, and renegotiating a lower amount upon affirmation. The woman indignantly denying she was a w****, whereby it was stated that her practices/values had been established, what remained was negotiation of conditions. If the practice is so abhorrent, 1 incident would be unacceptable, and past &quot;conservation&quot; grading by &quot;top tier&quot; TPG have exceeded that level.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">As stated: &quot;</font></b>I mean you are entitled to believe whatever you want<b><font face="Arial">&quot;, as are any who take exception to my substantiated commonplace beliefs. What could possibly be in disagreement is not the practice, but the frequency of accredited &quot;practice acceptance&quot;.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial">My presentation was intended educational, not to incite negative emotions/hostilities, and I apologize for objective offense.</font></b></p><p><b><font face="Arial"><br /></font></b> </p><p>: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