Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2462073, member: 22331&quot;]You&#039;ve established through your posts that you&#039;re not &quot;dumb&quot; (i.e.&quot;uninformed&quot;), but maybe lacking the will to recognize fallibility. Doug has succinctly elaborated on the essence of that paragraph many times. The essence is that any coin with a &quot;mint state&quot; designation should meet the exacting definition of those words, thus: <a href="http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/mint_state_coin.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/mint_state_coin.htm" rel="nofollow">http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/mint_state_coin.htm</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The original A.N.A. standard defined in great detail the general condition of coins relative to their assigned grade, using the simple four letters that I previously discussed in a post. When the standard was changed, it&#039;s believed that objective individuals would in a litigious environment, determine intentional de-grading of the standard.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s believed this &quot;standard&quot; change facilitated reduction of the prior values to which many had entrusted funds.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s believed the industry/processes have de-graded since the initial A.N.A. &quot;standard&quot; change, for numerous stated seemingly irrational reasons that probably only a class action can correct.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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