Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 979370, member: 112&quot;]No you didn&#039;t say always. But yet every coin that has been posted in these threads you have claimed that the marks were planchet marks and not contact marks. That pretty much translates into always in my book.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for pointing out where you are wrong - you pointed it out yourself with your comment about no marks on the O that started this conversation. It was then that I suggested you go back through Dick&#039;s threads and look for yourself to see that there are others he has posted that have no marks on the O as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>You can go find them as easily as I can. And even if I did it for you - you&#039;d still claim that there was some other reason that the coin was over-graded.</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s what kills me Mike - you always try to find some reason that the TPG is right in the grade they assign regardless of what the coin looks like. I sometimes think a person could beat a coin with an axe, slap it in a high grade TPG slab and you&#039;d find some reason to justify the grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>Where I on the other hand refuse to accept this nonsense from the TPGs. They used to assign honest grades. They no longer do, and I&#039;m sick of it. Hopefully, as time progresses, they will take enough rope and succeed in hanging themselves. </p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe you don&#039;t remember 1987 when every MS65 coin there was turned into an MS63 literally overnight. But I do. And today all of that has been reversed. What was an MS63 just a few years ago is today an MS65 or an MS66. And even Dave Bowers agrees with me on that.[/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