Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 1967324, member: 46237&quot;]I agree with this, but I think it&#039;s grading and offering insurance on the value that is the true basis of the conflict of interest.</p><p><br /></p><p>If someone is grading a coin and backing up that grade with an insurance on the value, they are always going to err toward a lower grade when they are on the fence. This tendency creates more undergraded coins than it creates overgraded ones, skewing the normal distribution of grades.</p><p><br /></p><p>It doesn&#039;t seem right to have a fee if one of those coins later upgrades, but what happens without this fee? You would end up with a lot more people sending coins in for regrading. It costs money to regrade, and there&#039;s still the disincentive to upgrade a coin due to the value guarantee. The fee is therefore a balancing incentive to allow for it to be graded more liberally. Having said that, it seems fairer to not offer a regrade without a crackout prior to resubmission due to the perceived conflict of interest.</p><p><br /></p><p>For a conflict free TPG we would need one that only authenticates, grades, and protects a coin without any value guarantee. You would just be paying for professional conservation and grading services. They would have to charge less for the service, and a lot more problem coins would get slabbed (hopefully accurately) as a result. ANACS fills that role right now to a degree. The problem is, would you trust the grading of a TPG that didn&#039;t back their grades up with a guarantee?[/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