"PCGS Announces Next Steps to Improve and Protect Hobby"

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

.

 

You appear to be ignoring the fact that PCGS is claiming that the defendants signed agreements not to doctor or knowingly submit doctored coins for grading. They also claim they have evidence that the defendants breached those agreements. If that is the case, having fingers pointed at them is probably beside the point. And let's face it, PCGS knows far better than we do, how much evidence they have.

 

I believe that in many cases such alterations can be and have already been detected without such equipment.

 

.

 

.

 

PCGS apparently believes it can prove that certain individuals doctored coins and/or knowingly submitted them for others who had doctored them, and in violation of signed member dealer agreements.Time will tell whether PCGS can succeed.

All of the other things you have brought up about PCGS, NGC, etc. are probably irrelevant, unless those companies are also accused of having violated written agreements, like the individuals that PCGS is suing. And I have not seen ANY evidence of that, despite attempted deflections by you and a small number of other individuals.

 

Do you really think PCGS filed the lawsuit without having their ducks in a row. You say that PCGS can't prove that the submitters knew the coins were doctored.

It is my guess that the evidence that PCGS has is directly related to the big one. The coin fingerprint may have been offered to the public as a service a few months ago. But I will bet that it has been operational for some time and they used it to catch these dealers submitting doctored coins. Imagine this scenario. A dealer submits a gold coin to PCGS which grades MS63. A month later, the same dealer submits the same coin which has now been puttied and grades MS65. It has happened many times to PCGS in the past. But this time PCGS used the coin fingerprint technology and now has direct evidence that the dealer submitted a doctored coin. What say you?

BTW, are you attempting suicide by moderator?

 

.

 

I can't wait to see what PCGS states in their patent application that makes their procedure, etc. different from existing patents. These machines are not as expensive as they sound~ My former community college has had a diamond window FT-IR for several years and smaller versions have replaced older models, so they may even show up on lab equipment auction sites. They have been used on ancient and modern coins, paintings, ceramic art objects, gems and minerals, etc., so their use with collectibles has been well established. I suspect that ANACs could also participate in their use along with NGC and not cross any patents of PCGS, IMO.

These are not new tools, techniques, or uses.

 

You continue to deflect, by talking about things other than the the lawsuit at hand. And, whether you like it or not, it appears to be about written agreements, which PCGS claims were violated.

You don't seem to want to deal with the issue at hand. And, while that's your right, as a result, I don't care to spend any additional time trying to converse with you.

 

I believe the answer to that question is "YES".

 

Why would they do that? The lawsuit will be time consuming, costly and subject them to shots fired by their opponents. Did you look at the specific coins that were included in the complaint and see what they claim was done to them?

 

.

 

You are reading me wrong. I am not saying that is what I believe. I am saying I believe that is what Mad.Outcast believes.

 

.

 

Thanks for the clarification - I was surprised by what I thought was your answer

 

I know I don't, but am not going to stop just because you suggest it.

 

They have lost the consumer trust, eh? So I guess their prices have fallen like rocks? The problem with that scenario is that I have seen the exact opposite. BTW, here is my thread to prove that is my thinking. http://www.cointalk.com/t109049/