Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Puddin&#039;Farts, post: 3451616, member: 100439&quot;]So ultimately, because of your previous run ins and attempts with the way your coins were handled &quot;years ago&quot;, you&#039;re saying that now whoever does the attribution will likely attribute it, but it&#039;s wrong because of your previous attempts with a previous attributor? This seems to fall more into the same issues as &quot;Crack Outs&quot; from OGH Coins than the topic of this particular variety. You cannot say that this, by definition, is not an FS-901, yet argue the point because of your particular submissions in the past? All jokes and sarcasm aside, I do not appreciate you coming in to argue this with me making my coin look like a lie based on your opinion and past with the attempts at the submissions. Just because you personally believe that the coin is not because of your particularly odd interpretation of the FS-901 by definition doesn&#039;t mean that PCGS is now wrong in their attribution of the FS-901. Maybe they pulled their head out if their stink holes and decided to go by the definition opposed to the parts that they picked and chose? If the numbers used are from particular attributions from other people, and Coneca, namely Allen Levy, designated the FS-901, then it is in fact the FS-901. James Wiles can add all he wants to that, but if PCGS uses the FS-901 designation, which they do, then it is an FS-901. I&#039;m not arguing for my sake as much as the fact that it is irritating and irrational to say Yes, it is that, but it can&#039;t be this because a different guy came and decided to add numbers. If it is FS-901 that everyone is after, who is Wiles to add other nonsense to the ewuaequa when a typical DDO/DDR is a specific number, then only uses Die State to identify markers on the particular variety? I stand with full conviction in agreeing with MessyDesk that someone is wrong and it needs corrected. This shouldn&#039;t be an option to pick and choose as it is extremely difinitive down to the study of FIVE separate die states. The FS-901 is the number used to attribute the variety and is very, very specific on all five of those die states. Technically, a minor DDO falls into the same category as a full No FG because of that designation. I understand that somebody decided to elaborate on that designation, but that doesn&#039;t change the fact that PCGS labels it an FS-901 opposed to the ADR-001. Therefore it is exactly that until the designation is changed by the TPGS. Honestly it&#039;s kind of a catastrophe that they allow you to capitalize on finding miniscule errors in their attribution and pay so much based on a separate opinion. Why does anybody even use this system!? </p><p><br /></p><p>All of that being said, I honestly do understand what you&#039;re saying to a degree, but the price reflects an FS-901, not an ADR-001, and until that changes, it is only your opinion and you are the one who is wrong in my opinion. A minor bump from the G is still a major abrasion of the initials and falls right in line with the definitive VLDS FS-901 from CONECA. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned about the initials being ENTIRELY of TOTALLY Abraded away, just that they are Abraded away. Up until stage E, the requirement is that the F is gone. Stage E from CONECA only mentions the extra of the nose/eye being Abraded, not the G.[/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