Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3175102, member: 112&quot;]As I&#039;ve said numerous times already - coin a new term ! But don&#039;t use an existing term that has a long established definition incorrectly. Every term we have was new at some point, every single one of them. </p><p><br /></p><p>This particular coin, the Morgan, there&#039;s an existing term that fits it quite nicely, and accurately - Proof-Like. BUT - that doesn&#039;t make it &quot;special enough&quot; for them. If they had labeled that coin PL, as they have thousands of others, there would have been no story in the news because it wouldn&#039;t have been newsworthy ! </p><p><br /></p><p>But if you don&#039;t like that or don&#039;t think that&#039;s &quot;special enough&quot; for this coin - then come up with a new term ! THAT would create an even bigger story than the one they did.</p><p><br /></p><p>PCGS and NGC, for as long as they have existed, have vied with each other for attention. Well I get that, it&#039;s the nature of the business. The will fight and bid and argue to the heavens about why &quot;they&quot; should grade and slab this coin or that coin that is worthy of note for some reason, or this collection or that collection. Everybody knows they do this and nobody has a problem with it - including me. </p><p><br /></p><p>But when they do stuff like this, label a coin with a designation that they KNOW does not fit that designation, even based on their own definition for that designation - well then they have just gone too far and they need to be called out on it. This coin is no more a Specimen than the modern annual set coins that they labeled as Specimens ![/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