Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;baseball21, post: 2921305, member: 76863&quot;]Of course they knew the practices existed but doctoring is like weapons and body armor, the weapon has to be invented before you can make a vest that can withstand it or the vest has to be out before you can figure out how to beat it.&nbsp; With doctoring the method has to come to be before you can fully know how to detect it or figure out what tips someone off before you can try and sneak it past someone.&nbsp; There&#039;s always some back and forth for who has the edge and given that technology advanced greatly during the period laid out in the complaint they filed there were new more advanced methods that were appearing.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>One of the ones specifically mentioned was lasering surfaces along with other methods that would have likely been greatly advanced during that period which were a clear step up if not several steps up from what would be by comparison more crude methods of the past.&nbsp; They weren&#039;t the only ones who missed what has been figured out worked in some instances for a time given that some were submitted by third parties unknowingly. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The claims are clearly laid out in the complaint linked above.&nbsp; There is nothing in it about carefully restoring a coin to improved appearances or even anything that would be considered restoration by most collectors.&nbsp; It certainly wasn&#039;t something PCGS took lightly as it did mean a loss of business for them from those submitters and they don&#039;t go around suing everyone who misses something or submitts a fake they thought was real here and there.&nbsp; Their filing clearly shows they felt there was a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time that led them to believe it was intentional.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>As for your other question, its a hypothetical that just simply doesn&#039;t exist.&nbsp; They hold hard lines around huge price jumps in grade which pretty much anyone who submits will tell you.&nbsp; If a 63 is affordable and a 64 is a huge price jump it will not randomly bounce between the two on a dozen submissions.&nbsp; It wouldn&#039;t hit the 64 unless it was actually a 64 that was getting penalized for something the times it got a 63 or a 63+.&nbsp; I&#039;ve said it many times and I&#039;ll say it again here, only the internet makes the crack-out upgrade process sound easy or random with big price jumps and anyone who thinks that it is random should give it a shot as it would be eye opening to them.&nbsp; Coins don&#039;t simply bounce between between grades with four figure and bigger jumps, the ones that bounce back and forth are the ones that are basically the same value in either grade.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>As for the answer to the question the bigger obscenity would be actual coin doctoring (putty, lasering ect) by far.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It didn&#039;t start with the formation of the TPGs nor would it stop if they all closed shop.&nbsp; They aren&#039;t to blame for the practice and are actually the strongest force in the hobby against it.&nbsp; Far more collectors would fall victim to it if they weren&#039;t around.&nbsp; Given the technology of today collecting very likely would be a ghost town as it would be to much of a minefield for most people to want to enter on their own.[/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