Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 3419737, member: 22331&quot;]I hate to inform you of realities, but there are acceptable published standards which can be submitted by the Plaintiff for a jury review to establish proper grading for past designed/minted U.S. coins. This will eliminate some believed subjective unsupported antics used in the PCI trial, but the trial, with other past actions will be precedents for court acceptance. If a grade isn&#039;t listed in the published standard, the jury/court should/would accept the next lower grade properly defining coins.&nbsp; Photograde, which can be altered, subjectively viewed, as can be shown in believed improper published standards won&#039;t meet the general standards for absolute definition criteria. If a &quot;industry&quot; standard isn&#039;t available for the coin type, value should, probably would, be established by face/intrinsic value.</p><p><br /></p><p>The coin(s) value and damages can/will probably, as believed in precedents, be determined by the values stated between established published TPG grade value schedules, or market sales &quot;comps&quot;, as stated in my prior #40 thread post, thus:</p><p>Generally, in a legal action, unless there are published verbal/pictorial standards supported by an authoritative party, heresay, subjectivity, opinions, unsupported statements are inadmissible. If new industry standards can&#039;t be shown, an objective court probably could/would accept/require value establishment to be based on the last published written/pictorial standard or raw/intrinsic value for grading. The requirement of grading being determined by use of a published written pictorial standard is reasonable if it can be shown that the grading standards for coins in an estate can be varied by resubmission to that TPG.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are existing published written/illustrated standards supposedly endorse by credible Industry organizations which could be relatively objectively amended. If the &quot;industry&quot;, as is previously stated by &quot;many&quot;, can&#039;t establish a system where their services are purchased based on standards, performance, equitable repurchase, they probably belong in non-existent, as predecessors, or a trinket sales category.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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