Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 3419844, member: 22331&quot;]I agree with your general observations, but as you&#039;ve stated there&#039;s no motivation for fairness?/cooperation/change. It&#039;s realized that collectors haven&#039;t the funds/interest to effect. It&#039;ll require actions by estates where their investment is virtually nothing, and a positive outcome will usually include their process legal expenses.</p><p><br /></p><p>Although it&#039;s believed that creative license was taken in the PCI lawsuit, it opened &quot;doors&quot; which are believed adversely applicable to current TPG practices when precedents are utilized.</p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;d probably determine that legality currently is a problem for generation of a litigious action, as subjectivity isn&#039;t generally allowed in an acceptable court action. It appears that the Numismatic industry grading system is based on subjectivity, which would be difficult to disprove as acceptable grading. Without a resubmission process resulting in a differing outcome because of lacking published - industry accepted objective standards. Items, such as has been presented in this venue, might facilitate a legal objective outcome.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s believed the tools for Numismatic &quot;Industry&quot; correction of practices Et Al are already established, and only require a series of conditions, or a motivated group of State Commerce Departments to effect change.</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