Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charley, post: 5409480, member: 5372&quot;]the market certainly changed their standards. that does not convert to collectors/hobbyists receiving the standards they wanted.</p><p><br /></p><p>you had a different opinion in the past, iirc. during the logic posits and hypotheticals discussions on another board, and the extended discussion prior to and because of and leading to the cac entity, you may remember mark and i posited that there is a need to identify less than stellar coins....details coins/problem coins damaged coins/questionable toning coins/cleaned coins, etc. you were in the for column.</p><p><br /></p><p>we suggested returning such coins to the submitter in a little flimsy bag was denying the coin as genuine. the suggestion was that these coins be encapsulated as genuine, in the same encapsulation as graded coins. after all,&nbsp; the collector was paying the same money for the opinion. you were in the for column.</p><p><br /></p><p>that discussion expanded to the subject of grading. we opined that anyone grading a coin for a tpg should be qualified using minimum standards. the suggestions were as i stated above, although what is stated above is an abbreviated&nbsp; version of&nbsp; what mark and i discussed.</p><p><br /></p><p>the discussion extended dramatically upon the introduction by mark, of the concept of cac. i identified this as making a market. you may recall that there was significant opposition to the idea, for a host of reasons. but, the most important benefit was that the coins reviewed by cac would be of value to collectors, because the quality of grading and knowledge of the coins would&nbsp; improve, and competition would force the tpgs to consider quality over quantity, and&nbsp; customer satisfaction. you were all for that, and not so enthusiastic on the making a market part.</p><p><br /></p><p>2 end points occurred ...the tpg in question started encapsulating the previously mentioned problem coins and identifying the coins as genuine, and cac was off and running, and making a market, including buying back a coin cac graded based on their market need.</p><p><br /></p><p>in other words some improvement were made to the hobby. and you did not describe these improvement as fantasy then.</p><p><br /></p><p>what you choose to identify as fantasy, is an ever continuing process of change, and the need to improve the offering of a business entity.&nbsp; opinions can be standardized, by strict requirements of minimum standards. we do so with almost all other professional financial positions. after all, is that not what a tpg grader is, and is offering via the opinion.....a decision that has financial consequences?</p><p>a financial planner gives an opinion. the cfp still has to conform to a very strict standard and be licensed. same with a real estate agent, a home builder, an insurance salesperson, etc. all give an opinion. the difference with the tpg/4pg model is no strict publicly stated financially responsible minimum standard for graders exists, and no disclosure of the qualifications of the grader exists, and there is no accountability.&nbsp; is it such a burden to require that a grader pass an ophthalmological&nbsp; exam? would you as a person submitting a coin not want that? why would you not want a method to track the record of grader of a coin, for verifying expertise? why would you not want the grader to have passed a minimum standard requirement for the coin series/type he/she is responsible for grading?</p><p><br /></p><p>none of this is fantasy. it is good business and smart business and&nbsp; meeting customer expectations. </p><p><br /></p><p>remember all the talk re. electronic grading? the sniffer? the robotic grading? all were based on one premise...improvement of the final product: the grading.</p><p><br /></p><p>on the subject of ana: the standards were not changed to update what the market wanted, that is fallacy. the public elected a board that was hellbent on keeping up with the jones family, instead of sticking to the core standards that members wanted, which included wanting as much accuracy via technical standards as could be achieved, and with as much numismatic knowledge that could be continuously added.</p><p>the board chose profits, marketing and market grading, abandoning their sated mission. collectors/hobbyists were disappointed, again. so, the only path to follow left was the $ path, the market grading game, and here we are. their original technical grading standards are obsolete because collectors/hobbyists/dealers let them become obsolete, by not demanding quality and responsibility and standards of the tpgs/4pgs. we have met the enemy.....you know the rest.</p><p><br /></p><p>i appreciate the humorous attempt to negate an opinion that does not agree with yours, but i am right where i should be: advocating improvements and change for the hobby.</p><p><br /></p><p>i do not know what you are referring to by the phrase california politician, but i assume it is a method of condescension. i have experienced same before. i don&#039;t mind.[/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