Rebuttal to PNG Survey - How interesting!

The reason they are so rare is because under the terms of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, the notes could be redeemed for either gold or silver. But since gold at the time was more highly valued than silver it was profitable to sell silver to the government and immediately redeem the notes for gold which coukd then be used to buy even more silver than what was originally sold in the first place. This could then be repeated over and over resulting in ever more profit to the silver mine owners, and a continueing drawing down of the Government gold reserves. By 1893 the gold reserves have been drawn down so much that the US Governement was in danger of having to default on obligations it had which had to be paid for in gold. This lead to the repeal of the Sherman act in 1893 and the Panic of 1893. So the notes are rare because they were redeemed almost as fast as they were issued.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank You for the extension of the lesson Conder. What a loophole!

 

Latest News I Know Of.

http://www.asa-accugrade.com/lawsuit/ThirdAmendedComplaint.php

This is as of July 12, 2006.

 

2 out of my 3 graded coins are PCGS...

 

Results as posted by Accugrade!!! ACG Won!!!
More Accugrade News
The parties to the ASA Accugrade, Inc. litigation, Plaintiffs ASA Accugrade, Inc., Alan Hager and Diane Hager and the Defendants, the American Numismatic Association, Heritage Capital Corporation, Collectors Universe, Inc., Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc., Barry Stuppler & Company, Inc., and the Professional Numismatic Guild, Inc., together with their insurance carriers have resolved the dispute which was pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. At a court ordered mediation, a confidential settlement was reached among all the parties. The settlement had no impact on the ANA's finances or budget. The agreement reached was to our total satisfaction.

 

Perhaps.

In my 30+ years of active practice I participated in at least 100 settlement/mediation conferencess. Confidential settlements invariable involve a need for one party or the other to save face, and any party's pronouncements on "being satisfied" with the disposition are absolutely meaningless. One, or both, sides made statements like that in many of cases I was involved in with - shall we say - a significant lack of candor.

The statement that

means one of two things:

• The Defendants paid nothing to the Plaintiffs, or
• The insurance carriers for the ANA and/or other defendants covered all expenditures.

The statement that

could also result from various possible dispositions, for example:

• The Plaintiffs received a substantial sum of money in settlement and/or they received some form of injunctive relief concerning future events, OR
• The Court had indicated an intent to enter a final dismissal without leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which would result in a substantial judgment for court costs and expenses against the Plaintiffs, and open the door to a countersuit for malicious prosecution; and Plaintiffs agreed to waive costs and refrain from filing a malicious prosecution complaint.

Due to the confidentiality order there is simply no way to determine whether ACG and the Hagers really won or lost.

 

All conjecture on your part. The Plaintiffs say they won. I wonder what happened to the ANA legal fund? Anyone know how much it was or what happened to it? As an ANA member I suppose I have the right to know.

 

That's the whole point I am making - it's pure conjecture to say who won or lost when the settlement agreement is sealed.

 

I do not appreciate you editing my post behind the cloak of being a moderator. Had the defendants prevailed this would have been headline news instead of being swept under the carpet and only brought forward on this forum two months after the fact.

I like Condor101's take on this matter on another forum, even if it is not favorable to ACG.

" << ACG cannot claim victory in this, of that I am sure. >>


I would disagree. If they received a monetary settlement they won no matter what the amount. (Most likely their lawyer was on contingency. I can't imagine ACG would be able to actually be paying his legal bills all this time otherwise. If not the only way ACG lost was if the settlement didn't cover his legal bills. Even if the settlement just covered his bills he still won. See next comment.)



<< Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but I am virtually certain that none of the defendants lost money, which was the reason for the lawsuit, in the first place. >>


The plaintiff didn't care if the defendants lost money or not, he was interested in getting money no matter what the source was. He wouldn't care if it came from the defendant or their insurance company. As for the reason for the lawsuit, I would bet at least part of the reason for it was to cause turmoil, and at that he succeeded. Yes, ACG won. "

Back to me. I hope they got multi millions for the pain & shame they were publicly put through. But the proceedings being in camera I doubt if we will ever know.

 

I must have missed it then. I just read the December and January Numismatist from the ANA and did not see a word.