Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;MorganFred, post: 42977, member: 1779&quot;]NOS, now you have ME confused about your point. You have applied Aristotilian (deductive) logic to state that: (1) Third party grading companies are no good because over their almost 20-year history, they have made a handful of mistakes; and (2) GDJMSP is wrong and cwtokenman is right when they are stating essentially the same thing in different words and not even disagreeing with the details. Deductive logic is useful for detectives attempting to solve a case, but it has no place in generalities in which inductive logic must be applied.</p><p><br /></p><p>The original post asked about the reliability of the grading services for detection of a fake coin. If one sticks to the top four companies (PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and ICG), the chances are pretty darned good that if they say a coin is authentic, it is authentic. Given a statement of probabilities based on a Chi-squared test, P &lt; .00001 meaning the chances that the TPGs would pass a fake coin as genuine is infinitesimal (less than one chance in 10,000,000) based on a random sampling; based on a targeted sampling (vis a vis, a common American coin vs an oddball coin from, say, 15th century Mongolia), the chances decrease to perhaps one in 30 million. Your chances of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning are much greater.</p><p><br /></p><p>To condemn the TPGs based on these probabilities is like condemning the entire population of Canada because one Canadian turned out to be an alien from outer space. To say what GDJMSP says is different from what cwtokenman say because they say the same thing in different words defies logic. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie5" alt=":confused:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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