Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;vavet, post: 353083, member: 11630&quot;]<font face="Calibri"><font size="3">Gee, I thought I did present those points. I stated that Abe created that system FOR the ANA and I made reference to the fact that others contributed to the effort. I suppose in the spirit of full disclosure we should point out that ANA Presidents Virgil Hancock and Grover Criswell also reappointed Kosoff in subsequent years.</font></font></p><p><br /></p><p><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">I have never thought the 70 point grading system developed by Abe Kosoff and his fellow dealers was a “vast conspiracy”. My initial thinking when it was implemented by the ANA was that there is no correlation between what Dr Sheldon had developed and what the ANA was trying to accomplish. Dr Sheldon chose the number 70 for one reason only. He needed a multiplier of 70 in order for his high end coins to fit into the system he was trying to develop. If the ANA felt that a numerical scale was needed, a scale of something like 25 would have made more sense. Having 11 grades to accurately describe a coin that has absolutely no wear made no sense to me, and apparently the ANA shared that view as they stated at the time “…not even the most advanced numismatists can necessarily agree on whether a coin is MS62 or MS63; the distinction is simply too minute to permit accuracy”. At that same time we had a decent grading standard for circulated coins that the ANA endorsed (free of charge) in Photograde. As history would show, the original Photograde standards needed only a little refining to bring them up to date. Having seen the results of the 70 point grading system, namely that even the alleged “professionals” cannot consistently function within it, that it has given rise to over a hundred “grading entities” who are taking advantage of the fact that the system is dysfunctional, that matters are no better now and in some cases worse than before it was introduced, I’m of the opinion that the ANA’s attempt to achieve their objective was a bismal failure. If “the confusion in grading caused by multiple systems and biased private opinions” has been eliminated by 70 point grading, then why all the discussion about how one grading company compares to another? The objective was to create a universal standard and, by your own admission, one does not exist today. I rest my case.</font></font></p><p><br /></p><p><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">I apologize for having the wrong date when DH informed his comrades that the word was out about their supplying “viciously overgraded coins” to telemarketers. It was only two years after they had started PCGS, not five. In that letter he referrs to the “past ten years”. I read that as eight years prior and two years after. Such an admission by DH flies in the face of any conclusion that third party grading was motivated by dealer desires to clean up the hobby for the benefit of collectors. In that very letter, the word “collector” is not mentioned. Instead, we see “hard money circuit”, “financial planning community” and “coin investing public” as in big money, not your average collector. As you can see, my “opinion” about why tpg’s came into existance is based on connecting the dots of what limited information one can expect from those who are engaged in activities that aren’t exactly as they would have us believe. That same admission also validates my “opinion” that some of those who started third party grading were the same ones who were part of the problem in the first place. </font></font></p><p><br /></p><p><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">For the record, ANACS was sold to Amos Press in 1990, not 2002. See, we can both be a few years off when we recall from memory. I also take issue with your opinion that it was sold because they were losing money. Part of the deal included a piece of the action for several years after the sale. If there was no profit, there would be no piece of the action as well.</font></font></p><p><br /></p><p><font face="Calibri"><font size="3">When the ANA initially “sold” their endorsement it was by sealed bidding. In their latest attempt, the ANA specified the total amount to be paid for their endorsement along with a formula detailing the amount from each service should more than one be selected. That total, if my memory serves me correctly, was nearly double what NGC had been paying in all three areas. That’s how I formed my opinion that the ANA was trying to up the ante. Perhaps you can supply the actual numbers in both cases for all to see.</font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Having been active in numismatics before and after the time tpg’s came into existance, I do not recall ever seeing where the collector was the driving force behind third party grading. If you can show something other than your opinion, I for one would be very interested in seeing some documentation. </font></font>[/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