Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 353501, member: 112&quot;]Only because you read it the way you chose to read it. Hall was talking about the 10 year period <u>before</u> PCGS came into existence. That letter was David Hall hyping up his own company, stating that 3rd party grading was the answer to the <u>previous</u> problem. Do you really think that he would write a letter saying his own company was doing wrong and over-grading coins ?</p><p><br /></p><p>And they weren&#039;t trying to just clean up the hobby for collectors alone. They were trying to clean up the hobby for coin dealers too. Dealers had just as much of a problem as collectors did.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>Yep, it does. Why ? Because at the time the letter was written, and because coins were now slabbed, David Hall was trying his dangedest to move into that market - and he did. And that&#039;s what he got in trouble for later - advertising coins as investments. Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with the grading of coins that PCGS was doing. It had only to do with advertising. I quote an article from the period - </p><p><br /></p><p>&quot; Published: August 17, 1990</p><p>LEAD: The Federal Trade Commission filed a civil action and consent decree</p><p>yesterday charging that Professional Coin Grading Service Inc. had made</p><p>false and misleading advertising claims. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Federal Trade Commission filed a civil action and consent decree</p><p>yesterday charging that Professional Coin Grading Service Inc. had made</p><p>false and misleading advertising claims. </p><p><br /></p><p>The company, based in Newport Beach, Calif., grades and certifies rare</p><p>coins, which are sealed in plastic packages and sold to collectors. Barry J.</p><p>Cutler, director of the F.T.C. consumer protection bureau, said the company</p><p>had been cited as a factor in stabilizing prices and increasing demand for</p><p>coins in prospectuses issued by Merrill Lynch and other securities firms.</p><p>The firms offer limited partnerships in multimillion-dollar funds that buy</p><p>and sell coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>Without admitting liability, Professional Coin Grading agreed to submit its</p><p>advertising to the F.T.C. for review over the next five years. In a filing</p><p>in Federal district court in Washington, the company agreed to include</p><p>statements in its newspaper and television advertising affirming that &#039;&#039;the</p><p>rare coin market is a highly speculative, unregulated market and</p><p>certification by P.C.G.S. does not guarantee protection against the normal</p><p>risks associated with volatile markets.&#039;&#039; &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p>As I have said before, you are welcome to your own opinions. But as you have said, your opinions are due to your interpretation of the available material. And that self same material simply does not lead most others to the same opinion that you have.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I didn&#039;t say that the ANA did sold ANACS in 2002, I said - &quot; And the ANA did not sell their grading business until 2002 ....&quot;. But I&#039;ll grant you this, I did mis-speak. I should have said that the ANA didn&#039;t give up their grading business until 2002. They just quit, they gave it up because they were losing money - and that is a cold hard fact.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It was all well detailed in the numismatic press. If you wish to look it all up, be my guest. But suffice it to say that I remember things a bit differently than you.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I thought I already did that at least to some degree with direct quotes from the ANA guide. I was also involved in the hobby during that period, and I was one of those in favor of it. And I can recall a great many articles in the numismatic press about it. So it is not really a matter of opinion. It is a matter of history. But sorry, I don;t really have any copies of <i>Coin World</i> or <i>Numismatic News</i> that I can quote directly. But if you wish, I can provide you with the email addresses of the editors of both publications, and you can ask them directly. They will corroborate my recollection.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now as so often happens in discussions like this, it seems that some always seem to think that I am defending the TPG&#039;s or the current grading system in some way when I write like this. That is not the case. I am merely presenting factual information that can all be looked up and confirmed by any who choose to do so.</p><p><br /></p><p>And for those who wish to know, I have long been in favor of a revamping of the grading system. I favor a system whereby every TPG uses 1 single set of grading standards recognized and acknowleged by all. I have written about it many times. I have screamed it from the rafters. But until the majority of collectors get behind the idea - it will not happen.</p><p><br /></p><p>You see contrary to what you choose to believe vavet, the collectors are the domineering force in the numismatic hobby. And when they make their collective will known - they are listened to.[/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