Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2255436, member: 22331&quot;]Well Stated/Inquired! I believe objective involved Numismatists realize that current &quot;bid&quot; quotes probably/generally are nebulous numbers without a standardized basis for derivation.</p><p><br /></p><p>If one received the 9/11/15 issue of &quot;the COIN DEALER newsletter&quot;, they found the headline to be &quot;NEW CHANGES IN STORE AT CDN&quot;.I believe the author proudly described his past 25 year efforts in evolving a single employee enterprise into a $30 million business, from which he was resigning &quot;to report unbiased information&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>The qualifying statement at the bottom of the 9/11/15 CDN cover page stated: &quot;Prices reported derive from the highest legitimate Bids and lowest legitimate Asks seen nationally&quot;. Also stated: &quot;Bids reported .... include consideration of certification costs&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>The qualifying statement at the bottom of the 10/9/15 CDN cover page stated: &quot;Prices reported are derived based on the expertise of the editors of this publication&quot;. The qualifying certification costs inclusion statement has been removed, while new seemingly nebulous statements have been inserted, including: &quot;the prices indicated here represent coins at the higher end of the spectrum for the grade&quot;. What happened in the previous month to replace the &quot;unbiased&quot; reporting of the entire spectrum between &quot;highest legitimate Bids and lowest legitimate Asks seen nationally&quot;?</p><p><br /></p><p>The 9/11/15 CDN document reported both BID and ASK prices for pre-1933 &quot;U.S.GOLD&quot;. The 10/9/15 document ceased reporting ASK prices for MS65 and above grades, and I believe, while the reported price of GOLD had increased between the two publications, the stated BID for Pre-1933 GEM Gold coins had appreciably decreased.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe the commonly accepted definition of &quot;NEWS&quot; is: &quot;a report of recent events&quot;. I wonder, if the CDN publication is &quot;reporting&quot; an opinion, something other than an objectively substantiated report from an independent source. The &quot;report&quot; may not be construed as &quot;NEWS&quot;. I suggest that the CDN publication title might be changed from NEWSletter before a challenge (by current or potential subscribers?) may be initiated.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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