Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;desertgem, post: 960426, member: 15199&quot;]My point was that if such definitions trying to cover things that are undiscoverable is to be used to enforce action of PNG members, it would be impossible to prove. Especially in a court of law.</p><p><br /></p><p>Sure I agree dipping is part of coin history, but I think&nbsp; their use of &quot;adding chemcals&quot; in the definition (separate from the phrase), &quot;adding toning&quot;, would cover dipping. It is like a toning chemical, you add it, it reacts, you remove it. No real difference besides past practices.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think their definition should be specific , not open ended, IMO.[/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