Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 1544031, member: 112"]Actually there was. The publishing of the new ANA standards in '87 and the inception of PCGS and NGC in '86 and '87 was not a coincidence. It was most definitely a collaborative effort and one that took years to accomplish. But finally, in 1986, everything came together, the people all agreed, and the new ANA standards book was published the following year. If you take the time to look in the beginning of the ANA book there is a list of names of all of the people who worked on, agreed on, and helped formulate the ANA standards. Among those names are the people who helped organize and found the TPGs. As for the ANA endorsing NGC - that is completely meaningless. The ANA endorses the TPG who is willing to pay them (the ANA) the most to do so. For years, PCGS was the TPG endorsed by the ANA because they always agreed to pay the most. But then NGC upped their bid and they won the endorsement. Every 5 years there is a new bid opened by the ANA and the TPGs compete with each other to see who will agree to pay the ANA the most most money. Whoever wins that bid, is the who the ANA will endorse. The ANA endorsement has absolutely nothing to do with who the ANA thinks is the best TPG. It is purely a matter of money, the endorsement is bought. edit - And for whatever it is worth, the ANA standards are NOT established by the ANA. It says right in the ANA grading book that the standards contained within the book are merely the standards used by the TPGs, and accepted in the numismatic community. The problem is, the TPGs don't actually use those standards, like the book says they do. And the bigger problem is, that people let them (the TPGs) get away with doing that.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches