Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Marshall, post: 7505956, member: 21705"]I would suggest that the appropriate base on the study is not Counterfeits missed as a percentage of total coins processed (or date range processed,) but rather Counterfeits missed as a percentage of Counterfeits submitted. For this type of analysis, a quantity of known counterfeits would have to be submitted WITHOUT forewarning the authenticaters. This reflects the future threat to the hobby. The former reflects the current financial exposure to the TPGs. It's up to the individual TPGs to determine which exposure, present or future, is of more concern to them at the present time. Most only look to the next quarterly report for measuring their success. But the current climate indicates it is easier for TPGs to attack or ignore the reports and reporters than to address the problem. So this becomes a test of INTEGRITY as well as DETECTABILITY. My desire would be that they simply emphasize the insurance side of the "authentication" and eliminate the numerous exceptions to their insurance protections.[/QUOTE]