Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charley, post: 7871038, member: 5372&quot;]OK.&nbsp; I don&#039;t have it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Back&nbsp; to the premise you presented, and my questioning of the premise.</p><p><br /></p><p>Your premise is that the coin pictured is conclusive forensics that this is one of several/many/all..... what ever quantity you intended.... that the TPG and, by extension CONECA, determined incorrectly and is garbage. You made this determination from the photos presented. I can understand your conclusion.</p><p><br /></p><p>All I am asking, is that you explain and teach why/how and what forensics were used for the conclusion of infallibility based on very&nbsp; low quality dark and indistinct photos.</p><p><br /></p><p>Stating you know you are correct, and basing it on a general statement that this TPG did it before, (I also am interested in this conclusive statement, btw, because I would think you would&nbsp; have wanted to disseminate this information to hobbyists/collectors/dealers before now), and there is no luster,&nbsp; and you are a professional, and read the book, is not teaching, or forensic proof of your adamancy. It is simply an opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why not teach? Why be offended? Why avoid? I am quite sure I am not the only person that wants to learn the specific finite conclusion that the coin is garbage, based strictly on less than clear qualitative photos, and without the piece in hand, and without any physical forensics.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I don&#039;t understand, and I am certain I am not alone, how your conclusion is not just an opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Had you stated your opinion is, or your suspicion is, or the photos are not the best quality and you don&#039;t detect &quot;luster&quot; (but don&#039;t mention there may or may not be or had been luster), or had you stated the possibility of midnight minters, or nefarious coin doctoring is suspected, but you would have to physically examine the piece, then I would think that makes sense and I expect a &quot;professional&quot; to be impartial.</p><p><br /></p><p>You did not. You deflected the teaching moment, and&nbsp; lapsed into haughty indignity. </p><p>I understand. You do not appreciate my cyberspace bluntness. That is not the point. The point is simple: how did you conclusively reach a finite conclusion by&nbsp; nothing more than horrible photos and without in hand examination or any physical forensics?</p><p><br /></p><p>There is absolutely no reason for you to be condescending and feel the need to humblebrag, instead of professionally explaining to the audience your infallibility.</p><p><br /></p><p>You don&#039;t want to share and teach and explain? No problem. You perceive it is an indignity to be questioned by a person on the internet, specifically me. I can even understand that. What I don&#039;t understand, is why you would not do so for the benefit of the OP, instead of leaving the OP with the definitive statement it is garbage, based on the photos. That seems selfish and targeted discourtesy toward the TPG&nbsp; and the OP and, again by extension, CONECA.</p><p><br /></p><p>My opinion, and I readily and without hesitation acknowledge is not worth anything, is this avoidance is not professionalism. It is equivalent to the tenured professor replying to the 1st year remedial reading class student &quot;because I said so&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>Full disclosure: edited for a couple of spelling booboos and misplaced / thingys.[/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