...please think about my reasons.

This is the second journal article of three I've been meaning to write.

The main topic I want to address is something that had been discussed a few months ago. The topic is letting ANACS & ICG graded coins into registry sets. I guess I agree with the journal writer who made the point of not letting all of the companies in the competitive sets. I wish to offer a compromise, I'd sure like to see ANACS & ICG allowed in our Signature Sets. A couple of reasons why I feel this way; first, these are non-competitive sets, I see no reason why ANACS or ICG graded coins would hurt. While I personally get the bulk of my coins graded by NCG when I have to pay for it, I do subscribe to the idea of buying the coin & not the holder for coins I buy, especially for my Wild West set. For example, I have 2 So-Called Dollars that are graded by ANACS, when I first saw them, they were the only ones I had seen, graded by anyone. Now, I know NCG (and PCGS, and ANACS etc.) would like me to resubmit and get the coins graded by them. But I hope everyone understands that I don't really care to spend the money that could go to more coins, just to resubmit so I can put them in my set. Secondly, since the signature sets are non-competitive, I don't feel I'm hurting anyone by including them. I could understand on the competitive sets, maybe those should be held to a little higher standard.

I know this journal will probably cause replies, and that's good because a free exchange of ideas is great.

I've attached a pic of one of them here, so everyone can see what I'm talking about when I say I think these are graded accurately enough for a signature set.