comicdonna

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

 

It is not just the administrator. The environment of these boards is growing increasingly toxic, and a couple of posters in particular are driving this place into the ground (for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience). The recent decisions by NGC won't help, of course, but the NGC forums have been doing their best Hindenburg impression for a while now.

 

I can understand your perspective.

 

I was always curious that there is an ignore function that can be used by members that are not pleased by the posts of others, yet when a member publicly states they have initiated the function for a certain member, darn if the person that initiated the function can still opine about the posts of the member they have initiated the ignore function for.

 

As an example, and not that it is important at all, but just an observation, I recall that many many months ago, you publicly stated you had initiated the function as a preference toward my posts. I did a little checking, and I had not remembered that you publicly stated this action 4 times, and 2 times in the last 2 months. You state in the post I am responding to, and I am only quoting for the purpose of illustration of my thoughts:

 

"....(for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience)..."

 

It appears that you are not really ignoring me, because if you were, then you would not know that which you stated, if you were in fact ignoring my posts. There is the issue, because as we all know, it is not really ignoring, because the ignore function does not "hide" the post when a member is off line, and when the member is on line, the member can reverse the ignore function and read in real time. Your posts over the last few months prove this, as indeed the post I am responding to does, when you refer to me or my posts. I think it would be very helpful to members like you, if when the ignore function is used, it can not be cancelled once initiated. This would prevent the human nature response of peeking, and lack of self restraint to truly ignore the member that caused you to initiate an ignore function. It is sort of a lack of self dignity and self discipline to peek, similar to cheating yourself. We all do it, though, and then profess loudly and repeatedly and publicly about the member we original had on ignore. This in turn usually causes the cheating member (as it applies to peeking even though the ignore function is on) to not be able to control themselves and to continue to foment a strange hatred and disgust and anger, and it soon starts effecting the same type of attitude toward many other aspects and people and situations. That is no way to live. There are many other important aspects of life a person can enjoy, rather than be obsessed with another member, or the host or the business choices of the host, or a person that disagrees with you, to the point that you feel the only tool at your disposal that helps to relieve your obsession is to attempt to belittle and be discourteous.

 

So, I agree with you that the host could help improve the boards a little for the members lacking in self restraint and self dignity and courtesy, by making the ignore function permanent in all situations and eliminate peeking, once the member initiates the action. I would not want to be the cause of any member being irate because they can not control their self harming human tendencies.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=394074&Number=8977916#Post8977916

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

It's a little sad to see NGC do this. I'm used to it though. Just posting a competitors slab on the comics side is strike worthy.

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

 

 

Yes, in your opinion.

I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.

 

Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping

This illustrates a valuable point. The average person looking up a non-existent date in a standard reference work will NOT, upon seeing the date not listed, assume "Oh, it must be a fantasy coin created by a private minter" and shrug it off. He or she WILL assume that it is a fabulously rare coin that must be worth a lot of money. This is why such pieces are supposed to be marked in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act of 1973.

 

TD

 

Yet every time you or I (or any other poster) brings up that point, we are written off as stupid, naïve, and "grasping at straws." Maybe this will cause people to wake up. The HPA and counterfeiting statutes are not written for informed collectors and numismatists, but the "average" American - think lowest common denominator.

Unless the word "Copy" appears on the piece, it violates both the Hobby Protection Act and counterfeiting law.

$8,250.00 ($9,075.00 with Buyer's Fee)

 

Do you mind sharing that?

 

Chris

Awesome!

Very nice!

Very nice, West!

You are on a tear, Jim.

A tough date. Fresh from Heritage.

 

Thanks for looking.

Thanks for the offer. I will give it some thought. The toning on the back is actually rainbow. A nice blue in the center, with red on the outsides.

Here's a new purchase from Mark Feld Rare Coins. It has great mirrors. My pics don't do it justice.

Thanks for adding the pics, copper toning.

I believe this is my only purchase this year. I recieved it today.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221160568690?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Very nice!

I got my first gold coin today. Sellers pics.