I have been reading ATS "Again" and I was wondering how any of the kool aiders..

[MAULEMALL]

Can honestly say that NGC is loose on grading when they are handing out 80% 70's on this One order. Really,,,,8 out of 10 are 70... And if I am not mistaken aren't they the TOUGHEST graders in the biz???

[MarkFeld]

I don't see how any determination (regarding grading being loose or tight) can be made without seeing the coins in hand. And that doesn't even address the issue of whether NGC would have awarded fewer or more 70's. A small, sight-unseen sample size tells me nothing. Sorry.

[MAULEMALL]

I don't see how any determination (regarding grading being loose or tight) can be made without seeing the coins in hand. And that doesn't even address the issue of whether NGC would have awarded fewer or more 70's. A small, sight-unseen sample size tells me nothing. Sorry.

Try to see the BIG picture Mark...

For the last couple years pcgs graded no 70's (SAEs) because of a potential problem...wether they were perfect or not... Didn't matter.. problems in the future kept them from giving the true grade....and Making the S in pcgs stand for Psychic...

 

How many people gave their hard earned dollars to a company that proclaimed to grade 1- 70 when they actually were only grading to 69..

 

Now all of a sudden they cant get enough of them 70's...

[MarkFeld]

I don't see how any determination (regarding grading being loose or tight) can be made without seeing the coins in hand. And that doesn't even address the issue of whether NGC would have awarded fewer or more 70's. A small, sight-unseen sample size tells me nothing. Sorry.

Try to see the BIG picture Mark...

For the last couple years pcgs graded no 70's (SAEs) because of a potential problem...wether they were perfect or not... Didn't matter.. problems in the future kept them from giving the true grade....and Making the S in pcgs stand for Psychic...

 

How many people gave their hard earned dollars to a company that proclaimed to grade 1- 70 when they actually were only grading to 69..

 

Now all of a sudden they cant get enough of them 70's...

So Patrick, are you saying they are loose now, or they were tight then?

[MAULEMALL]

I don't see how any determination (regarding grading being loose or tight) can be made without seeing the coins in hand. And that doesn't even address the issue of whether NGC would have awarded fewer or more 70's. A small, sight-unseen sample size tells me nothing. Sorry.

Try to see the BIG picture Mark...

For the last couple years pcgs graded no 70's (SAEs) because of a potential problem...wether they were perfect or not... Didn't matter.. problems in the future kept them from giving the true grade....and Making the S in pcgs stand for Psychic...

 

How many people gave their hard earned dollars to a company that proclaimed to grade 1- 70 when they actually were only grading to 69..

 

Now all of a sudden they cant get enough of them 70's...

So Patrick, are you saying they are loose now, or they were tight then?

I'm saying that a lot of people got screwed out of thier money.. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

Screwed out of their money, or got exactly what they paid for....

 

Do the words "hasty generalization" ring a bell?

[MAULEMALL]

Screwed out of their money, or got exactly what they paid for....

 

Do the words "hasty generalization" ring a bell?

I guess thats why we post here...

To give others the actual generalization...

 

 

Thank you for participating?

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I'd have to agree that someone who buys a "70" coin because they truly expect it to be "perfect" will not get what he or she is paying for. I'm convinced there are NO "perfect" coins in existence!

 

On the other hand, slabs that say "70" really are "70" slabs - they exist by the truckload!

 

[MikeInFL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

[CHABSENTIA]

I have brought this up before. He doesn't say if they were 2007W or not. I was looking at all the hoopola on the 2007W as the people on T.V. and EBAY were comparing the possibilites of the 2007 W TO THE 2006W. They were coming out at $198.00 with the Early Release label in MS70.

 

In October of 2007 you could get them for about $75.00. Not only that but the NGC Population for that time in MS70 was 12,000. This is ridiculous.

 

I asked at the time and nobody really answered but is it possible that the Burnished Planchets on the 2007W made for a better strike etc and that the U.S.Mint using the Burnished Planchets of 2006W as an example made some improvements?

 

I will leave it to others if it is just the 2007.

 

[MAULEMALL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

[MAULEMALL]

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....:.....Mike

[MAULEMALL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....Mike

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

_________________________

[IGWT]

Making the S in pcgs stand for Psychic

 

Why not the P?

[MikeInFL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....Mike

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

_________________________

 

And which part of Chabsentia's post did you write?

 

 

[MAULEMALL]

Making the S in pcgs stand for Psychic

 

Why not the P?

I bow to the IGWT

 

 

[MAULEMALL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....Mike

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

_________________________

 

And which part of Chabsentia's post did you write?

 

Actually that was my reply to him.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please keep up

[MikeInFL]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

[MikeInFL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....Mike

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

_________________________

 

And which part of Chabsentia's post did you write?

 

Actually that was my reply to him.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please keep up

 

Aha, I see now. Next time, learn to use the quote feature so as not to mis-portray your words as Chas', I would appreciate it.

 

That said, I see the point you're trying to make, I think, but it is a non sequitur to your conclusion that PCGS is looser than NGC. To wit, if PCGS grades only on a 69 scale they would be tougher than NGC (although I might just call it "different" rather than looser or tighter), which is exactly the opposite of what you suggest in your first post.

 

You do have a valid point for their only grading to a 69 scale and PCGS' position on not grading SAEs a 70 because of the milkspotting problem is a slimy way to solve the problem, but as I posted above, those sumbitters should have known that before they submitted, and they got exactly what they asked for.

 

Regardless, none of that changes the fact that you were WRONG about PCGS being looser than NGC, and you were WRONG in infering that they were because of a single 80% submission (hasty generalization).....Mike

[MAULEMALL]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

 

IGWT is one of the posters on this board who gets my attention when he posts..

Smart guy who in the vein of a few others who post here displays an understated grasp of what he posts. Agree or dissagree you learn from him.

Got a good sense of humor too...

[rrantique]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

 

[MikeInFL]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

 

IGWT is one of the posters on this board who gets my attention when he posts..

Smart guy who in the vein of a few others who post here displays an understated grasp of what he posts. Agree or dissagree you learn from him.

Got a good sense of humor too...

 

Well I'm sorry if you can't get past your hatred/dislike for me to see that my comments/concerns are valid. Hopefully someday we'll be able to bury the hatchet, and you can get past that.

 

But know this, I don't care who you are -- Maulemall, Greg, or Mark Feld -- or what you type, if I see BS, I call it. Your original post was BS, and I called you on it. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way....Mike

 

p.s. Lou, what do YOU think about this, since Maulemall doesn't want to hear me?

[MAULEMALL]

And what actual generalization might that be?

 

If you think PCGS is looser than NGC, then perhaps you ought to take a look at the population reports to get the real story, and please report back what you find.

 

I see one set of grades, probably hand-picked coins, which resulted in 80% 70's. I say good job to the submitter as that is hardly the rule.

 

I see nobody getting "screwed out of their money" (unless you include those who buy 70 slabs), and while I am open-minded to the possibility, I just can't get there from here.

 

So if you have additional evidence to support your conclusion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I just don't see it, and frankly your anti-PCGS ramblings are just as slanted (albeit the other way) as the koolaid ATS. The truth, IMO, is somewhere in-between...Mike

 

p.s. you are welcome.

Obviously you didn't read any of what I posted so I am going to give you the opportunity to read it and figure out if anything you posted makes sense..

 

,,I really didn't use any big words but if you need any help let me know,, (thumbs u

 

 

And again Please don't offer any hugs..I still don't swing to your tune

 

Are you sure you don't want a hug?

 

Really, I read your post the first time, and I re-read it again. I stand by what I wrote. Your conclusions are wrong given both the evidence you presented (8 of 10 in a single submission) and the overall coin populations (which for all intents and purposes proves PCGS is tighter than NGC) don't allow me to draw the same conclusions you did.

 

If you would kindly point out where I'm missing something, I promise to give you my honest asssessment, regardless if you take me up on my hug offer or not and regardless of if you use big words or not.....Mike

CHABSENTIA

For the last couple years and up until very recently pcgs had a policy of not giving any 70's for SAE's(Or ASE's to be technical)because of the milk spot issue.

It was widely known and even posted about ATS.

So anyone who didn't read thier boards who sent thiers in to be graded hoping for a 70 didn't know that they had no chance since they only went to 69.

 

The buy backs are costing pcgs a pretty penny now.

So if you read the thread I linked you will read how some are speculating that there will be a flood of 70's to bring down the premium and to lighten the liability when they spot up.

_________________________

 

And which part of Chabsentia's post did you write?

 

Actually that was my reply to him.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please keep up

 

Aha, I see now. Next time, learn to use the quote feature so as not to mis-portray your words as Chas', I would appreciate it.

 

That said, I see the point you're trying to make, I think, but it is a non sequitur to your conclusion that PCGS is looser than NGC. To wit, if PCGS grades only on a 69 scale they would be tougher than NGC (although I might just call it "different" rather than looser or tighter), which is exactly the opposite of what you suggest in your first post.

 

I never said that pcgs was looser than NGC.I mearly pointed out the irony. What I said was that pcgs screwed over some of the people that submitted coins.And what I inferred was that they screwed them because they were supposed to be using a 1-70 scale and in actuality they only went to 69

 

You do have a valid point for their only grading to a 69 scale and PCGS' position on not grading SAEs a 70 because of the milkspotting problem is a slimy way to solve the problem,

It must have hurt your fingers to type that

but as I posted above, those sumbitters should have known that before they submitted, and they got exactly what they asked for....Mike

 

 

Not all of thier submitters read the boards.

[MAULEMALL]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

 

IGWT is one of the posters on this board who gets my attention when he posts..

Smart guy who in the vein of a few others who post here displays an understated grasp of what he posts. Agree or dissagree you learn from him.

Got a good sense of humor too...

 

Well I'm sorry if you can't get past your hatred/dislike for me to see that my comments/concerns are valid. Hopefully someday we'll be able to bury the hatchet, and you can get past that.

 

But know this, I don't care who you are -- Maulemall, Greg, or Mark Feld -- or what you type, if I see BS, I call it. Your original post was BS, and I called you on it. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way....Mike

 

p.s. Lou, what do YOU think about this, since Maulemall doesn't want to hear me?

Dude you really need to relax..

Maybe if you could curb your arrogence you would be better recieved.

At least I don't have to edit my "BS".

Lou ,,,,Could you give the guy a hug??

 

[MikeInFL]

Come on now, you infered that PCGS was looser than NGC in your first post. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but if you intended to suggest that people got screwed out of their money, why didn't you post that in your first post, and not after Mark called your BS?

 

That said, and frankly, I think you have me confused with a koolaid drinker. I see slime everywhere in the coin game -- and PCGS and NGC are both guilty -- and I call it how I see it. Just so you know, I buy coins for what they are, regardless of if they are in NGC or PCGS plastic or raw, and I have never submitted a coin for grading. So to call me a koolaid drinker would be another mistaken assumption.

 

As to your last point, you're right, not all submitters read the boards, however, they should be aware of the policy -- after all if you're going to take the position that it is the buyer who should be responsible for their actions (i.e. the blue indian agument), the the same position should be held for this example. You can't have it both ways....Mike

 

 

[MikeInFL]

IGWT gets a bow, and I can't even get a hug. Dammit!

 

IGWT is one of the posters on this board who gets my attention when he posts..

Smart guy who in the vein of a few others who post here displays an understated grasp of what he posts. Agree or dissagree you learn from him.

Got a good sense of humor too...

 

Well I'm sorry if you can't get past your hatred/dislike for me to see that my comments/concerns are valid. Hopefully someday we'll be able to bury the hatchet, and you can get past that.

 

But know this, I don't care who you are -- Maulemall, Greg, or Mark Feld -- or what you type, if I see BS, I call it. Your original post was BS, and I called you on it. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way....Mike

 

p.s. Lou, what do YOU think about this, since Maulemall doesn't want to hear me?

Dude you really need to relax..

Maybe if you could curb your arrogence you would be better recieved.

At least I don't have to edit my "BS".

Lou ,,,,Could you give the guy a hug??

 

I am very relaxed, thank you.

 

I don't think I'm being arrogant, but if you think I am, I'm not sure what to say except I apologize. Arrogance was not my intent, but pointing out the error in your logic was. If that's arrogance, I apologize, but I have trouble leaving comments demeaning others, particularly erroneous ones, alone.

 

I should try and do a better job of that, I suppose....Mike

 

p.s. as far as I can tell, the only person who receives my posts badly is you -- so who has the problem?

[MAULEMALL]

Come on now, you infered that PCGS was looser than NGC in your first post. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but if you intended to suggest that people got screwed out of their money, why didn't you post that in your first post, and not after Mark called your BS?

Sometimes in the course of posting we post things that require the person who reads it to draw thier own conclusions. But to be honest I just thought it was funny (That would be funny HA HA as well as funny Ironic) to post what I took to be an interesting discussion happening ATS before it was removed because a few posters were stating what I believe to be the real reason for the avalanch of 70's that will be coming soon to ebay and your local B&M shop.

 

That said, and frankly, I think you have me confused with a koolaid drinker. I see slime everywhere in the coin game -- and PCGS and NGC are both guilty -- and I call it how I see it. Just so you know, I buy coins for what they are, regardless of if they are in NGC or PCGS plastic or raw, and I have never submitted a coin for grading. So to call me a koolaid drinker would be another mistaken assumption.

Seriously,,, I have never called you a drinker of JJ's elixir and truthfully (And don't get me wrong here this is not an insult or written to antagonize) I could give a flip.. Life doesn't revolve around a hobby for me. Have some kids and you'll see what I mean.

 

As to your last point, you're right, not all submitters read the boards, however, they should be aware of the policy -- after all if you're going to take the position that it is the buyer who should be responsible for their actions (i.e. the blue indian agument), the the same position should be held for this example. You can't have it both ways....Mike

 

I don't recall ever taking that position.. What I do recall was the BS that was thrown at Greg and the kissing that was done to Rick Snow.

And then the inability of some to actually stand up to what they posted instead of editting almost every one of thier posts.

 

 

But thats all in the past... What are you going to do tomorrow is what matters.

[IGWT]

Patrick, that's an awfully big theory to pack into a 10-coin submission. But I'll give Mike a big ol' bear hug if you think it'll help. Mike?

[MAULEMALL]

Patrick, that's an awfully big theory to pack into a 10-coin submission.

I just throw them across the plate Lou... You got to decide if your going to swing or not...

 

But I'll give Mike a big ol' bear hug if you think it'll help. Mike?

Thats why you rock Lou...Givin one for the TEAM