New PCGS contract

[CSdot]

Has anyone else noticed that 10-20% of the active members here are current or former lawyers? I bet if someone did a study, they would find that law (and medicine), are overrepresented in this hobby. While there will be some exceptions, it probably has something to do with the prerequisite that collectors have discretionary income to participate in this hobby.

 

 

[TonerGuy]

I hope I don't sound too greedy, TonerGuy, but I'm accustomed to getting paid when I go into that kind of detail. I know, I know, I started it. Well, but look at the forum. This isn't a bar list.

 

PS: Now, PCGS cares to retain me (hint hint)...

 

Well let me help you out...

 

Here's what I think you are talking about... trademark disparagement

 

From Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2007):

 

"B) Trademark Disparagement

 

TFN's complaint also alleged "trademark disparagement" under § 1125(a). However, no such claim exists under the Lanham Act. The "elements" of TFN's "trademark disparagement" claim, as set forth in its complaint--i.e., false statement, with malice, about TFN's operations and the validity of its mark--simply cannot be gleaned from § 1125(a)'s text or its prohibition against unfair competition, but instead seem to have been derived largely from a common law "slander of title" claim. See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1373-74 (10th Cir. 1977) (comparing "trademark disparagement" claim to Colorado's "slander of title," which requires a false statement, malice, and special damages). That the Lanham Act's text does not contemplate a trademark disparagement claim is borne out by the absolute dearth of precedent analyzing such a claim under the Act."

 

Or as you stated - you were talking about dilution...

 

From Thane Intern., Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp. 305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

II. Dilution

 

The federal antidilution statute provides the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark . . .

 

More on dilution...

 

Concomitantly, this circuit's description of the two most common forms of dilution—blurring and tarnishment—requires a defendant to use the plaintiff's actual mark, rather than a mark that is merely similar. See Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1326 n. 7 ("Blurring occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff's trademark to identify the defendant's goods and services," and "[t]arnishment occurs when a famous mark is improperly associated with an inferior mark or offensive product or service.").

 

So since there is no trademark disparagement under the Lanham Act and dilution requires that the defendant actually use the trademark, and CAC and PQ arent using a PCGS trademark - again I still dont think the case law supports your claims.

 

Without sounding philanthropic - that took me all of 6 minutes to find.

 

Since you did start this and you peaked my interest enough for me to spend 6 minutes researching your position can you spend 6 minutes finding the supporting case law ? I am really interested in this as a TM issue. I just dont think you can get to where you want to be through the Lanham Act.

[Kurtdog]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

[TonerGuy]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

 

Its only necessary because you raised this argument.

 

BTW Thats not case law you cited - you're giving me statues unless you failed to put the cite in there. And yes I got all of that. And I already refuted it. You cant have dilution without the infringer actually using the trademark of the plaintiff - at least in the Ninth Circuit - where I am and where PCGS is located. I dont know other Circuits that well when it comes to TM law so thats why I am interested in other case law from other Circuits. I was thinking you knew of a holding in a different Circuit. Here in the Ninth, neither CAC or PQ uses any of PCGS's marks and therefore there CANNOT be a dilution claim. See the text I bolded in your own reference. I can promise you in the Ninth Circuit your claim will lose on a Rule 12(b) motion.

 

As for other Circuits I dont know. Do you have case law from other circuits - its a simple yes or no... Im curious. You peeked my intellectual legal curiosity with your argument - Im just asking to see the supporting case law. I dont think thats asking too much. Im not sure why this is making you nervous though.

[coinman_23885]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

 

Placing a CAC sticker or the equivalent on a PCGS holder does not dilute or infringe on any PCGS trade mark. Numeric coin grades are not trade marks. Look up the legal definition of trademark and trade mark dilution.

[coinman_23885]

Has anyone else noticed that 10-20% of the active members here are current or former lawyers? I bet if someone did a study, they would find that law (and medicine), are overrepresented in this hobby. While there will be some exceptions, it probably has something to do with the prerequisite that collectors have discretionary income to participate in this hobby.

 

 

The mere fact that legal statutes and case law are brought up does not mean that the poster is an attorney or has any legal training; thus, I don't think you can infer anything meaningful from these threads.

 

With this said, I would not be surprised to see a number of lawyers, doctors, other health professionals, engineers, accountants, certain individuals in finance, etc. as these groups tend to have higher incomes and more money to spend on coins.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

 

Placing a CAC sticker or the equivalent on a PCGS holder does not dilute or infringe on any PCGS trade mark. Numeric coin grades are not trade marks. Look up the legal definition of trademark and trade mark dilution.

 

I wonder if a closer reading of the words used in the Ad, in its entirety and intent, that Mr. Ankur posted, would cause you to pause and re-consider.

[TonerGuy]

I wonder if a closer reading of the words used in the Ad, in its entirety and intent, that Mr. Ankur posted, would cause you to pause and re-consider.

 

[TonerGuy]

I still dont see a mark owned by PCGS or NGC used in the ad...

 

The ad insinuates the link but doesnt state it... Much like the Apple vs. Microsoft TV commercials from years ago...

 

Video ->

 

Why is it wrong to advertise that you believe you offer a superior product to your competitors ? One might imply from the ad that CAC (now) sees NGC and PCGS as their competitors.

 

I wonder if CAC will launch their own TPG that actually slabs coins. It would seem to be the natural evolution of the market.

[MarkFeld]

I still dont see a mark owned by PCGS or NGC used in the ad...

 

The ad insinuates the link but doesnt state it... Much like the Apple vs. Microsoft TV commercials from years ago...

 

Video ->

 

Why is it wrong to advertise that you believe you offer a superior product to your competitors ? It seems clear form the ad that CAC now sees NGC and PCGS as their competitors.

 

I wonder if CAC will launch their own TPG that actually slabs coins. It would seem to be the natural evolution of the market.

 

I don't see the ad that way, at all - NGC and PCGS are not competitors of CAC. And I would bet big money that CAC will not start a grading company.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I wonder if a closer reading of the words used in the Ad, in its entirety and intent, that Mr. Ankur posted, would cause you to pause and re-consider.

 

 

And....?

[TonerGuy]

I don't see the ad that way, at all - NGC and PCGS are not competitors of CAC. And I would bet big money that CAC will not start a grading company.

 

Sure they compete for the same regrade dollars. Here's how...

 

I have a coin that I feel is undergraded. I can spend money on 1) a regrade at PCGS/NGC hoping the coin gets + or even an upgrade or 2) I can send a coin to CAC and hope I get a gold sticker.

 

Since I dont really follow the auction prices of + coins vs gold bean coins I dont know which is a better investment. But if the gold bean brings a higher premium then absolutely they are competitors. If not, well they are still competitors but its not really affecting NCG or PCGS.

 

If CAC didnt offer gold beans I would agree that they arent competitors in anyway.

 

As for a slab company - I have no idea you are probably correct but didnt PCGS grow out of a dealer putting his own opinions on coins because there was a problem in the coin market at that time ? Just seems like history repeating itself.

 

John - I have no idea what "And???" means... sorry.

[Afterword]

What is CAC going to do with all those coins they have purchased?

 

Are they graded? If so, do they have CAC stickers? If not...

[Kurtdog]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

Its only necessary because you raised this argument.

 

BTW Thats not case law you cited - you're giving me statues unless you failed to put the cite in there. And yes I got all of that. And I already refuted it. You cant have dilution without the infringer actually using the trademark of the plaintiff - at least in the Ninth Circuit - where I am and where PCGS is located. I dont know other Circuits that well when it comes to TM law so thats why I am interested in other case law from other Circuits. I was thinking you knew of a holding in a different Circuit. Here in the Ninth, neither CAC or PQ uses any of PCGS's marks and therefore there CANNOT be a dilution claim. See the text I bolded in your own reference. I can promise you in the Ninth Circuit your claim will lose on a Rule 12(b) motion.

 

As for other Circuits I dont know. Do you have case law from other circuits - its a simple yes or no... Im curious. You peeked my intellectual legal curiosity with your argument - Im just asking to see the supporting case law. I dont think thats asking too much. Im not sure why this is making you nervous though.

The case-cite is at the end of the string-cite right after the end-quote. It's Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007). The statute is the FTDA. That's as far as I'm going. Please respect that. If you want to learn more about dilution, I recommend you pick up McCarthy.

 

EDIT: Sending PM.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I don't see the ad that way, at all - NGC and PCGS are not competitors of CAC. And I would bet big money that CAC will not start a grading company.

 

Sure they compete for the same regrade dollars. Here's how...

 

I have a coin that I feel is undergraded. I can spend money on 1) a regrade at PCGS/NGC hoping the coin gets + or even an upgrade or 2) I can send a coin to CAC and hope I get a gold sticker.

 

Since I dont really follow the auction prices of + coins vs gold bean coins I dont know which is a better investment. But if the gold bean brings a higher premium then absolutely they are competitors. If not, well they are still competitors but its not really affecting NCG or PCGS.

 

If CAC didnt offer gold beans I would agree that they arent competitors in anyway.

 

As for a slab company - I have no idea you are probably correct but didnt PCGS grow out of a dealer putting his own opinions on coins because there was a problem in the coin market at that time ? Just seems like history repeating itself.

 

John - I have no idea what "And???" means... sorry.

 

No reason for sorry.

 

Since your response was to my Post, I thought you were indicating something to me.

 

OK...I understand. It is a tree for the forest thing.

 

I will quote the Ad:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in its' Holder."

 

The English language is the English language. Grammar error? I am sure (I hope). Smart wording? I don't think so.

 

Does this make my Post a little less confusing?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

TonerGuy, is this really necessary? If it is, think of the fact-pattern, here, and get the statute right. Then, here's your caselaw...

 

        "The Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") provides in relevant part:

 

        The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

 

        15 U.S.C. § 1125©(1). Dilution, as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, is "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services" of the owner of the famous mark such that the strong identification value of the owner's trademark whittles away or is gradually attenuated as a result of its use by another. See 4 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:71 (4th ed.2006) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] (discussing the underlying rationale of the dilution cause of action, which is to protect "the senior user's property right and good will in his mark" from the "gradual diminution or whittling away of the value of [his] trademark, resulting from use by another").

 

        The test for trademark dilution, as modified by Moseley, requires the trademark owner to show (a) that its mark is famous; (b) that the junior user has made commercial use of the famous mark; © that the junior user began using the mark after it had became famous; and (d) that such use caused actual dilution. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 873-74 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir.1998)); Moseley, 537 U.S. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115." Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1035-36 (9th Cir., 2007).

 

If this isn't good enough, please PM me. You're making me a little nervous, here. Thanks.

 

 

I want to know more about the use of the word "its", and the possessive intent of the word 'its".

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I don't see the ad that way, at all - NGC and PCGS are not competitors of CAC. And I would bet big money that CAC will not start a grading company.

 

Sure they compete for the same regrade dollars. Here's how...

 

I have a coin that I feel is undergraded. I can spend money on 1) a regrade at PCGS/NGC hoping the coin gets + or even an upgrade or 2) I can send a coin to CAC and hope I get a gold sticker.

 

Since I dont really follow the auction prices of + coins vs gold bean coins I dont know which is a better investment. But if the gold bean brings a higher premium then absolutely they are competitors. If not, well they are still competitors but its not really affecting NCG or PCGS.

 

If CAC didnt offer gold beans I would agree that they arent competitors in anyway.

 

As for a slab company - I have no idea you are probably correct but didnt PCGS grow out of a dealer putting his own opinions on coins because there was a problem in the coin market at that time ? Just seems like history repeating itself.

 

John - I have no idea what "And???" means... sorry.

 

No reason for sorry.

 

Since your response was to my Post, I thought you were indicating something to me.

 

OK...I understand. It is a tree for the forest thing.

 

I will quote the Ad:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in its' Holder."

 

The English language is the English language. Grammar error? I am sure (I hope). Smart wording? I don't think so.

 

Does this make my Post a little less confusing?

 

No takers on the English language?

[MarkFeld]

What is CAC going to do with all those coins they have purchased?

 

Are they graded? If so, do they have CAC stickers? If not...

 

CAC is a very active trader in coins, so chances are, they do not carry a huge inventory.They primarily buy CAC verified coins, but occasionally buy non-CAC examples.

[Afterword]

"....but occasionally buy non-CAC examples."

 

 

 

 

 

And slap CAC stickers on them, no doubt.

 

Thanks.

[MarkFeld]

"....but occasionally buy non-CAC examples."

 

 

 

 

 

And slap CAC stickers on them, no doubt.

 

Thanks.

 

Your "no doubt" is dead wrong.

[Afterword]

"Your "no doubt" is dead wrong."

 

How is that? Why would they buy coins that did not meet their sticker requirements?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

"Your "no doubt" is dead wrong."

 

How is that? Why would they buy coins that did not meet their sticker requirements?

 

 

They woud not stoop to stickering their own coins - that would not be an arms-length evaluation.

 

I remember one case where John Albanese bought a non-srickered ultra rarity -I think it was either a 1913 Liberty Nickel or an 1804 Dollar - and re-sold it, as it was. The fact that it did not meet CAC's stickering criteria did not disqualify it from being an extremely rare and desirable coin.

[Raisethis2]

 

 

Mark,

 

Serious question here. Does John Albanese still Buy, Sell and Trade as a Dealer or are there other purposes he obtains coins, such as his own collection or for investment purposes for others, etc? I know I've heard that CAC will buy any coin stickered by them at FMV but I always thought that was CAC's response to a coin that"turns" in the holder, etc.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

 

Mark,

 

Serious question here. Does John Albanese still Buy, Sell and Trade as a Dealer or are there other purposes he obtains coins, such as his own collection or for investment purposes for others, etc? I know I've heard that CAC will buy any coin stickered by them at FMV but I always thought that was CAC's response to a coin that"turns" in the holder, etc.

 

 

As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins.

 

If he collects coins for himself, I am unaware of it.

 

I am confident that at least some of the many people who buy coins from him do so for investment purposes and not merely for purley collecting purposes.

[Afterword]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

[MarkFeld]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

[MarkFeld]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

 

John, I can't decide whether I agree with you. Can't the phrase below reasonably be construed to mean "Look for the CAC sticker - you'll find a quality coin in the CAC sticker's holder"?

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder"

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"As a dealer, John/CAC is a major buyer (and seller) of CAC certified coins."

 

Has John/CAC done so since CAC's inception? $300,000,000 is a significant amount of money.

 

I wonder how many CAC certified coins that amount represents.

 

He couldn't have done so - been a major buyer and seller of CAC certified coins - before CAC's inception, so I don't understand your question.

 

 

" Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder".

 

I am suggesting that there would be a better turn of phrase:

 

"Look for the CAC sticker- you'll find a quality coin in the holder the sticker resides on".

 

Somebody really needs to rewrite that last line, because its not a CAC holder.

 

I understand grammar errors, but knowing that some might take advantage of the wording and use it in a negative way should have been obvious.

 

All the baloney legal citations missed the obvious. Law sentence structure 101.

 

In the alternative, at least consider a hash mark between t and s. That would be better than nothing, but many would not see a difference.

 

John, I can't decide whether I agree with you. Can't the phrase below reasonably be construed to mean "Look for the CAC sticker - you'll find a quality coin in the CAC sticker's holder"?

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in its holder"

 

 

Not when it is "its".

 

I am sure you can see the cause of action.

 

CAC can very easily rectify this. Of course it is an unintended mistake. But (blah blah) that is exactly the kind of mistake that gets attorneys spouting off the wrong baloney citations, for the wrong reasons, and collectors that are for or against posing silly hypothetical titillating nonsense.

 

There is no man as honorable as one that corrects his own spelling mistake, rather than take advantage of it.

 

Make it clear- it is not in a CAC (its) holder. It is in another entity holder.

[Conder101]

Simple solution, change "its" to "the".

 

"Look for the CAC sticker-you'll find a quality coin in the holder"