Blast White, weak obverse strike, and CACed

[MJ]

Hi John

 

For the record the last thing I would ever invest in is coins. That is a bobsled ride to hell. I use disposal funds to buy coins and don't look at them as assets. I do however like making informed decisions just the same. Trust me my collector passion trumps my business acumen when push comes to shove. I love great coins and I pay for them.

 

The 97/3 example I used was more for illustration of those who can't TPG grade from those that can really can. I used a Bill as an example as he can. The problem is that a lot of the 97% group convince themselves that they can and are just fooling themselves. A CAC can benefit that group. It actually levels the playing field a bit.

 

CAC intended to separate the lower end coins in each grade from those that were solid plus. John's contention was that the "C" coins were pulling down the value of the "A" and " B" coins. The question being why should an A coin in 65 price the same as a C coin? A lot of times they were as sheets were the go to pricing vehicle and the end use customer collector paying the ultimate uninformed price. Anyways I think that maybe the CAC influence overshot in both directions. C coins or non sticker coins seem to sell at a larger discount, perhaps too large and stickered coins at a larger premium. However, markets as they always do will sort themselves out

 

I really do buy the coins and not the holder. I'm just an advocate on buying "all there" coins for the grade. I was taught early in the game from Larry Shephard and Gregg Bingham to buy coins that when cracked out of their holder would come back the same grade 10 out of 10 times. I think its sound advise. I try to pay it forward.

 

MJ

 

Again, thank you, but again, your comments are not addressing the issue I am presenting.

 

I am sure it is me and it is the way I am wording my thoughts.

 

I am sure it's me just being me

 

MJ

[AcesKings]

I am sure it is me and it is the way I am wording my thoughts.

 

Maybe a red bean or different TPG colored label for market acceptable, but possibly dipped coins would be what you'd be looking for?

[MarkFeld]

My instinct tells me that CAC prefers the ambiguity in order to allow maximum flexibility in "making their market". Too much clarity would make them slaves to consistency and any deviations may lead to expensive liability. As the Rembrandts warbled "that's just the way it is, baby"!

 

I think ambiguity - if that's what you want to call it - is unavoidable, when dealing with grading, which is subjective in nature.

 

How could someone who assesses/grades coins, possibly be clear (in a practical sense), in stating what coins they will or will not grade or sticker?

 

For example, they will grade coins which, in their determination, have not been over-dipped. How could they define over-dipped in a way which would really help submitters. Ditto for coins which have toned deeply, but no so deeply that the toning has etched into the coin's surfaces. These are determinations which need to be made on a sight-seen basis and which can't be unambiguous, no matter how badly anyone wishes it.

 

Good Afternoon, Mark.

 

I apologize for commenting, since your thoughts are not directed at me, although the Book I have been writing in this Thread surely has some tongue in cheek parts you could chew.

 

Your points here, while reasonable, are still not the issue I am presenting. I think it must be the way I am stating the case, as I interpret it to be.

 

I will try again.

 

Forget the word market. Forget whether it is making a Market. Forget who has a 97% ability or 3% ability.

 

The average collector relies, rightly or wrongly, on the opinion of the TPG and/or 4PG, in determining the buy/sell position of a coin. Lets be honest: very very few collectors are in the 3% range of the grading skill. So, a Trust position is established, between the buyer/seller and the TPG and/or 4PG. The TPG and 4PG, in some respects, has a sort of "fiduciary" responsibility to the buyer/seller.

If the TPG and 4PG are going to give an opinion on a coin, and that opinion is effected by the enhancement of a coin, meaning that the TPG and/or 4PG know darn well that the coin was enhanced, then the coin should darn well openly state that fact on the Holder. They don't want to set the "dipped within reason" parameter? Fine. lets eliminate the "ambiguity" - although I think that is a very generous and evading term - and just state the coin has been dipped. Let the buyer/seller determine the end point.

 

The very fact that in your example you state the evaluation of the coin is whether or not it has been over-dipped, yet ask how to define it in a manner that helps submitters, is contradictory and not logical to determine the end opinion rendered. Then what the heck are they evaluating? Forget Submitters, then. Lets just concentrate on the end result of the evaluation.

 

Simply state the coin was dipped/enhanced, and has a Grade of X, due to the enhancement. The sight seen basis is exactly how the opinion is derived, so why present this as not being unambiguous? If the end result is they can't be unambiguous, fine. Then they CAN be unambiguous in stating that the enhancement level of the coin was a factor in determining the opinion...it either was enhanced or it was not.

 

To not do so is avoidance, misleading and is and will be harmful in the long term to the Hobby, and frankly, everybody's pocket book. There is no political aspect to discussing this. There is no us against them issue. It is simply a truth of stated opinion issue.

 

John,

 

If I understand you correctly, you are advocating that graders make note of dipping/enhancements.

 

If so, here is what I personally believe to be a huge shortcoming with such a designation....

 

Some coins show obvious evidence of having been dipped. Others look as if they might or might not have been dipped and still others look as if they haven't been dipped. But even those in the last category might have been dipped - there is simply no way to know. So in the large majority of cases, the grader can't say with certainty whether a coin has been dipped.

 

And (whether he thinks or knows the coin has or hasn't been dipped), if, based on the coin's appearance, a grader thinks a coin deserves a 64 grade, what's wrong with grading it 64, without further explanation?

 

Whether you agree with part, none or all of the above, if you were running things at a grading or stickering company, based on your own preferences, specifically, how would you handle the dipping designation? Please let me know for coins in these three categories: 1) obviously dipped; 2) no idea whether it has been dipped 3) looks undipped, but no way to know?

 

Thanks.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello Mark,

 

Thanks for the remarks.

 

The questions are reasonable, and in keeping within discussion Rules that if the other guy's questions can't be answered, re-state the other guy's questions as a position and then ask your own questions, based on that position. Nothing wrong with this tactic.

 

So, lets get to it. And, lets agree that we are both striving toward logic tempered with common sense and a goal of full disclosure.

 

1. A #1

2. A #2

3. A #3.

 

And, less I be accused of being a smartazz, I am serious. If your wonderful 1., 2., and 3. descriptions were published openly (after a very small amount of editing , I would consider this as full disclosure of the opinion of the TPG and/or 4PG.

 

I would also be willing to predict that it would not only be a welcome fresh air approach, it would give credibility to the process and introduce Trust back into the Hobby, and expand the Hobby. I do not see such a move as having any negative economic impact for anybody.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am sure it is me and it is the way I am wording my thoughts.

 

Maybe a red bean or different TPG colored label for market acceptable, but possibly dipped coins would be what you'd be looking for?

 

Absolutely along the parameters of my thought process. Dead on, with a little tweaking.

[MarkFeld]

Hello Mark,

 

Thanks for the remarks.

 

The questions are reasonable, and in keeping within discussion Rules that if the other guy's questions can't be answered, re-state the other guy's questions as a position and then ask your own questions, based on that position. Nothing wrong with this tactic.

 

So, lets get to it. And, lets agree that we are both striving toward logic tempered with common sense and a goal of full disclosure.

 

1. A #1

2. A #2

3. A #3.

 

And, less I be accused of being a smartazz, I am serious. If your wonderful 1., 2., and 3. descriptions were published openly (after a very small amount of editing , I would consider this as full disclosure of the opinion of the TPG and/or 4PG.

 

I would also be willing to predict that it would not only be a welcome fresh air approach, it would give credibility to the process and introduce Trust back into the Hobby, and expand the Hobby. I do not see such a move as having any negative economic impact for anybody.

 

Thanks, John. I'd be curious as to what % of collectors would welcome such designations and whether you/they would prefer different and/or additional ones to the three categories I suggested.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello Mark,

 

Thanks for the remarks.

 

The questions are reasonable, and in keeping within discussion Rules that if the other guy's questions can't be answered, re-state the other guy's questions as a position and then ask your own questions, based on that position. Nothing wrong with this tactic.

 

So, lets get to it. And, lets agree that we are both striving toward logic tempered with common sense and a goal of full disclosure.

 

1. A #1

2. A #2

3. A #3.

 

And, less I be accused of being a smartazz, I am serious. If your wonderful 1., 2., and 3. descriptions were published openly (after a very small amount of editing , I would consider this as full disclosure of the opinion of the TPG and/or 4PG.

 

I would also be willing to predict that it would not only be a welcome fresh air approach, it would give credibility to the process and introduce Trust back into the Hobby, and expand the Hobby. I do not see such a move as having any negative economic impact for anybody.

 

Thanks, John. I'd be curious as to what % of collectors would welcome such designations and whether you/they would prefer different and/or additional ones to the three categories I suggested.

 

So would I; However, it would be a start toward re-introducing Trust, and full disclosure to the Hobby.

 

I understand your real point - nobody is ever satisfied. The parallel would be the 70 vs. 100 grading parameters. We all lived through that.

 

We could live through this.

 

So, lets have a public response.

 

The TPG and 4PG and ANA and PNG and anybody else could send out voting cards. The Ballot would be the same type/and limitations for all. Put a timetable on it. The results openly disclosed and all participants agree to abide by whatever the Ballot winning position is.

 

THIS IS SPARTA....

[AHFreak]

not my thread, nor is dipping/dipped/non-dipped/etc my "specialty". That said, I am sitting here wondering how anyone could even think for 1 second that something like this is a realistic possibility?

 

I am getting the impression that not only do you think it is possible, but that you think it is 3PG's, 4PG's "responsibility" for some reason. Have you thought about what you are suggesting would really mean in a practical application sense? Just think about it for one second... as soon as you even open that pointless can of worms, of noting or specifying on a label that a coin was dipped, or "may have been dipped in its lifetime" etc.. How on Earth would you, me or anyone from the common guy to the expert of all experts for that matter establish a black and white parameter/guideline on the subject... As soon as there was one, someone like me would come along and disprove or invalidate it with ease.

Could you realistically suggest that just because a 19th century coin is white, that it must mean it has been "dipped"? Or better yet, could you realistically propose that just because a 19th century coin is not white, that is hasn't been dipped? As soon as you do, you immediately open yourself up to be proven wrong, then what? (prove you wrong for example by removing unattractive color from a seated dime and adding attractive color that fools not only you, but the graders who slab it or something to that affect). Lets take the "coin doctor scenario" out of it, and I feel like there would be just as strong of an argument... Meaning, that you find a white 19th century coin and because it is white, you conclude with 100% certainty that it has been dipped? How would you or anyone be able to make declarations like that? Do you truly know it is not possible, and if so, how? Were you with the coin in the 150+ years of its existence and if so, how?

 

My point is, if I understand this thread completely... You are suggesting the 3&4PG's somehow identify when they "believe a coin was dipped at one point in its lifetime right??? If so, that is something that is not even remotely possible to get right.... IMO-the last thing this hobby needs is one more "professional opinion" that establishes whether or not a coin is or isn't something or another.

What is the goal here? seriously? another "opinion" disguised as factual knowledge on the label of a coin that tells us about said coin, something that IMO said person should be able to see?

Isnt there already enough of that madness about making opinionated declarations about coins and then presenting them as factual...

what possible good or positive comes from that?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

not my thread, nor is dipping/dipped/non-dipped/etc my "specialty". That said, I am sitting here wondering how anyone could even think for 1 second that something like this is a realistic possibility?

 

I am getting the impression that not only do you think it is possible, but that you think it is 3PG's, 4PG's "responsibility" for some reason. Have you thought about what you are suggesting would really mean in a practical application sense? Just think about it for one second... as soon as you even open that pointless can of worms, of noting or specifying on a label that a coin was dipped, or "may have been dipped in its lifetime" etc.. How on Earth would you, me or anyone from the common guy to the expert of all experts for that matter establish a black and white parameter/guideline on the subject... As soon as there was one, someone like me would come along and disprove or invalidate it with ease.

Could you realistically suggest that just because a 19th century coin is white, that it must mean it has been "dipped"? Or better yet, could you realistically propose that just because a 19th century coin is not white, that is hasn't been dipped? As soon as you do, you immediately open yourself up to be proven wrong, then what? (prove you wrong for example by removing unattractive color from a seated dime and adding attractive color that fools not only you, but the graders who slab it or something to that affect). Lets take the "coin doctor scenario" out of it, and I feel like there would be just as strong of an argument... Meaning, that you find a white 19th century coin and because it is white, you conclude with 100% certainty that it has been dipped? How would you or anyone be able to make declarations like that? Do you truly know it is not possible, and if so, how? Were you with the coin in the 150+ years of its existence and if so, how?

 

My point is, if I understand this thread completely... You are suggesting the 3&4PG's somehow identify when they "believe a coin was dipped at one point in its lifetime right??? If so, that is something that is not even remotely possible to get right.... IMO-the last thing this hobby needs is one more "professional opinion" that establishes whether or not a coin is or isn't something or another.

What is the goal here? seriously? another "opinion" disguised as factual knowledge on the label of a coin that tells us about said coin, something that IMO said person should be able to see?

Isnt there already enough of that madness about making opinionated declarations about coins and then presenting them as factual...

what possible good or positive comes from that?

 

Thank you.

Not only do I think it is possible; I think it will be probable, on some scale.

The professional opinion unfortunately has not been a position of full disclosure.

 

A Grading entity spokesman discloses dipping is acceptable within reason. Exactly what does that mean?

 

I would venture that a rather high percentage of collectors that partake in the TPG/4PG end result (the grading/sticker,etc.) are of the opinion that the coin has passed the tinkering/enhancement test. They have a Trust level. They have a confidence level. Now, a public comment states that there is a level of tinkering/enhancement (within reason - whatever the definition is) that is acceptable, and factored into the Grade.

 

Realistic disclosure of opinion is what is sought, without subterfuge, and with a clear definition of reasonable and acceptable enhancement.

 

I will quote, in part, PCGS Official Guide To Coin Grading:

 

"A coin is not necessarily ungradable (their word not mine) just because it is not totally original. In some cases, in fact, altering a coin may actually improve its grade. One example of this would be dipping a coin that has splotchy, mottled, or dull toning and thereby revealing a blazing white gem. Another would be removing PVC flip damage with an organic solvent. Also, with gold, silver and nickel coins, rinsing them in hot water sometimes is necessary to remove light surface contaminants.............Obviously, one needs to learn what is acceptable (acceptable is in italics) alteration in order to know what is not (not in italics) acceptable. Once the original and non-original "looks" of coinage have been mastered, one must learn what is acceptable and not acceptable for coins that are not original. When unsure about a coin, ask the owner. Although the owner wants to sell you the coin, he or she does not want you to call six months later and ask why the coin changed colors.

 

There are many subtle areas that only experience can clarify. "

 

Apparently, it is not a pointless can of worms.

 

Apparently, it is possible for the TPGs and 4PGs to identify.

 

You have not interpreted my position correctly. If the coin received an opinion of grade based in part on enhancement, this should be disclosed. If enhancement is suspected, it should be disclosed.. The fact that the opinion was effected by enhancement or not is certainly factual opinion. It is not factual opinion to not note that which is suspected or known. Better to not give an opinion of a coin, than not disclose the suspected enhancement.

 

Remember, I am advocating for the 97%.

 

Coin doctoring is an entirely different level of enhancement than what is being discussed here.

 

I sincerely appreciate your devils advocate position. It helps me to clarify my thoughts and logic posit.

[Catbert]

Posit this - you are on a fool's errand.....

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Posit this - you are on a fool's errand.....

 

Of this, I say without modesty, that I am a life long Expert, without equal, and not regarded by any.

[Afterword]

More detailed information could be conveyed regarding the coins grading particulars utilizing the certification number, which when entered into the certification verification search engine takes you to a page with existing information on the coins grading particulars, with ample room for much more such particulars. (You think this qualifies as a run-on sentence?)

 

Like the date it was graded. I, for one, would like to know when it was graded.

[MJ]

More detailed information could be conveyed regarding the coins grading particulars utilizing the certification number, which when entered into the certification verification search engine takes you to a page with existing information on the coins grading particulars, with amble room for much more such particulars. (You think this qualifies as a run-on sentence?)

 

Like the date it was graded. I, for one, would like to know when it was graded.

 

Which time?

 

Considering the added time and effort and manpower it will take to note and enter the data PLUS the new added liability for the guarantee just how much more time and cost do you think this will add to getting a coin graded? How is that for a run on sentence ; )

 

I have other possible solutions

 

Buy raw coins

 

Assume all coins are messed with or have been dipped once in their life

 

Or just roll with the fact that you are currently paying for an opinion and go with that. I choose this and I choose PCGS/CAC as my most preferred combination.NGC/CAC a respectable second.

 

MJ

[coinman_23885]

Like the date it was graded. I, for one, would like to know when it was graded.

 

Which time?

MJ

 

The most recent time. On copper, NGC has a 10 year color guarantee so it would make sense to post the data, especially if holder style does not provide an unambiguous answer. I asked NGC about this in the past, and they indicated that something similar had been considered and might be implemented in the future; however, I too learn towards your thought that it would be too time consuming.

[Afterword]

"Which time?"

 

The date it was graded and put into the slab from which the certification number was taken.

 

"Considering the added time and effort and manpower it will take to note and enter the data PLUS the new added liability for the guarantee just how much more time and cost do you think this will add to getting a coin graded?"

 

How long could it take to add a date? And I hardly think it is necessary to guarantee it. And, yes, your sentence definitely qualifies as a run-on sentence.

 

I think you have me confused with Mr. Curlis - maybe?

[MJ]

"Which time?"

 

The date it was graded and put into the slab from which the certification number was taken.

 

"Considering the added time and effort and manpower it will take to note and enter the data PLUS the new added liability for the guarantee just how much more time and cost do you think this will add to getting a coin graded?"

 

How long could it take to add a date? And I hardly think it is necessary to guarantee it. And, yes, your sentence definitely qualifies as a run-on sentence.

 

I think you have me confused with Mr. Curlis - maybe?

 

I was referring to this plus what JC wrote:

 

 

I was being facetious on the date as a lot of coins spend more time on USPS trucks and in the grading room then they do in a safe deposit box

 

MJ

[Afterword]

"I was referring to this plus what JC wrote:

 

 

I was being facetious on the date as a lot of coins spend more time on USPS trucks and in the grading room then they do in a safe deposit box

 

MJ"

 

OK, we will let Mr. Curlis handle the plus.

 

I just want the date, and it could be added automatically without time or effort. I work with documents on my computer at work and I can set it so the date is automatically added when I open the document. I suspect that NGC could do the same thing with their certification verification page.

[Kurtdog]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

[MarkFeld]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

[Hard Times]

More detailed information could be conveyed regarding the coins grading particulars utilizing the certification number, which when entered into the certification verification search engine takes you to a page with existing information on the coins grading particulars, with amble room for much more such particulars. (You think this qualifies as a run-on sentence?)

 

Like the date it was graded. I, for one, would like to know when it was graded.

 

Which time?

 

Considering the added time and effort and manpower it will take to note and enter the data PLUS the new added liability for the guarantee just how much more time and cost do you think this will add to getting a coin graded? How is that for a run on sentence ; )

 

I have other possible solutions

 

Buy raw coins

 

Assume all coins are messed with or have been dipped once in their life

 

Or just roll with the fact that you are currently paying for an opinion and go with that. I choose this and I choose PCGS/CAC as my most preferred combination.NGC/CAC a respectable second.

 

MJ

 

And the irony of this is that anyone can slap NGC in the face on these boards but if one did that on the PCGS boards at minimum said thread would be deleted and the poster possibly banned. Yet folks will still give the 'I believe PCGS is better' mantra. Well if it is about value and money and the market believes coins in PCGS holders are somehow better, well..............

 

My experience after looking at about 10,000 coins (all pre civil war, I can't comment about later issues) in NGC an PCGS holders over the last 5 years at lot viewing for auctions or on bourses of major shows, is that the quality of NGC and PCGS holdered coins is indistinguishable. There are dogs for a given grade and type in both, and there are jewels. And there is everything in between, in both holders. The idea that 'PCGS' coins are worth more is simply ludicrous. And this is despite all attempts by many to supposedly take the best coins in NGC holders and cross them to PCGS, well there are just as many incredible coins in NGC holders as there are in PCGS. NGC grading? Just look at how many of the Newman coins were considered to be A or B by CAC and that says it all. It is the coin, not the holder. The holder is simply a judgement given by a grading team at the time it was examined, nothing more. JHMO.

 

Best, HT

[Kurtdog]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

[MarkFeld]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

 

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

[lordmarcovan]

I like it. Like the photos, too.

 

Hate the sloppy blue font, though.

[Kurtdog]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

[Afterword]

"What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games."

 

 

 

 

I think his question is cleverly disguised as a challenge. It is probably a well-thought-out tactic designed to throw you off balance.

[MarkFeld]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

 

Guessing games? I asked a single question and included a question mark after it:

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?"

[jom]

I think his question is cleverly disguised as a challenge. It is probably a well-thought-out tactic designed to throw you of balance.

 

Huh?

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

Guessing games? I asked a single question and included a question mark after it:

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?"

Question: "How often do you beat your wife?"

Answer: "I don't beat my wife."

Reply: "You didn't answer my question."

 

Yes I did.

[Afterword]

"Huh?

 

jom"

 

 

 

I edited my original post. It is not surprising that you were confused. I must be more careful in the future.

 

Typographical errors are so annoying.

 

[MarkFeld]

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable.

Translated, it's market acceptable double-talk. Not all double-talk, you know, is. Like, for example, bull. Bull is never market acceptable. It's just bull. Even when you have a bunch of it, it's just a bunch of bull.

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?

I didn't say it's bull. I said it's market acceptable double-talk.

 

I maintain that there is no way to put it into words in an objective, measurable and practical fashion. I would love it if you can show me that I'm mistaken about that. Go for it.

It should be classified as, dipped. We'll figure out for ourselves whether it's reasonable.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

What question would that be, Mark? I don't have time to play guessing games.

Guessing games? I asked a single question and included a question mark after it:

 

If you don't like that explanation and think it's bull, how would you phrase it, to try to let people know that a certain level of dipping is acceptable?"

Question: "How often do you beat your wife?"

Answer: "I don't beat my wife."

Reply: "You didn't answer my question."

 

Yes I did.

 

You didn't and I'm not surprised. Back to ignore, as I wasted too much time on your games.