So, above is my response to your question. I fail to see any attack in it whatsoever. I am simply requesting that you cease your characterization of me. Just to ensure clarity here is my previous statements about First Strike and Early Release labels. Lastly.....using omissions to make one's point is rather pointless. Omissions are open ended and undefined. Using omitted information as facts of evidence is inappropriate when in fact it is only evidence that the topic has not been discussed. So just because something is omitted does not mean one can insert it as fact at their convenience to support their conclusion. Doing so only derails the conversation as has happened here.
Iam just a foreigner i know ,i dont have my english language master i need it to read this forum my god just to say i ony care the coin is graded in the right way so ms68 ms69 ms70 what the name is early first of last i dont care .
if people buy full numi coins the price is 100% based on the coins grade, and haven't there been pages upon pages of discussion on that subject. the grading system used here in Australia is very flawed so to have a standard to go by is good, though I have bought MS 64 graded coins that are sold as choice unc and the way I was shown it had a ways to go to hit unc so its a very touchy topic in most circles. we all see through our own eyes and so its never going to be perfect. having said all this I do like slabbed semi numis from the 2 top companies it makes sale easier in the future if needed.
mtforpar, the reason why your response to my question from you comes off as an attack because you are clearly implying that I have intentionally mis-characterized you....which I definitely did not. Instead, you should have just immediately answered my question instead of attacking me for something I did not do (I did not intentionally mis-characterize you). Omissions are used in criminal preceedings to make credible evaluations. That's exactly what I did. I used your omissions and admissions to make my evaluation. You must know that NGC is merely putting lipstick on the pig by replacing the phrase "First Strike" with "Early Release" on their labels as they have done. You know that don't you? Giving such a practice a pass while being critical of "First Strike" to me leads me to believe that you are not showing an unambiguous pattern of disapproval of deceptive and gimmick labels. You have already expressed that you have no qualms over profiting over and over again from the sale of misleading and gimmicky labels. That's your prerogative to do that but it's my right to say that this alerts me to an integrity or ethics concern. Capisce? .
The reason I draw the line with first strikes is that this is something that we all know is not determinable. There is no way to know whether the coin was in fact struck first as confirmed by the mint. Saying it is a First strike when in fact it may not be is wrong. Early Releases on the other hand is determinable. As long as it was released early then it is what they say it is. Does it have value is a whole other question. For me, it does not have any value as it does not make the coin superior in any way. For others it may have value. The thing is I don't make judgments about what others value. I let the free market speak. If people want autographs on their labels and pay for the privilege who I am to tell them it has no value? If people want to buy coins that were released early and pay for the privilege who I am to tell them they should not? If people want a black holder insert and want to pay for the privilege who am I to tell them they should not? I let them use their own judgement to determine what they feel is in their own best interests. All of this assumes that the label is accurate and not giving false information. False information is blatantly wrong. It would be rather arrogant of one to feel they know what is of value and what is not for others. Now, if asked why I don't feel it has any value to me then I would tell them all the reasons I feel it is not worth anything. The collectible market is a finicky thing.....what is collectible to one person is not even of interest to another.
I strongly support people having the right to independent value. That's not the issue here. The issue that I raised beginning this thread is the deception and gimmicks employed in order to sucker people. That is not at all the same as whether someone values the highest quality MS70 coin or not. Labels that are gimmicky and aimed at misleading people to think there's greater real value with a coin if it comes plastered with First Strike, Early Release (lipstick on the pig), Special Chocolate Diamond colored label with Joe Blow's signature, etc ad nauseum is not an issue of personal value....it's an issue of deception, integrity, and ethics. If this is still not a clear distinction to you, then I prefer to no longer converse with you on this subject because then I know we have a very different value system. Good day.
How is an autograph an issue of deception, integrity, and ethics? As long as the seller is getting what is advertised what is the problem? Among many other things, people pay more than the value of a baseball for a baseball player's autograph all the time. They are not being deceived...they want it.
mtforpar, again, you are missing the details. As was already pointed out by another member here in this thread (page 1 I believe), the "signature" in question that i have criticized is not a signature but merely a printed facsimile. But these gimmicky deceptive labels are pushed as if the printed signatures actually adds real value to the graded coin. It's a deceptive gimmick because people are being sold what amounts to a lie. .
Let me get this straight, because you perceive these labels and designations as gimmicks that makes them deceptive? Did I get that right? Since you see them that way, they are exactly that to you, they are not that to the collector of those items, and many collect them as shown by the volume of them graded with those designations and labels, plus the additional dollars paid at resale for those designations and labels. The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with ethics, it is in fact filling a market that has been built over time and is proven to be in demand. While you see it as a waste of additional funds, that doesn't mean everyone else has to see it that way, and in fact that market proves that you're wrong because they pay more for them and demand the labels and designations. How can you call that suckering people, when the consumers demand it? If they put the designations on the label, and consumers like them, buy them and by demand expect them to continue, who are you to basically state that they're wrong and unethical? At what point did they force anybody to buy them? The real facts here are that you don't see the value in paying more for these labels and designations and are hoping others share your view. If you take a good look many here do share your view, but it appears that most don't see those practices as unethical.
Okay, let me put it another way for you....... How is a facsimile of an autograph an issue of deception, integrity, and ethics? As long as the seller is getting what is advertised what is the problem? Among many other things, people pay more than the value of a baseball for a baseball with a facsimile of a player's autograph all the time. They are not being deceived...they want it. We are not talking about fakes just to be clear. Fakes are clearly unethical in any respect.
Because it is deceptive, it is an ethics and integrity issue. How that is not sinking into your head is really a mystery. I know smart people (including a perfusionist, a history teacher, and a police detective) who have purchased slabbed coins with "signatures" believing that these signatures were real. This is just one "signature" type of several that I have seen used on different types of slab/label combinations: And just in case you think this is a one-of fluke label, here's more:
Is it ethical to post pictures that are clearly owned by others? Did these buyers actually believe that DDE actually signed those slabs? Did the history teacher happen to be your teacher?
Really? They really thought they were buying an actual Eisenhower autograph? Since he died before the coin was ever minted it might do your smart friends well to invest a little more time in educating themselves about the things they are buying.
Again pugnacious mtforpar, and not surprising to me at all, you have completely conflated one thing for another. The fact that many highly intelligent people (who may or may not even be American) do not know by heart the year of death of Eisenhower is not in any way, shape, or form a legitimate argument in favor of your support of deceptive practices and gimmicks. There's something really wrong with you. You can continue to choose to harbor compromised ethics and defend with the most absurd comments deceptive practices...that's your prerogative. Personally, I do not trust people who have compromised ethics in one area...it almost always signifies compromised ethics in other areas as well. .
mmissinglink, I think most people do agree with you that colorful labels are gimmicks. But you're taking this ethic thing way too far. You're judging other people that if they buy into the labels, then they have "compromised ethics", and you took it one step further and say they're unethical in other areas as well. Even if this is true, what's wrong with that? I will guarantee you that you don't have pristine ethics in all aspects. The reason I know that is because there are no objective ways to determine what is good and bad ethics. It still comes down to human passing judgment on what is good and bad ethics. If you're going to continue this discussion with mtforpar, you guys should probably do it over PM instead of lashing out at each other in public, simply because there are a lot of personal attacks that has no relevance to public discussion.
