Yep and it all comes down to the finalizer, just saying.
Can you link to anything that says that the finalizer, all on his own, assigns a grade? There is an old post about finalizers made by David Hall in this forum that disagrees with that.
It looks like a grade is never determined by less than two people...
"We do not have a finalizer. The graders input their grades into a computer and the computer sets the final grade based on the consensus. After the coin is holdered, we do have a top grader verify the coin. If the verifier disagrees with the grade he can ask another grader for his opinion. If they both agree a change should be made, then a change is indeed made."
"As each grader receives the order, they will enter the order number into the computer. This provides the contents of that order on the PCGS grading screen. Grader #1 will then enter his grade for the coin in question (and for each coin within the order until the order is completed) and close the order on his screen. Once Grader #1 has completed grading the order, the order is redistributed for Grader #2 to provide their grade and so forth. Each grader is not privy to the opinion of the other graders on any of the coins within that order.
If their grades match in the computer, the coin would then go to a 3rd grader at the Grading Verification Stage. If the opinion of the first two graders does not match, that coin will be assigned to a 3rd grader whose opinion is required to “break the tie.” As a PCGS standard, the coin would still be assigned to yet a 4th grader for verification to make sure the grade is accurate and consistent."
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
I think the current grading system is just fine. If you have a pile of coins you can sort them and put them in order from the most beat up looking to the most pristine, that’s grading to me. The numbers then come afterwards and it doesn’t matter if they are 1 to 70 or if you switched to a different scale, they would still be in the same order.
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
Yep and it all comes down to the finalizer, just saying.
Can you link to anything that says that the finalizer, all on his own, assigns a grade? There is an old post about finalizers made by David Hall in this forum that disagrees with that.
Just sayin'.
You may want to read what I said, I never said the finalizer on his own assigns a grade, but he has the authority to override the preivious graders and change the grade if he (the senior or top grader) gets a jr. level grader to agree on a new grade. Now how often this happens is the piece of the puzzle that is unknown. So all that you linked actually confirms rather than disproves what I said as the grade can be changed due to one opinion.
Just saying
With PhotoShop overlay technology a baseline grade image of coins could be created - let's say by PCGS - an instant image of the coin being graded could be taken. That submitted coin image as a transparency could be scrolled over the baseline grade images until the grader hits the one that matches the submission. Bing!! It's standardized and repeatable.
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
Not really. You have a higher grade vs a lower grade. Desirability and willingness to purchase are different.
@CoinNewBee said:
With PhotoShop overlay technology a baseline grade image of coins could be created - let's say by PCGS - an instant image of the coin being graded could be taken. That submitted coin image as a transparency could be scrolled over the baseline grade images until the grader hits the one that matches the submission. Bing!! It's standardized and repeatable.
Umm... not at all. Every coin has a unique set of contact marks and toning. It will NEVER overlay exactly.
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
Not really. You have a higher grade vs a lower grade. Desirability and willingness to purchase are different.
You have a higher grade that is meaningless. If the grade doesn’t correlate with desirability, which is willingness to purchase, then what is it's use?
@coinbuf said:
You may want to read what I said, I never said the finalizer on his own assigns a grade, but he has the authority to override the preivious graders and change the grade if he (the senior or top grader) gets a jr. level grader to agree on a new grade.
I read this:
@coinbuf said:
Yep and it all comes down to the finalizer, just saying.
So... are you now saying it doesn't all come down to the finalizer- that at least one other grader is also involved?
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
Not really. You have a higher grade vs a lower grade. Desirability and willingness to purchase are different.
You have a higher grade that is meaningless. If the grade doesn’t correlate with desirability, which is willingness to purchase, then what is it's use?
Grade is grade. You can always have another grade to correlate with desirability. I actually like the way NGC grades ancients. A 1 to 5 star based on several different qualities. I don't think all these things need to be munged into one number.
@coinbuf said:
Because people are not standardized or repeatable 100% of the time. Until such time as humans are removed from the grading process there will be variations.
Eye appeal is one of the grading factors for mint state coins. Will computers ever be able to evaluate the eye appeal of a coin?
There is no reason that eye appeal has to be part of grading, it has literally been forced down the throats of collectors, I guess somehow its "better" for everyone. But it should be removed, eye appeal is not the same for each person and it should be part of the price dance between the collector and dealer. Once you remove all these subjective and largely personal qualifiers grading a coin is much more straight forward.
So you would prefer a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal. Color me skeptical.
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
Not really. You have a higher grade vs a lower grade. Desirability and willingness to purchase are different.
You have a higher grade that is meaningless. If the grade doesn’t correlate with desirability, which is willingness to purchase, then what is it's use?
Grade is grade. You can always have another grade to correlate with desirability. I actually like the way NGC grades ancients. A 1 to 5 star based on several different qualities. I don't think all these things need to be munged into one number.
That is rather different. I like the NGC designations also, but those are just a subjective as "eye appeal" and "distracting marks".
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
@coinbuf said:
You may want to read what I said, I never said the finalizer on his own assigns a grade, but he has the authority to override the preivious graders and change the grade if he (the senior or top grader) gets a jr. level grader to agree on a new grade.
I read this:
@coinbuf said:
Yep and it all comes down to the finalizer, just saying.
So... are you now saying it doesn't all come down to the finalizer- that at least one other grader is also involved?
I have not changed anything you just want to change what I said to argue, must be nice to have as much free time as you do.
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
If what you are saying is true...why isn't the Bluesheet 35 years old? The whole premise of grading started by trying to create a reliable sight unseen market! Yes, I'm that old and been involved with coins for much longer!
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
All modern US Mint coinage should be 100% graded by computer scanning at different TPG sites to allow the real numismatic treasures faster turnaround in the process chain and maybe even longer review if required. How difficult would it be to program and discern a Modern 68 - 70, CAM or not. I think that could be programmed at 99.999% accuracy without human intervention.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
All modern US Mint coinage should be 100% graded by computer scanning at different TPG sites to allow the real numismatic treasures faster turnaround in the process chain and maybe even longer review if required. How difficult would it be to program and discern a Modern 68 - 70, CAM or not. I think that could be programmed at 99.999% accuracy without human intervention.
@amwldcoin said:
If what you are saying is true...why isn't the Bluesheet 35 years old? The whole premise of grading started by trying to create a reliable sight unseen market! Yes, I'm that old and been involved with coins for much longer!
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
When I got started, in the early slab days, there may not have been a blue sheet but we always discounted bids for the risk of sight unseen coins. I don't know anyone who would bid the same. That's all the bluesheet reflects.
@amwldcoin said:
If what you are saying is true...why isn't the Bluesheet 35 years old? The whole premise of grading started by trying to create a reliable sight unseen market! Yes, I'm that old and been involved with coins for much longer!
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
When I got started, in the early slab days, there may not have been a blue sheet but we always discounted bids for the risk of sight unseen coins. I don't know anyone who would bid the same. That's all the bluesheet reflects.
@amwldcoin said:
If what you are saying is true...why isn't the Bluesheet 35 years old? The whole premise of grading started by trying to create a reliable sight unseen market! Yes, I'm that old and been involved with coins for much longer!
@jmlanzaf said:
a tecnical 65 that had lousy eye appeal rather than a technical 64 with great eye appeal.
How do you suppose such a situation would affect registry collectors? Would they prefer a lower ranked but nicer looking set?
I think people are kidding themselves about the value of a technical grade. It would kill the sight unseen market.
Anyone who has ever graded essays by a rigid rubric knows how a student can check all the boxes while giving you a pile of crap that doesn't hang together very well. That's what a technical grade could do. You have distracting ugly toning and all the marks in the prime focal areas but it grades technically higher than a beautifully tuned coin with more marks that are all but hidden.
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
When I got started, in the early slab days, there may not have been a blue sheet but we always discounted bids for the risk of sight unseen coins. I don't know anyone who would bid the same. That's all the bluesheet rERAeflects.
Comments
Yep and it all comes down to the finalizer, just saying.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Can you link to anything that says that the finalizer, all on his own, assigns a grade? There is an old post about finalizers made by David Hall in this forum that disagrees with that.
Just sayin'.
It looks like a grade is never determined by less than two people...
"We do not have a finalizer. The graders input their grades into a computer and the computer sets the final grade based on the consensus. After the coin is holdered, we do have a top grader verify the coin. If the verifier disagrees with the grade he can ask another grader for his opinion. If they both agree a change should be made, then a change is indeed made."
David Hall- https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/224313/about-the-finalizer
"As each grader receives the order, they will enter the order number into the computer. This provides the contents of that order on the PCGS grading screen. Grader #1 will then enter his grade for the coin in question (and for each coin within the order until the order is completed) and close the order on his screen. Once Grader #1 has completed grading the order, the order is redistributed for Grader #2 to provide their grade and so forth. Each grader is not privy to the opinion of the other graders on any of the coins within that order.
If their grades match in the computer, the coin would then go to a 3rd grader at the Grading Verification Stage. If the opinion of the first two graders does not match, that coin will be assigned to a 3rd grader whose opinion is required to “break the tie.” As a PCGS standard, the coin would still be assigned to yet a 4th grader for verification to make sure the grade is accurate and consistent."
PCGS Grading Process Video- https://www.pcgs.com/pcgs-grading-process-video
IMHO The sight unseen market was killed years ago....hence the bluesheet came about!
Why would he have to prefer a technical 65 over an appealing 64? How does that relate to what he stated?
I think the current grading system is just fine. If you have a pile of coins you can sort them and put them in order from the most beat up looking to the most pristine, that’s grading to me. The numbers then come afterwards and it doesn’t matter if they are 1 to 70 or if you switched to a different scale, they would still be in the same order.
Mr_Spud
From what I've seen, grading is pretty repeatable. Sending in the same coin to our hosts could result in the same grade 20 to 30 or more times.
When you see different grades for the same coin, what you often don't see is how many times it graded the same.
Oxymoron. The bluesheet is the sight unseen price. Ergo, there is a sight unseen market.
Because if you remove "eye appeal", you create a grading system where the numbers don't mean anything. A higher number is just a higher number. The coin 3 numbers lower looks 10x better because it has better "eye appeal" and because the marks are "less distracting", two subjective criteria that you are throwing out.
You may want to read what I said, I never said the finalizer on his own assigns a grade, but he has the authority to override the preivious graders and change the grade if he (the senior or top grader) gets a jr. level grader to agree on a new grade. Now how often this happens is the piece of the puzzle that is unknown. So all that you linked actually confirms rather than disproves what I said as the grade can be changed due to one opinion.
Just saying
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The perceived eye appeal is in the wallet of the beholder.
With PhotoShop overlay technology a baseline grade image of coins could be created - let's say by PCGS - an instant image of the coin being graded could be taken. That submitted coin image as a transparency could be scrolled over the baseline grade images until the grader hits the one that matches the submission. Bing!! It's standardized and repeatable.
Always more to know!
Not really. You have a higher grade vs a lower grade. Desirability and willingness to purchase are different.
Umm... not at all. Every coin has a unique set of contact marks and toning. It will NEVER overlay exactly.
You have a higher grade that is meaningless. If the grade doesn’t correlate with desirability, which is willingness to purchase, then what is it's use?
In order to actually grade coins they would have to be graded on each of their several characteristics.
Collectors don't want their coins "graded", they want them "priced".
I would love to have coins graded but I'm a minority of one.
I read this:
So... are you now saying it doesn't all come down to the finalizer- that at least one other grader is also involved?
Grade is grade. You can always have another grade to correlate with desirability. I actually like the way NGC grades ancients. A 1 to 5 star based on several different qualities. I don't think all these things need to be munged into one number.
That is rather different. I like the NGC designations also, but those are just a subjective as "eye appeal" and "distracting marks".
There wasn't a need in the early days!
I have not changed anything you just want to change what I said to argue, must be nice to have as much free time as you do.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
But that's really due to a lot of factors, including high resolution imaging.
But even in the early days there was a sight seen and a sight unseen price.
There's been a blue sheet for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. But even in the preslab days, people bought sight unseen but paid more for sight seen. That's all the bluesheet reflects. It's not about the grading, it's about the seeing.
If what you are saying is true...why isn't the Bluesheet 35 years old? The whole premise of grading started by trying to create a reliable sight unseen market! Yes, I'm that old and been involved with coins for much longer!
All modern US Mint coinage should be 100% graded by computer scanning at different TPG sites to allow the real numismatic treasures faster turnaround in the process chain and maybe even longer review if required. How difficult would it be to program and discern a Modern 68 - 70, CAM or not. I think that could be programmed at 99.999% accuracy without human intervention.
This probably could be done.
When I got started, in the early slab days, there may not have been a blue sheet but we always discounted bids for the risk of sight unseen coins. I don't know anyone who would bid the same. That's all the bluesheet reflects.
And I thought I might have got the last word in! But we all know better!
You LITERALLY ASKED A QUESTION which I answered.