@Pumpkinhead said:
Hey, better to be a big fish in a puddle than a medium-size fish in a vast ocean… It certainly gets the rest of us engaged 😊. I’m with Deplorable Dan on this one… Just enjoy your coins!
I fully agree with you and DD, but it IS ok for us small and medium fish for us to enjoy our coins!
Steve
And the small and medium fish always end up on the dinner table.
Your blind promotion of Mr. Hansen is admirable as you seem to have a connection. That does not advance though, the common interests of the hobby.
Actually, the little fish are the ones that get thrown back.
And no one has definitively proven that Mr. Hansen has not advanced the hobby.
Has anyone definitively proven that he has?
Aa you already know, no one has proved that he has or hasn’t advanced the hobby. And to both of you, “definitely” shouldn’t need to be used as a modifier of “proved” or “proven”.
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
@Pumpkinhead said:
Hey, better to be a big fish in a puddle than a medium-size fish in a vast ocean… It certainly gets the rest of us engaged 😊. I’m with Deplorable Dan on this one… Just enjoy your coins!
I fully agree with you and DD, but it IS ok for us small and medium fish for us to enjoy our coins!
Steve
And the small and medium fish always end up on the dinner table.
Your blind promotion of Mr. Hansen is admirable as you seem to have a connection. That does not advance though, the common interests of the hobby.
Actually, the little fish are the ones that get thrown back.
And no one has definitively proven that Mr. Hansen has not advanced the hobby.
Has anyone definitively proven that he has?
Aa you already know, no one has proved that he has or hasn’t advanced the hobby. And to both of you, “definitely” shouldn’t need to be used as a modifier of “proved” or “proven”.
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
Thank you - I edited my previous post. No, you aren’t to assume that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m not a lawyer, and won’t pretend to act as one, but I will address some of your points in English, in no particular order.
The fact that he has pumped many millions of dollars into our hobby by buying coins (which increases demand of the limited supply of coins) is healthy for our hobby. That’s just basic economics.
Regardless of his financial interest in CACG (and NO ONE is denying that), I have heard from a reliable source that he’s paying the full grading fees for the coins he’s submitting for crossing.
Even if the naysayers claim his motive for doing that is just to financially support CACG, you could have a point if his submissions were each made to only cross at the same grade or higher. But your point is lost since in reality, his submissions are to cross at ANY grade. Why would he do that, since he doesn’t have to, and that the grading fees will remain the same regardless? More importantly, chances are there will be plenty of downgrades, typically going from a whole grade number to the next grade number down, with or without a plus, or his current PCGS plus grade coins, with or without CAC stickers, WILL see some pluses lost. Don’t even try to convince me those downgrades as a whole won’t amount to significant market value losses, considering these downgrades are likely to be in very high grades! He’s taking these losses not for the common good, but because he wants HIS coins to be solid for the grade in the opinion of CACG!
Based on the above, I see no legitimate reason to pick on the guy for those actions!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Since the language will remain given it was copied in a response.......
No one is trying to convict him/find him liable for anything in a court, or anything of any kind or any sort—even remotely. The concern is potential market effect. The reference to court and the criminal standard for a verdict of guilty is not relevant in the least way, and is unfortunate. It takes this discussion unnecessarily to the extreme. This is an internet discussion, no one is on trial. No one is a defendant, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge nor jury member. It is simply armchair prognostication from many different perspectives. Not a trial by message board.
Please also know that before you get to a verdict resting on a particular burden of proof, be it beyond all reasonable doubt (criminal”), clear and convincing, or preponderance of the evidence, there are burdens of persuasion and production which shift back and forth all along the way. If one was to apply a legal standard----which no one else has alluded to--- nor should----then:
1) Here it was asserted the mass cross was solely an altruistic endeavor, undertaken at great personal cost, for the benefit of all--gradflation bad etc. There is assumed to pose great financial risk to Hansen, but he takes it for the common good.
2) Information of a financial interest in the TPG, and divestment strategy designed to not flood the market, have arisen and are enough to require additional information of an overall market benefit by those still claiming it in order to meet their burden of persuasion; therefore,
3) If anyone was to use a trial framework for discussion, which again only you have mentioned, then those claiming Hansen is a benefit still have the burden to persuade that is so. Others have no obligation to prove otherwise, unless and until those still asserting a benefit to all, produce some additional info.
Your reference was ill chosen, not relevant, and its very premise is incorrect.
You must be a lot of fun at parties...
I didn't use a trial reference to Hansen at all. It was a grammar reference to @MFeld due to his questioning the user of "definitively" as a modifier of "proven". Since there are student degrees of "proof", "preponderance of the evidence" vs " beyond a reasonable doubt" as examples, I see no reason as to why "definitively" could not serve as a modifier.
However, while it was not my intent, there is also no reason why a trial framework could not be used. In fact, you would have to establish some level of surety and standards of evidence before you could make any affirmative statement on either side of the ledger.
@Pumpkinhead said:
Hey, better to be a big fish in a puddle than a medium-size fish in a vast ocean… It certainly gets the rest of us engaged 😊. I’m with Deplorable Dan on this one… Just enjoy your coins!
I fully agree with you and DD, but it IS ok for us small and medium fish for us to enjoy our coins!
Steve
And the small and medium fish always end up on the dinner table.
Your blind promotion of Mr. Hansen is admirable as you seem to have a connection. That does not advance though, the common interests of the hobby.
Actually, the little fish are the ones that get thrown back.
And no one has definitively proven that Mr. Hansen has not advanced the hobby.
Has anyone definitively proven that he has?
Aa you already know, no one has proved that he has or hasn’t advanced the hobby. And to both of you, “definitely” shouldn’t need to be used as a modifier of “proved” or “proven”.
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
Thank you - I edited my previous post. No, you aren’t to assume that.
Then I don't understand your point. There are different degrees of "proven". Why is "definitively" not appropriate as a modifier?
@Pumpkinhead said:
Hey, better to be a big fish in a puddle than a medium-size fish in a vast ocean… It certainly gets the rest of us engaged 😊. I’m with Deplorable Dan on this one… Just enjoy your coins!
I fully agree with you and DD, but it IS ok for us small and medium fish for us to enjoy our coins!
Steve
And the small and medium fish always end up on the dinner table.
Your blind promotion of Mr. Hansen is admirable as you seem to have a connection. That does not advance though, the common interests of the hobby.
Actually, the little fish are the ones that get thrown back.
And no one has definitively proven that Mr. Hansen has not advanced the hobby.
Has anyone definitively proven that he has?
Aa you already know, no one has proved that he has or hasn’t advanced the hobby. And to both of you, “definitely” shouldn’t need to be used as a modifier of “proved” or “proven”.
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
Thank you - I edited my previous post. No, you aren’t to assume that.
Then I don't understand your point. There are different degrees of "proven". Why is "definitively" not appropriate as a modifier?
Sorry for the confusion I caused. I think "definitively" is fine to use as a modifier, though I didn't feel the same way about "definitely" (which I had misread). Is that contradictory?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Pumpkinhead said:
Hey, better to be a big fish in a puddle than a medium-size fish in a vast ocean… It certainly gets the rest of us engaged 😊. I’m with Deplorable Dan on this one… Just enjoy your coins!
I fully agree with you and DD, but it IS ok for us small and medium fish for us to enjoy our coins!
Steve
And the small and medium fish always end up on the dinner table.
Your blind promotion of Mr. Hansen is admirable as you seem to have a connection. That does not advance though, the common interests of the hobby.
Actually, the little fish are the ones that get thrown back.
And no one has definitively proven that Mr. Hansen has not advanced the hobby.
Has anyone definitively proven that he has?
Aa you already know, no one has proved that he has or hasn’t advanced the hobby. And to both of you, “definitely” shouldn’t need to be used as a modifier of “proved” or “proven”.
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
Thank you - I edited my previous post. No, you aren’t to assume that.
Then I don't understand your point. There are different degrees of "proven". Why is "definitively" not appropriate as a modifier?
Sorry for the confusion I caused. I think "definitively" is fine to use as a modifier, though I didn't feel the same way about "definitely" (which I had misread). Is that contradictory?
Gotcha!
Sorry.
We should all take an hour and work on our respective reading and writing skills. 😉
Since Mr. Hansen is, let us assume, both a serious hobbyist and a good businessman, moving his sets is both a sound business decision, as an investor, and a decision that moves the hobby forward. That is, if he believes CAC will move the hobby in a beneficial direction. As many do, as I do. Moving his sets is a calculated risk, but one that he can afford to take.
@oldabeintx said:
Since Mr. Hansen is, let us assume, both a serious hobbyist and a good businessman, moving his sets is both a sound business decision, as an investor, and a decision that moves the hobby forward. That is, if he believes CAC will move the hobby in a beneficial direction. As many do, as I do. Moving his sets is a calculated risk, but one that he can afford to take.
But @Coin Finder asked "So what's the latest with the Hanson sets?" He didn't ask about the "Hansen sets". Since there had already been a great deal of discussion about the latter, I thought maybe he was trying to make a joke.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just returned to the forum, and wanted to make clear (and apologize for my snarkiness) that my big fish/medium-size fish comment was solely about Mr Hansen (numismatics/real estate development). And when I seconded the comment that we should just “enjoy” our coins, I was simply thinking that with time, whatever Mr Hansen’s contributions to the hobby - positive or negative - will matter very little. If, for instance, CACG goes off the ethical rails (something I am certain will not occur), the numismatic community will take notice and the value of their product will suffer as a consequence…
@Pumpkinhead said:
Just returned to the forum, and wanted to make clear (and apologize for my snarkiness) that my big fish/medium-size fish comment was solely about Mr Hansen (numismatics/real estate development). And when I seconded the comment that we should just “enjoy” our coins, I was simply thinking that with time, whatever Mr Hansen’s contributions to the hobby - positive or negative - will matter very little. If, for instance, CACG goes off the ethical rails (something I am certain will not occur), the numismatic community will take notice and the value of their product will suffer as a consequence…
Thanks. As you indicate, you are certain that CACG will not go off the ethical rails, so it’s nice that you agree then that the numismatic community will take notice, and apparently as such you indicate you believe then the value of their product will not suffer!
I’m in agreement with you. 😁
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
At the end of the day, we can’t “banish” Mr Hansen from the hobby, or tell him what he can or cannot do, or truly know what motivates him. Other than the fact that an individual with great wealth can purchase something or complete something precluding others with lesser means from doing the same, I suspect the primary motivation is no different from our own… The passion to collect. There have always been wealthy people who collected coins and I can’t think of any who actively sought to harm the hobby or the collecting community.
(OK, I’ll “preclude” the obvious rejoinder… “Well, there’s a first time for everything” 😊)
I believe DLH and his collaboration with ownership of DLRC with John Brush has been simply outstanding for the hobby of coin collecting. There are 6,623 different US coins including major varieties from 1792 to present in the PCGS registry.
He has collected over 95% of them, mostly in exceptional condition. No one is likely to ever achieve this level of completeness. Converting even a subset of these to CACG is a monumental effort and will certainly have a major impact to the TPG's and success of the new service.
I look forward to hearing his personal explanation sometime, and not all this forum speculation, with so much focus on semantics and gibberish.
Comments
"Definitively" not "definitely".
Am I to assume you also believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is redundant in court?
.
Thank you - I edited my previous post. No, you aren’t to assume that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
I’m not a lawyer, and won’t pretend to act as one, but I will address some of your points in English, in no particular order.
Based on the above, I see no legitimate reason to pick on the guy for those actions!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
You must be a lot of fun at parties...
I didn't use a trial reference to Hansen at all. It was a grammar reference to @MFeld due to his questioning the user of "definitively" as a modifier of "proven". Since there are student degrees of "proof", "preponderance of the evidence" vs " beyond a reasonable doubt" as examples, I see no reason as to why "definitively" could not serve as a modifier.
However, while it was not my intent, there is also no reason why a trial framework could not be used. In fact, you would have to establish some level of surety and standards of evidence before you could make any affirmative statement on either side of the ledger.
Then I don't understand your point. There are different degrees of "proven". Why is "definitively" not appropriate as a modifier?
Sorry for the confusion I caused. I think "definitively" is fine to use as a modifier, though I didn't feel the same way about "definitely" (which I had misread). Is that contradictory?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So what's the latest with the Hanson sets?
That's impossible to answer without knowing what the "Hanson" sets are.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Gotcha!
Sorry.
We should all take an hour and work on our respective reading and writing skills. 😉
I believe they are hockey- playing brothers.
Moving to the CACG registry.
Since Mr. Hansen is, let us assume, both a serious hobbyist and a good businessman, moving his sets is both a sound business decision, as an investor, and a decision that moves the hobby forward. That is, if he believes CAC will move the hobby in a beneficial direction. As many do, as I do. Moving his sets is a calculated risk, but one that he can afford to take.
But @Coin Finder asked "So what's the latest with the Hanson sets?" He didn't ask about the "Hansen sets". Since there had already been a great deal of discussion about the latter, I thought maybe he was trying to make a joke.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Omg. Can this be moved to Twitter so the entire country can look on in horror at this discourse?
Truth Social would be a better fit.
Doc - While you and I bang heads a bit, here’s a friendly tip - stay away from politics. The mods sometimes get strict. 😉
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Just returned to the forum, and wanted to make clear (and apologize for my snarkiness) that my big fish/medium-size fish comment was solely about Mr Hansen (numismatics/real estate development). And when I seconded the comment that we should just “enjoy” our coins, I was simply thinking that with time, whatever Mr Hansen’s contributions to the hobby - positive or negative - will matter very little. If, for instance, CACG goes off the ethical rails (something I am certain will not occur), the numismatic community will take notice and the value of their product will suffer as a consequence…
Thanks. As you indicate, you are certain that CACG will not go off the ethical rails, so it’s nice that you agree then that the numismatic community will take notice, and apparently as such you indicate you believe then the value of their product will not suffer!
I’m in agreement with you. 😁
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
First fifty posts on a thread are informative.
Second fifty posts are redundant.
Third fifty posts are tedious,
And the most recent one...? Judgmental?
I believe everyone (collector, dealer, investor, business person, etc.) _can do whatever they want with their coins.
_
For me it's just a hobby.
At the end of the day, we can’t “banish” Mr Hansen from the hobby, or tell him what he can or cannot do, or truly know what motivates him. Other than the fact that an individual with great wealth can purchase something or complete something precluding others with lesser means from doing the same, I suspect the primary motivation is no different from our own… The passion to collect. There have always been wealthy people who collected coins and I can’t think of any who actively sought to harm the hobby or the collecting community.
(OK, I’ll “preclude” the obvious rejoinder… “Well, there’s a first time for everything” 😊)
The 4th fifty will consist almost entirely of memes.
Thread takeaway:
One man's "beneficial to the market" is another man"s "circling the drain".
.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
I believe DLH and his collaboration with ownership of DLRC with John Brush has been simply outstanding for the hobby of coin collecting. There are 6,623 different US coins including major varieties from 1792 to present in the PCGS registry.
He has collected over 95% of them, mostly in exceptional condition. No one is likely to ever achieve this level of completeness. Converting even a subset of these to CACG is a monumental effort and will certainly have a major impact to the TPG's and success of the new service.
I look forward to hearing his personal explanation sometime, and not all this forum speculation, with so much focus on semantics and gibberish.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set