100 Greatest websites are being deleted (so sorry)

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 10:02AM

Hello PCGS Forum Members,

I just wanted to let you all know that I have been asked to remove all TrueView photos from my 100 Greatest websites by PCGS (due to copyright infringement), and without those photos, the sites basically collapse. So I will be taking those websites down within the next 24 hours.

I did get permission from the coin owners on use of the photos (and they all enthusiastically agreed to grant rights to use their photos on the site); but I didn't realize that I also needed permission directly from PCGS until last week. And when I asked PCGS, I was denied.

In any case, I wanted to let people on these boards know because I got such fantastic feedback and positive comments from everyone here when I posted about the new sites and didn't want to have to explain to everyone (one by one) on why those websites disappeared.

I really enjoyed doing the websites and learned a lot in doing them; and I hoped it would provide renewed collector interest in this great coin series.

In any case, sadly, these two websites are heading for the Trash Heap and will be gone sometime on Thursday July 12th.

http://100GreatestMatteProofLincolns.com

http://100GreatestMirrorProofLincolns.com

Thanks to EVERYONE for all the great support and wonderful feedback over the past year.

Happy Collecting,

Justlooking · July 11, 2012 10:05AM

Well, that's a shame. I always liked these.

lasvegasteddy · July 11, 2012 10:06AM

can you ask to suspend them until further review?
as those websites
insite/promote tru-view imaging

hopefully such promotions can remain...it adds to pcgs bottomline
hopefully they reconsider

MrEureka · July 11, 2012 10:07AM

How about just giving the websites to CU?

mingot · July 11, 2012 10:14AM

What a bummer.

Suggest replacing the homepages with your message above so that people who don't frequent this understand why you went dark.

ArizonaJack · July 11, 2012 10:15AM

<< How about just giving the websites to CU? >>

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 10:19AM

Thanks for the thoughts and feedback. I did outline those thoughts about how these websites actually promote PCGS in my letter below, which I sent to PCGS on Monday. And I have never made one red cent from this endeavor, and how it was done only as an act of PURE LOVE of this wonderful hobby. However I am sure PCGS has their reasons, and I cannot fight their decision. They have all the power here -- and I am just one little amateur coin collector. In terms of donating the websites to PCGS, I am fine with that, I will ask tomorrow if they might be interested in that solution. It's kind of a shame to see all this work and artistry go to waste.

Dear PCGS,

I am writing to you to get permission from you around the issue of posting TrueView photos. Please read through my letter below – then let me know what you think. I am 100% open to feedback and or requests from you on anything I might need to do to get approval from you (PCGS) on this endeavor.

Sorry my email is a bit long, but I wanted to provide to you a complete history of my motivation as background information and provide full disclosure.

BACKGROUND:

I am a long time (off and on) amateur coin collector (I started collecting back in 1968 when I was 11 years old); and I have been a loyal PCGS customer for the past year, primarily because of a renewed interest in coins after I discovered colorfully toned coins early in 2011. Just an aside that I have probably spent close to $5000 on PCGS grading/slabbing and True View photos of my expanding colorful coin collection since Summer 2011. So thank you for your (PCGS’s) expertise and knowledge!

BIRTH OF A NEW WEBSITE:

So, in any case, back in January 2011, I began to develop an interest in colorfully-toned coins; and by the Summer of 2011 my interest had spread to Matte Proof Lincolns. I was really amazed how beautiful some of the Matte Proof Lincolns were that I saw posted from time to time on the Collectors Universe Forums.

After seeing a small website run by Matte Proof Lincoln dealer and promoter Brian Wager, called "Brian Wagner's Hall of Fame" which showed photos of some of the most beautiful MPL's that he's sold over the years -- and then after speaking with Brian that he was thinking of retiring from his Matte Proof dealing and taking down the website -- I wanted to somehow capture the information that Brian had posted and preserve it (and ENHANCE it!).

I then began to wonder if anyone had ever attempted to RANK Matte Proof Lincolns in terms of Visual Appeal, and I found NOTHING existed. So I began to contact all the major owners (and PCGS registry set participants) in the Matte Proof Lincoln realm to see if they would give permission to have their coins listed on a new promotional and research website for the "100 Greatest Matte Proof Lincolns" based on "visual appeal". I then decided to base the rank on a consensus VOTE by the top registry set owners and a number of Matte Proof Lincoln experts. So with this permission under my belt I began to put together a new website honoring & promoting Matte Proof Lincolns -- and since I already had an interest in colorfully toned coins -- and further, have always wondered if it's possible to actually rank coins based on visual appeal (and what that process might look like) -- I tried to marry these ideas into a new site.

http://100GreatestMatteProofLincolns.com

Please note that the rank shown is based on a consensus ranking from a number of top MPL owners and experts, who submitted votes over a two week period during the Fall of 2011. Also a number of people provided their labor of love to this endeavor: Brian Wagner of BW's Hall of Fame, Jonathan Watkins of the McCullugh Collection, Richard Stein of Gobrecht's Raisinets, Matt Chapman of Matt's Mattes, Paul Spurgeon of PaulsPennies, Tom Bender of The Tom Bender Registry Set, Bob Campbell of MPLs-Lincolns-of-Color fame, Kevin Flynn of the book Matte Proof Lincolns, Stewart Blay, The owner of the O'Connor Matte Proof Lincoln Set, The owner of The Withers Collection, as well as many others. This site would not have been possible if not for the contributions of photos of MPLs by their many owners and the passion they bring to this wonderful hobby.

I certainly didn't expect everyone to agree with the final consensus rank (that's the nature of a consensus), but certainly the conversation is a fun one. I also realize this is a controversial endeavor, and that opinions will vary widely, however I did this as an interesting visual-appeal case study of a short series of coins -- and I had hoped this might help initiate more field-wide conversations on how to judge and/or rank a coin's visual appeal ... and help to promote this very rare, beautiful, and interesting coin series.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

Finally I wanted to mention a few things. First these are LOW TRAFFIC websites, I have a page load counter on the home page and you can see the total hits in the past year is less than 3000. Second, this is a free and open website, and I make NO MONEY off it at all and do no direct advertising (although PCGS is mentioned prominently!) I actually have donated a lot of money towards it for web server space, domain name renting, and my time in laying it out and formatting (probably well over 500 hours of donated time on my part). I did this site to PROMOTE coin collecting in general and Matte Proof Lincolns specifically. There is also a "promotional aspect" of this website for PCGS since almost every coin listed was PCGS graded and many of the coin had TrueView photographs. So in some ways this site provides some free advertising of PCGS to the collector community!

ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE PCGS COLLECTORS UNIVERSE FORUM:

I did post this website on the Collectors Universe Forums and got a lot of great feedback from members of PCGS (I also assume that the brass from PCGS became aware of this site through this public posting and never got any negative feedback or comments).

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=839771&STARTPAGE=1

A SECOND WEBSITE:

One last note: Several months after I put together this first website promoting Matte Proof Lincolns, I did a second "sister" website for Mirror Proof Lincolns (since so little had been done with researching the Mirror Proofs (even less was available out there than with the Mattes!)

For this 2nd website, I decided to NARROW down the field of candidate coins to PCGS graded and PCGS TrueView photographed coins ONLY. I did this restriction primarily to “level the playing field” so to speak, and since PCGS is the industry standard (in my opinion), I wanted to restrict candidate coins to the best service. So this second website is even MORE of a promotional website to PCGS (and I can tell you that I have sent PCGS a number of new customers based on this new website (for both grading and photographic services).

http://100GreatestMirrorProofLincolns.com

My goals for this 2nd website were:

1. Promote PCGS by emphasizing their expertise in grading coins, which has become (in my opinion) the industry standard. Every coin participating in this "contest" must be PCGS graded.
2. Acknowledge and honor the beauty of PCGS TrueView Photography (a group led by Mr. Phil Arnold). Every coin participating in this "contest" must have a TrueView photo.
3. Promote Lincoln Cent collecting in general. Show collectors just how stunningly beautiful Mirror Proof Lincolns can be.
4. Honor colorfully toned Mirror Proof Lincolns by gathering the most beautiful specimens into a single location, where those that love the many facets numismatics can easily view and admire them.
5. Develop a new "objective scoring system" for ranking the visual appeal of colorfully toned coins.
6. Make new discoveries about this series based on statistics gleaned from this endeavor.

The first two objectives, I hoped, would serve to promote and ultimately drive more customers to PCGS.

I also posted this website on the PCGS Collectors Universe Forums and got some feedback from members of PCGS:

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=852020&STARTPAGE=1

THE REASON I AM CONTACTING PCGS:

In any case, the reason I am contacting you is even though I got permission from all the coin owners to use their photos, I recently found out that TrueView photos are not actually owned by the owners of the coins (i.e. the people that paid for the photos) and that I needed permission from PCGS to show the TrueView photos. So I am contacting you to find out if it's OK that I post True View photos on my websites. I could use photos from other professional coin photographers, where available, in their stead. However I would rather use TrueView photos since they do a much better job representing the beauty of the coins and helps to better promote PCGS. Once again I am making no money from this at all, this was all done as a pure love of the hobby and as a research project / experiment in the area of visual appeal.

Ultimately, I was hoping my websites would help generate interest and perhaps even bring in new (perhaps younger?) collectors to help keep this fascinating hobby vibrant and growing – and that benefits everyone!

If there is any sort of language that you would like me to add to this site to make this “golden”, please do let me know and I will do that. Also if you have any comments, suggestions, or input in general, I am always open to that!

I do apologize for not asking for this permission from you sooner, but I was under the impression that all I need was permission for the coins owners (and the coin’s owners were who I thought were the photograph owners as well!)

Thank you for your time and consideration,
A passionate and enthusiastic coin collector,

mingot · July 11, 2012 10:23AM

you're much less spiteful than me.

chance of me offering to donate it to cu if i were in your position: zilch.

JCMhouston · July 11, 2012 10:24AM

<< << How about just giving the websites to CU? >> >>

I don't think it's ever good to kowtow to any company and give away the fruits of your labor for nothing so they can make money off it.

I'm surprised that CU has any "exclusive" right in the image, it's a work for hire, not an original piece of work. I know after they charge you for the image they retain the right to use the image of your coin in any way they want, usually to make money (since they are a for profit company). But it surprises me that the law doesn't also grant the person paying for the work for hire the right to also use the image any way they want, including giving it to someone for a free website. I know we do this all the time in the design world and we specify that all drawings and documents produced by a contractor (CU for example) are "work for hire". So I would have a lawyer check and see what rights the owners of the coins have in the images they paid for, rather than just take the CU lawyers word for it.

If I was CU I would just delete this thread, for anyone not drunk on the koolaide it really smells bad and is not the corporate image I would want advertised.

RYK · July 11, 2012 10:28AM

I know nothing about this site, but it seems to me it would be a shame for PCGS to make this go away. I think that you should PM Don Willis and make your case.

Perhaps there is something that they do not like about it, that could be fixed. Having a site like that, IMO, is win-win-win. PCGS wins for the publicity of their grading and photography service and generating interest in coins, in general; collectors win for having the resource; you win for having a fun project that brings you satisfaction and kudos.

If the site goes down, everyone is a loser.

Brol · July 11, 2012 10:33AM

1 for Corporate America, 0 - you.

Good luck!

mingot · July 11, 2012 10:33AM

<< So I would have a lawyer check and see what rights the owners of the coins have in the images they paid for, rather than just take the CU lawyers word for it. >>

I am not a lawyer, but I can save the OP a few bucks --

Unless there is a contract that specifically states that it is a work made for hire, then it's NOT.

PCGS owns the copyright to the images.

but dont just take my word for it.

Broadstruck · July 11, 2012 10:40AM

robec · July 11, 2012 10:41AM

It is a real shame that PCGS came to this decision.

On their own website they say:

"The purpose of the PCGS TrueView photo service is to provide a quality image of a coin at the most opportune moment - before the coin is encapsulated in plastic. This will provide the customer with an unobstructed view of a coin in an image that can be utilized for a number of numismatic and commercial purposes. "

If this doesn't fit that criteria, I don't know what does.

I am sure PCGS has made a lot of money (in grading and photographic fees) as a direct result of these websites. I know I've submitted many coins for TrueViews that I never would have if not for these sites.

I hope those in charge will change their minds.

Permission was granted by almost 100% of the TrueView owners. It seems unreasonable to me that these owners are not allowed to post these gorgeous images as a group on one site.

How is that breaking any copyright infringements.

Zoins · July 11, 2012 10:41AM

I always wondered what rights the client of a TrueView had. What appears to be the situation here doesn't seem all that unusual and reminds me of how many wedding photographers work. The clients pay for the photos but the photographer retains all rights.

lasvegasteddy · July 11, 2012 10:41AM

hopefully this thread doesn't drift away in issue of legal ground
as i'm sure
the creator would be more then happy to legally bind with pcgs and has displayed such a class act that promotes pcgs services
this is and could be...was...a free marketing approach that benefited pcgs
compensation wasn't asked for here

MrEureka · July 11, 2012 10:43AM

I'm not a lawyer, but it may be that if CU does not protect its copyright interest in these images, it may adversely affect their rights to to other images in other situations in the future. So this situation could easily be about more than just this one website.

blu62vette · July 11, 2012 10:44AM

<< I always wondered what rights the client of a TrueView had. What appears to be the situation here doesn't seem all that unusual and reminds me of how many wedding photographers work. The client pay for the photos but the photographer retains all rights. >>

That is true for most photographers, not just for weddings.

mingot · July 11, 2012 10:44AM

<< I'm not a lawyer, but it may be that if CU does not protect its copyright interest in these images, it may adversely affect their rights to to other images in other situations in the future. So this situation could easily be about more than just this one website. >>

Nah, it doesn't work like that with copyright. You can selectively enforce.

Trademarks work like that, though!

Zoins · July 11, 2012 10:46AM

<< 

<< I always wondered what rights the client of a TrueView had. What appears to be the situation here doesn't seem all that unusual and reminds me of how many wedding photographers work. The client pay for the photos but the photographer retains all rights. >>

That is true for most photographers, not just for weddings. >>

Good to know. Some photographers are willing to assign copyright ownership to clients, though usually for a fee.

blu62vette · July 11, 2012 10:46AM

It may be worth asking what could be changed so that PCGS may approve. 2 things come to mind for me, first if the black was added as a background they may not like that as it can imply other parts for the image were changed. Second, they may not want to have their images associated with a ranking system.

Zoins · July 11, 2012 10:51AM

<< It is a real shame that PCGS came to this decision.

On their own website they say:

"The purpose of the PCGS TrueView photo service is to provide a quality image of a coin at the most opportune moment - before the coin is encapsulated in plastic. This will provide the customer with an unobstructed view of a coin in an image that can be utilized for a number of numismatic and commercial purposes. "

If this doesn't fit that criteria, I don't know what does. >>

I can see how there might be some confusion with the text above if PCGS retains all rights. The PCGS grade guarantee explicitly states that "PCGS will be the sole determiner" of the coin's current market value. Perhaps similar text can be included regarding acceptable TrueView usage purposes to avoid confusion.

dizzyfoxx · July 11, 2012 10:52AM

<< I know nothing about this site, but it seems to me it would be a shame for PCGS to make this go away. I think that you should PM Don Willis and make your case.

Perhaps there is something that they do not like about it, that could be fixed. Having a site like that, IMO, is win-win-win. PCGS wins for the publicity of their grading and photography service and generating interest in coins, in general; collectors win for having the resource; you win for having a fun project that brings you satisfaction and kudos.

If the site goes down, everyone is a loser. >>

Agreed.

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 10:55AM

Hey blu62,

I am sure the black background wasn't the reason ... Phil himself posted that he didnt mind that some people changed the background color to black.

The coin photos were not changed in any way from the database version.

And I did ask PCGS to let me know if I needed to change anything to get this approved.

All PCGS said was that I "was in violation of their copyright" and that I needed to remove all the TrueView photos from my website.

I wasn't given any sort of conditions or options.

lasvegasteddy · July 11, 2012 10:57AM

"Second, they may not want to have their images associated with a ranking system"

the images were not associated with ranking
it was 1st address of rating a toned coin on an aspect ratio of structure

shame the ranking would even be brought up as now it becomes a considered fact

coins are...ranked by grade them selves...the tpg who grades them...the secondary assessment of grading

would pcgs make address of cac approval of grades...in fact they are leaders in "ranking a grade"

with this i'm done...put a fork in me...i value the privilege to even be a member here over any emotional twist i suffer...that will pass...drama...any drama is an over-rated venture

Steve · July 11, 2012 11:07AM

n my opinion you need to get in contact with Don Willis directly and find out exactly who told you to remove YOUR web site. Good luck. Steve

TwoSides2aCoin · July 11, 2012 11:18AM

You do nice work. You can do stuff for me if you want. I like your attitude. (no spam intended).
They're probably the 100 least collected coins, but we could have fun with it.

blu62vette · July 11, 2012 11:29AM

<< Hey blu62,

I am sure the black background wasn't the reason ... Phil himself posted that he didnt mind that some people changed the background color to black.

The coin photos were not changed in any way from the database version.

And I did ask PCGS to let me know if I needed to change anything to get this approved.

All PCGS said was that I "was in violation of their copyright" and that I needed to remove all the TrueView photos from my website.

I wasn't given any sort of conditions or options. >>

While I know you didn't change the images, others may wonder if anything was changed. Copyrights seem to be taken lightly in regards to lots of photos so PCGS is just protecting their property. While asking the coin owners seems like the way tog o it means nothing.

astrorat · July 11, 2012 11:42AM

The rights to images belong to the photographer, not the coin owner. Why would PCGS not protect its rights to the images? They did the work and created the images. To just take the images and use them without permission is wrong no matter how much work was put into the new project or how benevolent the intent. Any photographer, not just PCGS, has the right to deny others the right to use the images.

How many times have members of this Board whined that somebody "stole" an image after a sale and used it again on eBay? It's the same issue. PCGS is enforcing the rights to their work product.

Sorry that the websites must be taken down as I imagine it is a tough lesson.

scotty1419 · July 11, 2012 11:43AM

Is it copyright violation if it's purpose is not commercial and the intent is educational?

IE: Fair Use

There are a few options that come to mind including linking, thumbnails, etc.

Zoins · July 11, 2012 11:46AM

<< The rights to images belong to the photographer, not the coin owner. >>

Actually, the rights of the images belong to the copyright owner, who can be the firm the photographer is employed by, the photographer, the coin owner, or any other party. In the case of TrueViews, it appears PCGS, the photographer's employer, is the copyright owner.

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 11:52AM

This was an interesting point posted by Don Willis a few minutes ago and an interesting followup question by Zoins ...
I would really like to understand this more fully just for my own knowledge base.

AM909 · July 11, 2012 11:57AM

<< 

<< I'm not a lawyer, but it may be that if CU does not protect its copyright interest in these images, it may adversely affect their rights to to other images in other situations in the future. So this situation could easily be about more than just this one website. >>

Nah, it doesn't work like that with copyright. You can selectively enforce.

Trademarks work like that, though! >>

It doesn't work like that with most anything contractual. There is usually a clause that reads something like "failure of either party to enforce any provision at any time does not constitute waiver of that, or any provision in the future". IANAL.

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 12:11PM

<< It is a real shame that PCGS came to this decision.

On their own website they say:

"The purpose of the PCGS TrueView photo service is to provide a quality image of a coin at the most opportune moment - before the coin is encapsulated in plastic. This will provide the customer with an unobstructed view of a coin in an image that can be utilized for a number of numismatic and commercial purposes. "

If this doesn't fit that criteria, I don't know what does.

I am sure PCGS has made a lot of money (in grading and photographic fees) as a direct result of these websites. I know I've submitted many coins for TrueViews that I never would have if not for these sites.

I hope those in charge will change their minds.

Permission was granted by almost 100% of the TrueView owners. It seems unreasonable to me that these owners are not allowed to post these gorgeous images as a group on one site.

How is that breaking any copyright infringements. >>

This is an interesting point, robec.

blu62vette · July 11, 2012 12:12PM

<< This was an interesting point posted by Don Willis a few minutes ago and an interesting followup question by Zoins ...
I would really like to understand this more fully just for my own knowledge base.

>>

To me, it means you can use the images but you do not hold the copyright.

robec · July 11, 2012 12:19PM

<< 

How many times have members of this Board whined that somebody "stole" an image after a sale and used it again on eBay? It's the same issue. PCGS is enforcing the rights to their work product. >>

You're kidding right?? Your example isn't the same thing at all.

First, no one is whining about their images. All coin owners/ TrueView purchasers gave their permission.

Second, unlike eBay, no one made any money from the use of these photos except PCGS.
Not only from these images, but from those generated from future submissions as a result of the site.

No one is denying PCGS owns the rights to the photos and has the right to deny their use.

fcloud · July 11, 2012 12:19PM

I had one of my images used by an ebay seller without permission, and it really ticked me off, and when I challanged the seller he went into name calling. Having photography as a hobby for over 40 years, I can see the point of view of PCGS. You do have a beautiful site, and maybe over time you can gather your own images or ask owners of the coins to supply their own images along with permission to use the images they photographed.

Recently I had an article published in the Coin Dealer News letter. Even though, is it my article I can't photocopy it without permission because it is their copyright. I even supplied the image they printed.

Zoins · July 11, 2012 12:20PM

<< 

<< This was an interesting point posted by Don Willis a few minutes ago and an interesting followup question by Zoins ...
I would really like to understand this more fully just for my own knowledge base.

>>

To me, it means you can use the images but you do not hold the copyright. >>

BluCC, I think we're in agreement if what you're saying is that the TrueView client has limited use of the images as granted by the copyright owner, i.e. if the copyright owner doesn't allow you to use the image on a certain website, you cannot use it that way.

Swampboy · July 11, 2012 12:22PM

I enjoyed browsing that site when you posted it and it's been book marked ever since..

Nice work! and

TwoSides2aCoin · July 11, 2012 12:35PM

Just replace the photos with descriptions.

WingedLiberty1957 · July 11, 2012 12:35PM

I have a question:

Are we allowed to post TrueView photos of coins that we own on our own website?

Many of us have personal collection websites that contain TrueView photos, is this a legal or an illegal use of the TrueView photo?

Spooly · July 11, 2012 12:37PM

I'm not sure I would use Trueview in the future.

stealer · July 11, 2012 12:39PM

I'm confused,

So hypothetically if I bought a slabbed PCGS coin that has been tru-viewed, I cannot use it to resell the coin because I am not the original owner?

Seems pretty silly to me...

TwoSides2aCoin · July 11, 2012 12:44PM

<< I have a question:

Are we allowed to post TrueView photos of coins that we own on our own website?

Many of us have personal collection websites that contain TrueView photos, is this a legal or an illegal use of the TrueView photo? >>

If and when I use PCGS True View photos, it is a "courtesy of PCGS". These are only with coins I own. A courtesy is just that. I don't know how else to explain this except to give credit where credit is due.

Justacommeman · July 11, 2012 12:46PM

That is a shame. Cool sites.

MJ

michiganboy · July 11, 2012 1:03PM

I agree thats a real shame, I too would be open to just give up the site to CU if I put that work into myself. I hope you can reach an agreement of sorts.

Zoins · July 11, 2012 1:07PM

Would it be acceptable to copy the site to CoinFactsWiki.com which is owned and run by PCGS?

This way PCGS wouldn't have to manage another website and can grow one of their current websites.

devious · July 11, 2012 1:10PM

<< I'm not sure I would use Trueview in the future. >>

Make that two of us!

BryceM · July 11, 2012 1:28PM

Hmmmm. I guess I've never previously visited the site, but it's certainly well done and full - absolutely full - of amazing eye-candy coins.

Perhaps, possibly, maybe some sort of arrangement might still be possible?

jesbroken · July 11, 2012 1:34PM

I think I see an opening for a legal team to develop a property owner's bill of rights to their purchases. If I pay for a service, whether it be
a wedding photo shoot, a coin photo shoot or an automobile photo shoot, my payment for these services will include rights to utilize the photo
results in any way I choose. This will be signed in advance by both parties or I will not allow the photo shoot to occur at all. I understand
a professional photographer wanting to protect their talents, but to receive payment for photographing items belonging to the item owner should
only garner them a guarantee that their work will always be attributed. Anything else would prevent me from doing business with them. Now if
one should say, you will never get quality work done, I say bull. It is a shame that any quality photographer would try to place their client in this
position to begin with. I just do not understand this turn of events. JMO
Jim

TomB · July 11, 2012 1:35PM

I'll throw another angle out into the discussion. Currently, I own none of the coins displayed on these sites, though in the past I have owned several of the coins prior to their TV images being produced. Might it be possible that someone who owns one or more of these coins dislikes the idea of ranking while at the same time has no issue with sharing the image(s)? They might make the point to PCGS that it could hurt them financially if a public website infers that their 1913 MPL is only the eighth nicest for the issue, or something of the sort, and that the use of all PCGS images might suggest that PCGS agrees with the rankings. If such a complaint came in, then perhaps PCGS chose the path of least resistance and decided to tell you to stop the site before more issues arose. Again, this is just hypothetical, but wondering if it might have happened.

100 Greatest websites are being deleted (so sorry)

Comments