<< <i>Much a do about nothing...........I think Laura got angry about something and it went into the Hot Topics at Legend. So, now we got off course a bit and some folks are debating advertising $$$. Anyway I say 360 postings should about wrap it up. >>
the reason we started talking about ad dollars was because TDN said that Laura spends 6 figures with CLCT on advertising (implying 6 figures for forum advertising) and that entitled her to take he ball and go home. So I started digging and found out that usage on the forums is negligible compared to pop reports, price guides, and cert lookups. So her 6 figure ad dollars translates to very little here.
<<TDN said that Laura spends 6 figures with CLCT on advertising>>
You have done a lot to explain the power struggle within this forum, at least at times. But Laura should not push her weight around too much with either PCGS or through Legend as she will offend many clients or potential clients. I think as a whole the participants in this forum greatly respect Legend Numismatics. But the sniping mostly comes as a dealer to dealer snipe at a masquerade party.
So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
<< <i>So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
OINK >>
...except when you have your photo taken at a coin show and posted for all to see you smiling with your name-tag glistening in the flash of lights
<< <i>So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
OINK >>
...except when you have your photo taken at a coin show and posted for all to see you smiling with your name-tag glistening in the flash of lights
If I were to close my eyes and wish, I'd like to see Laura dedicate a hot topics to the degree to which she feels CAC has been embraced by the coin community. Now that we're a few years in is community interest "white hot" or "meh". I looked at the pop reports for PCGS, NGC and CAC on Morgans and I can't tell. It looks like there have been almost 6 million MS Morgans (5,712,597) graded by the two TPG's, and 44,786 have been stickered by CAC. That looks like slightly less than 1% (.008). For the 93-S, the services have certified 7,880 and CAC has stickered 299. That represents about 4% (.039). It is difficult to know how many coins were submitted to CAC which failed to sticker. Perhaps they've seen three times the number that they have stickered. Is that good or bad? Is the churn factor such that only 3% of the TPG certified Morgans have come to market in the last two years? Do the same 3% perpetually circulate? Are the folks who own the other 97% of TPG certified Morgans disinterested of unaware of CAC, are they simply sitting on their coins, or is it too early to tell? Is the Morgan backlog at CAC 5,667,811? This would make an interesting Hot Topics that would certainly generate interest here on the boards.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>If I were to close my eyes and wish, I'd like to see Laura dedicate a hot topics to the degree to which she feels CAC has been embraced by the coin community. Now that we're a few years in is community interest "white hot" or "meh". I looked at the pop reports for PCGS, NGC and CAC on Morgans and I can't tell. It looks like there have been almost 6 million MS Morgans (5,712,597) graded by the two TPG's, and 44,786 have been stickered by CAC. That looks like slightly less than 1% (.008). For the 93-S, the services have certified 7,880 and CAC has stickered 299. That represents about 4% (.039). It is difficult to know how many coins were submitted to CAC which failed to sticker. Perhaps they've seen three times the number that they have stickered. Is that good or bad? Is the churn factor such that only 3% of the TPG certified Morgans have come to market in the last two years? Do the same 3% perpetually circulate? Are the folks who own the other 97% of TPG certified Morgans disinterested of unaware of CAC, are they simply sitting on their coins, or is it too early to tell? Is the Morgan backlog at CAC 5,667,811? This would make an interesting Hot Topics that would certainly generate interest here on the boards. >>
There have to be a lot of actual coin collectors that just don't care. I just buy what I like , I don't track the book value of every coin I own on a real time spread sheet and obsess over resale values.
PCGS and CAC could disappear and it wouldn't affect me at all. I have lots of BU morgans that are just sitting around raw and others must too. Is there an estimate of the numbers of those that exist?
Slabbing and beaning are a waste of money to people like me that just relax and enjoy the coins they own. I have a day job that stresses me enough why would I want to ruin a hobby that I actually enjoy .
Our market share is all about absolute quality. We think our success comes from our ability to grade at the highest levels (most dealers today can't grade to save their lives) and the fact we ONLY retail CAC coins. There is no question CAC is what the top end market wants-and when we have the CAC better coins, we sell them like crazy! Buyers have become much better educated over the past decade for sure. The proof is the huge price spreads between CAC and NON CAC coins. Its NOT the dealers who make up the prices-its the demand from collectors that does.
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy. I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder.
<< <i> Our market share is all about absolute quality. We think our success comes from our ability to grade at the highest levels (most dealers today can't grade to save their lives) and the fact we ONLY retail CAC coins. There is no question CAC is what the top end market wants-and when we have the CAC better coins, we sell them like crazy! Buyers have become much better educated over the past decade for sure. The proof is the huge price spreads between CAC and NON CAC coins. Its NOT the dealers who make up the prices-its the demand from collectors that does.
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy (ie which holder, which acronyms, stickers, etc.). I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder. >>
100% agreed with roadrunner's thoughts above. This is not an unusual occurrence, admittedly; but correct is correct, and rr's observations so often are.
<< <i> Our market share is all about absolute quality. We think our success comes from our ability to grade at the highest levels (most dealers today can't grade to save their lives) and the fact we ONLY retail CAC coins. There is no question CAC is what the top end market wants-and when we have the CAC better coins, we sell them like crazy! Buyers have become much better educated over the past decade for sure. The proof is the huge price spreads between CAC and NON CAC coins. Its NOT the dealers who make up the prices-its the demand from collectors that does.
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy. I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder. >>
As usual, RR is spot on. I would like to make a few comments. 1) What a number of coins sell for is not reported because they are sold privately between dealers and individuals, and between individuals. While this is typically not TDN material, a fair number of relatively expensive coins are sold this way. 2) One must consider not only the dealer markup of a particular coin, but how long it takes such dealer to sell said coin. I can name names of dealers who sit on a coin for up to a year or longer, trying to make a sale. Sometimes, the dealer succeeds, other times, said coin quietly gets wholesaled. 3) What constitutes an educated buyer is a matter of opinion. I don't consider someone who buys a coin because of a holder, sticker, etc., as an educated buyer. Rather, an educated buyer is one who can grade the coin he / she is thinking of buying, and furthermore, has a good idea of where such coin is on the continuum of the grade which the TPG has assigned to it. I do not believe most buyer have become more educated in the last five or ten years. 4) A sticker on a coin means that JA and crew is willing to buy the coin (because they think it is solid for its assigned grade). Like grades assigned to coins by TPGs, whether or not a coin is solid for the grade is a matter of opinion. Usually the experts get it right. Sometimes, they don't. If you are considering paying a premium for a stickered coin, you'd better know how to grade it, or you will be buried in it.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Much of the discussion involved people volunteering grade opinions from the large photo. I can see how the (relatively few) low grade (MS-66) opinions might be frustrating to Ms. Sperber. But we know grading from photos is less accurate than "in hand", and many of the posters were anonymous (and often used their personal weight for toning), so it seems they can be safely discounted or ignored. There were several well detailed posts (including people who have seen the coin) that said it was solidly 68, plus a great post near the end by roadrunner who explained the historical evolution of the MS grades above 65.
I don't see this as "60% misinformation", but it might be "60% personal opinions of amateurs". If 90% of the best graders who have seen the actual coin lined up and said it was a 66 or 67, then I could see how the thread might negatively impact this particular transaction. But that is not what happened in the thread.
"Don't let the turkeys get you down." and "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water."
The PCGS Forum is a very positive force for education. The more educated the clients and general collector population are, the more people will understand and appreciate the high end coins where Legend's market is.
C'mon, guys, Laura wants real names used. I will go first. My name is really "Mikey" and my ancestors were Irish.
As has been stated previously, personal security trumps a demand for identification here. If I had to list my personal information (name, address, collecting habits, etc.) in order to participate, I would be gone in a flash.
Yup, the anonymity of the Internet makes people annoying. Get over it.
I fully agree with Mikey. If you've been here more than 30 minutes, you know who most members are anyway. We preserve the aliases for those who choose to use them as a matter of respect for their privacy.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
My first thought was the candy commercial where an angry Joe Pesci where he is not himself until he satisfies his intense hunger with a Snickers bar. (This would make a great skit at the next ANA Convention.)
Then it occurred to me that the Legend website was hacked and someone in Kiev posted the rant.
If Laura was more widely known, I can see Dave Letterman doing a "top ten reasons why Laura is angry about 'chat-rooms'"
<< <i>If Laura was more widely known, I can see Dave Letterman doing a "top ten reasons why Laura is angry about 'chat-rooms'" >>
Although this might seem funny the fact that this thread has been the most active post here on the US Coin forum for a week makes it quite sad. The rant itself is a major social media woe as I don't ever recall seeing anyone else making a living in a hobby industry self inflicting this sort of negative PR on themselves. From a marketing stand point no matter how much is spent on advertising it's improper netiquette toward attracting fresh prospective clientele.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Didn't TPG " slabs" come about because most Coin buyers at the time needed consistant grading and authentication of the Coins? Then because of gradeflation, CAC came into being. Now where are we? If us non-grading buyers can't rely on the slab, or the Bean, or the integrity of the Dealer, or the Auction House, what option is left?
Oh of course there is the " learn to grade for yourself option". Well yeah that's always the best way to go.
But then theres always that " fade away" option also.
And of course there's the other option. Forget buying used reconditioned wrecks , just buy new. Im talking US Mint - new.
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity.
<< <i>What cost Laura my business was her leaving a show early. This was a bunch of years ago in NYC. >>
You must have only about 4 dealers to choose from if you have consistently maintained that approach. >>
Barry has a very long history of disliking Laura. Check his very old posts. His comments seemed very personal to me. Since then, I've just ignored his comments as the ravings of a person with an axe to grind.
EVP >>
I do not do business with Legend because I've been ignored by them at most shows I've attended when I've stood at their table. The last Baltimore show was one of the few times I was approached by them in a friendly manner although it certainly was not a timely one given that no one else was at the their table at that time.
.....and I do business with no more than 4 dealers of quality and integrity in which I have complete trust.
I supported and continue to support Laura in EVERYTHING she's trying to accomplish with the ANA. I hope she runs for President next time and makes a complete slate to run with her. I'd vote for everyone on it and/or that she supports. I also think Laura/Legend is reputable and honest with whom to do business and, obviously, have some of the best coins to sell.
I just think their "table manners" leave enough to be desired that I choose not to do business with them. Laura knows this, we've spoken about it and we disagree about it. We're good although it means I choose not to buy coins from Legend as a result of our respectful disagreement on this issue. I go to her competition where I'm immediately greeted in a friendly manner and whose quality and price are on the same level of Laura's/Legend's.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
Your statement gives me pause considering your quoting of Don regarding what's acceptable, or not, to criticize about Laura's writings.
How much a company spends in advertising should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with control of input or content on a freely provided message board by the company receiving the advertising money. If that's the case, if Legend were to spend seven figures a year with PCGS would this possibly be renamed the CU/Legend Message Boards? If so, I'm outta here when content provider and advertiser would ever agree to share control on input or content.
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple.
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
Erik >>
If they are pancakes, I'm in...just putting that out there.
"""...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now"""
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
Erik >>
If they are pancakes, I'm in...just putting that out there. >>
That's not Santa! That's Elvis! He just is not keeping in shape anymore.
Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content.
Your statement gives me pause considering your quoting of Don regarding what's acceptable, or not, to criticize about Laura's writings.
How much a company spends in advertising should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with control of input or content on a freely provided message board by the company receiving the advertising money. If that's the case, if Legend were to spend seven figures a year with PCGS would this possibly be renamed the CU/Legend Message Boards? If so, I'm outta here....
TCMITSSR, neither she or TDN seem to understand why advertiser manipulation is offensive and would drive members (the real content providers) away. She is thinking small. I hope PCGS is not. If the PCGS message board went away it would accomplish Laura's goal of limiting the information collectors get from sources other than Legend. However, this would not benefit the hobby, irregardless her motive.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
........."What dealers do not want you to know". Really? Is that needed? It creates unessecary dealer bashing and negavity. Of course the authors name is not visible. I know I am not the only one bothered by this thread-I see at least two dealers who responded early on. They were not offering any one flowers of appreciation. This thread is just ONE example.
I looked up unessecary, but couldn't find the definition.
It seems closest to "scary" which is what Laura's rant really is.
I guess she meant to say unnecessary dealer bashing. Is it the dealer or the bashing that is unnecessary? Perhaps the dealer.
What would be necessary dealer bashing? I guess it is all the replies on this thread.
You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too?
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
What would be the topic? "Look at me, look at me! People aren't looking at me enough!"
I think it's fairly obvious she's trying to elicit a reaction from the chat room weenies here.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
So far, many of the responses to this thread just prove that she's at least partially right....although I'm also fairly certain some here would be exactly the same even if not anonymous...
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence.
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
I think I am starting to understand who you are and why every post you write is something disparaging about Legend. As far as being sued, the only person Legend has ever sued certainly deserved it and if you don't think so then you are either delusional, the perp...or both!
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
Do you think that most people here registered with their real names? If so then PCGS knows who you are.
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
I think I am starting to understand who you are and why every post you write is something disparaging about Legend. As far as being sued, the only person Legend has ever sued certainly deserved it and if you don't think so then you are either delusional, the perp...or both! >>
That makes no sense. Your opinion is obviously bought and paid for with Laura's pocketbook. Not everyone else agrees with her. I have no dog in this fight only that I think that Laura's only reason she would want names listed it to silence people who disagree with her. How else would having names on posts help. She has thin skin and can't stand those who get in her way of making money. Laura her self hasn't been able to abide by her own proposal by faking being a man in her posts.
Lol. My own pocketbook is just fine, thank you. I am bought and paid for by no one. IF you have no dog in this fight then why is practically every post you make some disparaging comment about Laura or Legend? That is not the pattern of someone with no dog in a fight
Comments
Doesn't the 68+ thread fallout speak to the validity of market grading?
<< <i>Much a do about nothing...........I think Laura got angry about something and it went into the Hot Topics at Legend. So, now we got off course a bit and some folks are debating advertising $$$. Anyway I say 360 postings should about wrap it up. >>
the reason we started talking about ad dollars was because TDN said that Laura spends 6 figures with CLCT on advertising (implying 6 figures for forum advertising) and that entitled her to take he ball and go home. So I started digging and found out that usage on the forums is negligible compared to pop reports, price guides, and cert lookups. So her 6 figure ad dollars translates to very little here.
<< <i>So her 6 figure ad dollars translates to very little here. >>
If she was getting charged $100000, no wonder she wants to shut this place down!
You have done a lot to explain the power struggle within this forum, at least at times. But Laura should not push her weight around too much with either PCGS or through Legend as she will offend many clients or potential clients. I think as a whole the participants in this forum greatly respect Legend Numismatics. But the sniping mostly comes as a dealer to dealer snipe at a masquerade party.
So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
OINK
<< <i>So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
OINK >>
...except when you have your photo taken at a coin show and posted for all to see you smiling with your name-tag glistening in the flash of lights
Erik
<< <i>
<< <i>So, Laura's suggestion that members reveal their real identity is somewhat well taken. But from my viewpoint, ONLY the professionals (dealers) should reveal their identity. The collector members, such as myself, may have good reasons to maintain their anominity, and do learn much on this forum as to the viewpoints of dealers with whom we will consider a good source of coins.
OINK >>
...except when you have your photo taken at a coin show and posted for all to see you smiling with your name-tag glistening in the flash of lights
Erik >>
Switch tags with some other doofus .
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>If I were to close my eyes and wish, I'd like to see Laura dedicate a hot topics to the degree to which she feels CAC has been embraced by the coin community. Now that we're a few years in is community interest "white hot" or "meh". I looked at the pop reports for PCGS, NGC and CAC on Morgans and I can't tell. It looks like there have been almost 6 million MS Morgans (5,712,597) graded by the two TPG's, and 44,786 have been stickered by CAC. That looks like slightly less than 1% (.008). For the 93-S, the services have certified 7,880 and CAC has stickered 299. That represents about 4% (.039). It is difficult to know how many coins were submitted to CAC which failed to sticker. Perhaps they've seen three times the number that they have stickered. Is that good or bad? Is the churn factor such that only 3% of the TPG certified Morgans have come to market in the last two years? Do the same 3% perpetually circulate? Are the folks who own the other 97% of TPG certified Morgans disinterested of unaware of CAC, are they simply sitting on their coins, or is it too early to tell? Is the Morgan backlog at CAC 5,667,811? This would make an interesting Hot Topics that would certainly generate interest here on the boards. >>
There have to be a lot of actual coin collectors that just don't care. I just buy what I like , I don't track the book value of every coin I own on a real time spread sheet and obsess over resale values.
PCGS and CAC could disappear and it wouldn't affect me at all. I have lots of BU morgans that are just sitting around raw and others must too. Is there an estimate of the numbers of those that exist?
Slabbing and beaning are a waste of money to people like me that just relax and enjoy the coins they own. I have a day job that stresses me enough why would I want to ruin a hobby that I actually enjoy .
Try emailing Laura with your suggestion. I don't know how much she reads here, so she can easily overlook your suggestion.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy. I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder.
<< <i> Our market share is all about absolute quality. We think our success comes from our ability to grade at the highest levels (most dealers today can't grade to save their lives) and the fact we ONLY retail CAC coins. There is no question CAC is what the top end market wants-and when we have the CAC better coins, we sell them like crazy! Buyers have become much better educated over the past decade for sure. The proof is the huge price spreads between CAC and NON CAC coins. Its NOT the dealers who make up the prices-its the demand from collectors that does.
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy (ie which holder, which acronyms, stickers, etc.). I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder. >>
100% agreed with roadrunner's thoughts above. This is not an unusual occurrence, admittedly; but correct is correct, and rr's observations so often are.
<< <i> Our market share is all about absolute quality. We think our success comes from our ability to grade at the highest levels (most dealers today can't grade to save their lives) and the fact we ONLY retail CAC coins. There is no question CAC is what the top end market wants-and when we have the CAC better coins, we sell them like crazy! Buyers have become much better educated over the past decade for sure. The proof is the huge price spreads between CAC and NON CAC coins. Its NOT the dealers who make up the prices-its the demand from collectors that does.
I'd disagree with several statements from the market report.
1. Most dealers CAN grade to save their lives. How could one come to any other conclusion? And does it really matter so much when you have PCGS, NGC and CAC out there?
2. Dealers DO create a large % of the price in the coin market. After all, they are the ones often buying the coins at auction and on the bourse floor so that they can bring them home to their customers. It's often the trading volume of coins going back and forth among dealers that push prices higher, especially in strong markets. At times, they act as both customer/collector and dealer.
3. I don't know that buyers have become any better educated over the past 5-10 years. They have just followed the standard line of buying only PCGS and if possible stickered coins. Take those coins out of the holders and present them to most customers and they'd have trouble figuring out what was what.
4. The huge price spreads for stickered vs unstickered coins is not all because of quality. A good % of that spread is marketing as well as the constant bashing non-PCGS coins tend to receive. Those same "educated" buyers have been taught what to buy. I can't say they've been taught to know the difference in the quality of similar looking coins. But they can surely identify a + sign, a football, a gold shield and a star on a plastic holder. >>
As usual, RR is spot on. I would like to make a few comments.
1) What a number of coins sell for is not reported because they are sold privately between dealers and individuals, and between individuals. While this is typically not TDN material, a fair number of relatively expensive coins are sold this way.
2) One must consider not only the dealer markup of a particular coin, but how long it takes such dealer to sell said coin. I can name names of dealers who sit on a coin for up to a year or longer, trying to make a sale. Sometimes, the dealer succeeds, other times, said coin quietly gets wholesaled.
3) What constitutes an educated buyer is a matter of opinion. I don't consider someone who buys a coin because of a holder, sticker, etc., as an educated buyer. Rather, an educated buyer is one who can grade the coin he / she is thinking of buying, and furthermore, has a good idea of where such coin is on the continuum of the grade which the TPG has assigned to it. I do not believe most buyer have become more educated in the last five or ten years.
4) A sticker on a coin means that JA and crew is willing to buy the coin (because they think it is solid for its assigned grade). Like grades assigned to coins by TPGs, whether or not a coin is solid for the grade is a matter of opinion. Usually the experts get it right. Sometimes, they don't. If you are considering paying a premium for a stickered coin, you'd better know how to grade it, or you will be buried in it.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=913440
And here is an appearance in a 2009 Heritage auction (in a PCGS MS-68 holder at that time):
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1121&lotNo=4973
It's in the Coronet Collection set registry, which Legend helped build:
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=115575
(The comment cell in the registry fails to mentions the Jack Lee provenance)
Much of the discussion involved people volunteering grade opinions from the large photo.
I can see how the (relatively few) low grade (MS-66) opinions might be frustrating to Ms. Sperber.
But we know grading from photos is less accurate than "in hand",
and many of the posters were anonymous (and often used their personal weight for toning), so it seems they can be safely discounted or ignored.
There were several well detailed posts (including people who have seen the coin) that said it was solidly 68,
plus a great post near the end by roadrunner who explained the historical evolution of the MS grades above 65.
I don't see this as "60% misinformation", but it might be "60% personal opinions of amateurs".
If 90% of the best graders who have seen the actual coin lined up and said it was a 66 or 67,
then I could see how the thread might negatively impact this particular transaction.
But that is not what happened in the thread.
"Don't let the turkeys get you down."
and
"Don't throw out the baby with the bath water."
The PCGS Forum is a very positive force for education.
The more educated the clients and general collector population are,
the more people will understand and appreciate the high end coins where Legend's market is.
As has been stated previously, personal security trumps a demand for identification here. If I had to list my personal
information (name, address, collecting habits, etc.) in order to participate, I would be gone in a flash.
Yup, the anonymity of the Internet makes people annoying. Get over it.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>This is the thread on the 1885-CC PCGS MS-68+ (March 18-27, 2014):
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=913440
And here is an appearance in a 2009 Heritage auction (in a PCGS MS-68 holder at that time):
http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1121&lotNo=4973
It's in the Coronet Collection set registry, which Legend helped build:
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=115575
(The comment cell in the registry fails to mentions the Jack Lee provenance)
I cannot pull up the first link. I thought it was a good and honest discussion on a highly graded Morgan.
he satisfies his intense hunger with a Snickers bar. (This would make a great skit at the next ANA Convention.)
Then it occurred to me that the Legend website was hacked and someone in Kiev posted
the rant.
If Laura was more widely known, I can see Dave Letterman doing a "top ten reasons why Laura
is angry about 'chat-rooms'"
<< <i>If Laura was more widely known, I can see Dave Letterman doing a "top ten reasons why Laura
is angry about 'chat-rooms'" >>
Although this might seem funny the fact that this thread has been the most active post here on the US Coin forum for a week makes it quite sad. The rant itself is a major social media woe as I don't ever recall seeing anyone else making a living in a hobby industry self inflicting this sort of negative PR on themselves. From a marketing stand point no matter how much is spent on advertising it's improper netiquette toward attracting fresh prospective clientele.
of the Coins? Then because of gradeflation, CAC came into being. Now where are we? If us non-grading buyers can't
rely on the slab, or the Bean, or the integrity of the Dealer, or the Auction House, what option is left?
Oh of course there is the " learn to grade for yourself option". Well yeah that's always the best way to go.
But then theres always that " fade away" option also.
And of course there's the other option. Forget buying used reconditioned wrecks , just buy new. Im talking US Mint - new.
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What cost Laura my business was her leaving a show early.
This was a bunch of years ago in NYC. >>
You must have only about 4 dealers to choose from if you have consistently maintained that approach. >>
Barry has a very long history of disliking Laura. Check his very old posts. His comments seemed very personal to me. Since then, I've just ignored his comments as the ravings of a person with an axe to grind.
EVP >>
I do not do business with Legend because I've been ignored by them at most shows I've attended when I've stood at their table. The last Baltimore show was one of the few times I was approached by them in a friendly manner although it certainly was not a timely one given that no one else was at the their table at that time.
.....and I do business with no more than 4 dealers of quality and integrity in which I have complete trust.
I supported and continue to support Laura in EVERYTHING she's trying to accomplish with the ANA. I hope she runs for President next time and makes a complete slate to run with her. I'd vote for everyone on it and/or that she supports. I also think Laura/Legend is reputable and honest with whom to do business and, obviously, have some of the best coins to sell.
I just think their "table manners" leave enough to be desired that I choose not to do business with them. Laura knows this, we've spoken about it and we disagree about it. We're good although it means I choose not to buy coins from Legend as a result of our respectful disagreement on this issue. I go to her competition where I'm immediately greeted in a friendly manner and whose quality and price are on the same level of Laura's/Legend's.
<< <i>Yes, Legend spends six figures per year with PCGS on advertising. I find it rather naive to suggest a major advertiser should have zero control or input on content. The referenced post completely missed the mark IMO. >>
Your statement gives me pause considering your quoting of Don regarding what's acceptable, or not, to criticize about Laura's writings.
How much a company spends in advertising should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with control of input or content on a freely provided message board by the company receiving the advertising money. If that's the case, if Legend were to spend seven figures a year with PCGS would this possibly be renamed the CU/Legend Message Boards? If so, I'm outta here when content provider and advertiser would ever agree to share control on input or content.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik
I'll agree with that law but the congresscritters have to disclose their owners in return.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
Do you have a Bill Number?
This reads like urban legend.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
Erik
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
Erik >>
If they are pancakes, I'm in...just putting that out there.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ah .. How about Freedom of Speech? Barring slanderous/libelous comments, people can write anything they want (pretty much and certainly anything within forum rules) >>
In each of the last six years, three sessions, of Congress (both House and Senate) there has been a bipartisan bill that would require every message and chat board in the U.S. to require users to post all messages using their legal names.
In each of the last six years, the number of bipartisan co-sponsors has grown to where the bill is close to approaching bipartisan majority support. It's on track to be passed and on whomever is President, no later than early 2017 if not much earlier depending on the outcomes of the 2014 elections.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of the few truly bipartisan supported bills. There is growing concern relative to national security with message boards in addition to a belief that cyber-related criminal activities are significantly fueled by anonymous message and chat room users.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not however guarantee you to freedom of speech while behind the cloak of anonymity. >>
...and they (Congress) wonder why they have a job approval rating of 13%...this bill is a joke and could never be properly enforced even if signed into law
Erik >>
It's no joke and it can be easily enforced. Board and chat rooms would require verified legal names or shut down, pure and simple. >>
...yeah...ok...easily enforced eh??? I live in Southern California where illegal immigrants get drivers licenses' without one shred of paperwork. There ain't no way that law can be enforced and honestly, you sound silly even thinking it could. I gotta go, Santa Clause and Michael Jackson are cooking dinner in my kitchen right now
Erik >>
If they are pancakes, I'm in...just putting that out there. >>
That's not Santa! That's Elvis! He just is not keeping in shape anymore.
Your statement gives me pause considering your quoting of Don regarding what's acceptable, or not, to criticize about Laura's writings.
How much a company spends in advertising should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with control of input or content on a freely provided message board by the company receiving the advertising money. If that's the case, if Legend were to spend seven figures a year with PCGS would this possibly be renamed the CU/Legend Message Boards? If so, I'm outta here....
TCMITSSR, neither she or TDN seem to understand why advertiser manipulation is offensive and would drive members (the real content providers) away. She is thinking small. I hope PCGS is not. If the PCGS message board went away it would accomplish Laura's goal of limiting the information collectors get from sources other than Legend. However, this would not benefit the hobby, irregardless her motive.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I looked up unessecary, but couldn't find the definition.
It seems closest to "scary" which is what Laura's rant really is.
I guess she meant to say unnecessary dealer bashing. Is it the dealer or the bashing that is unnecessary? Perhaps the dealer.
What would be necessary dealer bashing? I guess it is all the replies on this thread.
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
What would be the topic? "Look at me, look at me! People aren't looking at me enough!"
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
HUH?
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
She is the master.
<< <i>
<< <i>You all do realize that many people who "blog" and do "talk radio" or TV "BAIT THE AUDIENCE" I have a Son in Radio in Chicago. With first hand knowledge he informs me "Dad we bait the audience" with the topic. Do you think maybe She does too? >>
She is the master. >>
It took 367 posts to set up that joke people
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
I think I am starting to understand who you are and why every post you write is something disparaging about Legend. As far as being sued, the only person Legend has ever sued certainly deserved it and if you don't think so then you are either delusional, the perp...or both!
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
Do you think that most people here registered with their real names? If so then PCGS knows who you are.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the only reason why Laura Speber wants real names listed is so she knows who to sue when they say things she doesn't like. Nothing like using money to intimidate people in to silence. >>
I think I am starting to understand who you are and why every post you write is something disparaging about Legend. As far as being sued, the only person Legend has ever sued certainly deserved it and if you don't think so then you are either delusional, the perp...or both! >>
That makes no sense. Your opinion is obviously bought and paid for with Laura's pocketbook. Not everyone else agrees with her. I have no dog in this fight only that I think that Laura's only reason she would want names listed it to silence people who disagree with her. How else would having names on posts help. She has thin skin and can't stand those who get in her way of making money. Laura her self hasn't been able to abide by her own proposal by faking being a man in her posts.