Author Topic: New Coin Deal (Read 1249960 times)

ShlockDoc · « **Reply #3600 on:** November 25, 2019, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 25, 2019, 03:56:09 PM

That is a different situation.

I know, I was just venting. So disappointing

.

CountValentine · « **Reply #3601 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:04:57 PM »

Quote from: ShlockDoc on November 25, 2019, 03:57:39 PM

I know, I was just venting. So disappointing .

Sorry to hear. Hopefully it will still appear.

EJB · « **Reply #3602 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:10:32 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 25, 2019, 03:39:16 PM

Nope, you will get the cost you paid.

I think you could get more w documentation of what it’s worth. But good luck in this situation when you just bought the item for $70.

EJB · « **Reply #3603 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:11:25 PM »

Quote from: AJK on November 25, 2019, 03:41:23 PM

Yes, because the 2007 Patriots are not indelibly etched in NFL lore for going 16-0, the only team to have done that in NFL history, right?

Kinda like the warriors winning the most games in an nba season. Meaningless bc they didn’t win it all.

AJK · « **Reply #3604 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:14:21 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:11:25 PM

Kinda like the warriors winning the most games in an nba season. Meaningless bc they didn’t win it all.

Except they weren't a perfect 82-0. Unlike the Pats, who were a perfect 16-0.

Whether that is meaningful from a sports-esque perspective is beside the point, as is any attempt to taint or stretch the analogy beyond its express purpose. If the Pats had been 15-1, they'd have joined half a dozen teams to have done that. That extra game--i.e., perfection--makes it a difference in kind, not degree.

EJB · « **Reply #3605 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:16:39 PM »

Even had they gone 82-0 (which is more than 4x more difficult than 16-0 is in football) but lost in the finals, their feat would be forever tainted and much less impressive.

EJB · « **Reply #3606 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:18:01 PM »

I guess the more appropriate analogy of 16-0 is to getting a 70 grade but the coin got damaged on the way back

CountValentine · « **Reply #3607 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:20:08 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:18:01 PM

I guess the more appropriate analogy of 16-0 is to getting a 70 grade but the coin got damaged on the way back

LOL
Were the Patriots worth more going 16-0 than 15-1? That is what we are talking here.
The analogy just doesn't fit. The hole is only getting deeper.

AJK · « **Reply #3608 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:24:09 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:16:39 PM

Even had they gone 82-0 (which is more than 4x more difficult than 16-0 is in football) but lost in the finals, their feat would be forever tainted and much less impressive.

You're having trouble following along at home. Perhaps we can be more productive if we establish a point on which we agree:

From a sports perspective, is the legacy of the 2007 Pats tainted because they did not win it all? Yes? Good, let's try another:

Is 16-0, i.e., a perfect season, different in kind than 15-1, a non-perfect season? Yes.

Is a PF70, a perfect coin, different in kind than a PF69, a non-perfect coin? [insert answer here]

EJB · « **Reply #3609 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:25:06 PM »

Quote from: AJK on November 25, 2019, 04:24:09 PM

You're having trouble following along at home. Perhaps we can be more productive if we establish a point on which we agree:

From a sports perspective, is the legacy of the 2007 Pats tainted because they did not win it all? Yes? Good, let's try another:

Is 16-0, i.e., a perfect season, different in kind than 15-1, a non-perfect season? Yes.

Is a PF70, a perfect coin, different in kind than a PF69, a non-perfect coin? [insert answer here]

We don’t disagree with your point. You just used a poor analogy. Now let’s move on.

CountValentine · « **Reply #3610 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:27:49 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:25:06 PM

We don’t disagree with your point. You just used a poor analogy. Now let’s move on.

Ding ding ding we have a WINNER!!!

AJK · « **Reply #3611 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:37:35 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:25:06 PM

We don’t disagree with your point. You just used a poor analogy. Now let’s move on.

That you ascribe certain additional value to things in a sports legacy context (i.e. "winning it all"), does not take away from the perfection and accomplishment of the 2007 Pats 16-0 regular season (compared to others), the perfection of the PF70 coin (compared to PF69), or the analogy. It takes a mental clarity to be able to understand an analogy. Just because the lowest-common denominator here is unequipped with the necessary mental acuity to divorce this from their own preconceived sports biases doesn't mean the analogy hasn't served it's purpose

CountValentine · « **Reply #3612 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:42:19 PM »

Can we take this crap to JS now? @Dan can we move this crap to JS where I will blow this bad analogy out of the water?

EJB · « **Reply #3613 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:49:10 PM »

Quote from: AJK on November 25, 2019, 04:37:35 PM

That you ascribe certain additional value to things in a sports legacy context (i.e. "winning it all"), does not take away from the perfection and accomplishment of the 2007 Pats 16-0 regular season (compared to others), the perfection of the PF70 coin (compared to PF69), or the analogy. It takes a mental clarity to be able to understand an analogy. Just because the lowest-common denominator here is unequipped with the necessary mental acuity to divorce this from their own preconceived sports biases doesn't mean the analogy hasn't served it's purpose

I'm guessing you forgot that the Pats didn't win it all. Either that, or you're just bad at making analogies.

CountValentine · « **Reply #3614 on:** November 25, 2019, 04:54:18 PM »

Quote from: EJB on November 25, 2019, 04:49:10 PM

I'm guessing you forgot that the Pats didn't win it all. Either that, or you're just bad at making analogies.

More like trolling this thread. @Dan please!!!

ETA: This might help some here understand what grading is. Just click on each one for a brief description. https://www.pcgs.com/grades/

grodnoking · « **Reply #3615 on:** November 25, 2019, 05:21:06 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on November 25, 2019, 04:54:18 PM

More like trolling this thread. @Dan please!!!
ETA: This might help some here understand what grading is. Just click on each one for a brief description. https://www.pcgs.com/grades/

Ty. Now I understand why a 68 is highly unlikely.