Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Cole
Peter and Leon,
So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.
It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.
I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.
|
Well, yes, since standards have changed the "today" grade could be different than the many years ago grade. Now if we could go back and the exact same grading scale, and definitions of the grades, were exactly the same back then, then I might see your point more. I am sticking to my answer on this one....and we do agree on the mitigation of any lost value but that doesn't seem quite fair vis a vis a higher new grade. This is not a black and white issue in my book and very debatable, as previously stated. I might even be convinced otherwise if an argument is made contrary to my current thinking, that I agree with. But those are my thoughts now. regards