[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Steve,

I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I think the overall resistance to having it tested may lie in what you intend to do with the results. I'm thinking that if it comes back as 30's on paper, ink or both you will conclude that it is real and call it conclusive.

So there are these possible outcomes:

1) Forego testing and refund based on expert opinion.

2) Have it tested and it fails. Again, a refund

3) Have it tested and it passes, but you agree that it is not necessarily conclusive and refund the money, possibly after further negotiation or whatever.

4) Have it tested and it passes, and you decide that is conclusive. In that case, you would be giving the age of paper and/or ink more weight than the collective expert opinion, and actually giving that outcome veto power over the experts.

So for me, the issue of testing comes down to this: It would give you the opportunity to deny a refund by taking a passing result and defining it as more persuasive than all combined experts. And you would be able to make that call because as of right now, you hold the money and Mark holds the card. This despite the many reasons given above that testing is not conclusive.

So all outcomes lead to refund except one. That's a passing result that you consider conclusive even though few others would.

It's just my opinion, but that's why I don't think there is a big clamor going on in support of testing. To help others support your position, can you clarify what you would do in the case of passing results?

Thx,

Joann