<< <i>They would find a significant new source of revenue if they decided to add this feature. >>
Sure, they would get some re-submissions from people seeking the designation, but by doing so PCGS would be de-valuing any non-PQ coins in their holders and damaging their brand in the process.
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Like, take 2 Capped bust halves for example, both grade XF40. One is a perfect medium gray with absolutely no distractions. The other has a few ticks here and there and is an oogly silvery color.
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Well, you could have TWO stickers---one for technical grade, and one for eye appeal. Or, maybe three stickers, with a "red bean" sticker for overall grade, and the other two. Wait! I can't see the coin anymore...too many stickers!!
I'm the Proud recipient of a genuine "you suck" award dated 1/24/05. I was accepted into the "Circle of Trust" on 3/9/09.
<< <i>I guess it was a bad idea, seems like everyone is against it. How about a * designation then ... Or perhaps an !.... AU50! >>
There are no bad ideas, Rob, but often times we end up with bad results from putting the horse in front of the cart.
Or in this case, putting the sticker on the obverse of the plastic. ( My thought would be to put the CAC sticker on the reverse side of NGC/PCGS encapsulated coins). This way...
Well, nevermind... My ideas are bad, too.
Edit :
Oooops >>>> I meant putting the cart in front of the horse.
Every coin in a PCGS holder from a PO1 to a MS/PR 70 is already PQ
that is why its in the holder to begin with.
you guys need to go get a cup o coffee (lay off the espresso) and take a real long look at your PCGS coins and IF you have any in another (God forbid) holder- COMPARE THEM SIDE BY SIDE. You will see the PQ coin plain and simple.
Enough chatter about adding a moniker to what is already the greatest coin you have or want to have.
PQ schmee que- come on over and we'll have a bar-b-que!
Every coin in a PCGS holder from a PO1 to a MS/PR 70 is already PQ
that is why its in the holder to begin with. >>
I must respectfully disagree... all of them? I have seen some oogley coins in every companies holders, and I have viewed far fewer coins than many people on this board.
I don't see a need for stars or stickers or PQs, there is enough difference of grading opinion to make these worthless, IMO.
How about a plus or minus, such as AU50+ for a strong one or AU50- for one that just edges in...... it doesn't really seem to matter to me. I have several coins in various holders that seem undergraded (or overgraded)by a whole point or two, but the only time this will seem to matter is when I try to resell.
<< <i>PQ is subjective. Grading is (supposed to be) objective. >>
I had to stop and think about this for several minutes after I read it. I believe it's important for collectors to keep in mind that, no matter how many grading books are published or grading seminars are presented...no matter how much we try to make grading objective like a mathematical equation...grading will always be subjective, just as our own perceptions of beauty are subjective. PQ designations and CAC stickers and anything else we come up with to validate a grade are just added layers of subjectivity.
And that's ok as long as we remember that a grade is really nothing more than an opinion about a coin.
To answer the OP question, I don't think it would be a good idea for PCGS to add a PQ designation. I agree with CCU that PCGS would damage their brand name in the long run.
i'd anty up for "P.Q." before a bean ok and seeing the addition of "P.Q." is more clear then a star
great idea with application that is sound
eye appeal limited by a technical grade does warrant further review by all means
but such a lobby would reduce finding them unattributed as they are now
there's no real need to post examples here or i would but...
some strikes and toners sitting by side by side others in same grade just looks all together wrong...why ngc has star coins...pcgs should have "P.Q." as i'm partial to my coins in pcgs only
most search...and search...and search through alike grades looking for what could be included in a label easing such efforts
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
I guess that if all TPGs had exactly the same standards, year in and year out, a PQ label would probably help. But standards seem to fluctuate, I'm not sure why.....
<< <i>i'd anty up for "P.Q." before a bean ok and seeing the addition of "P.Q." is more clear then a star
great idea with application that is sound
eye appeal limited by a technical grade does warrant further review by all means
but such a lobby would reduce finding them unattributed as they are now
there's no real need to post examples here or i would but...
some strikes and toners sitting by side by side others in same grade just looks all together wrong...why ngc has star coins...pcgs should have "P.Q." as i'm partial to my coins in pcgs only
most search...and search...and search through alike grades looking for what could be included in a label easing such efforts >>
See that's what I'm saying...NGC has the * So, why not?
This coin would not get a PQ for the scratch, but would without it.
ok here's my images after all...i'd hate to see these side by side alike grade without address of eye appeal exceeding technical grade limits <<<rd/r/b or brn only????
<<<toner support
<<<strike and surface support beyond fh or not fh this looks matte proof like
everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see
As my final note, I just think that I already pay enough for authentication and an opinion. And an opinion that can change each time it is resubmitted is an opinion that doesn't need a PQ focus, as it doesn't seem to be all that solid in the first place.
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Well, you could have TWO stickers---one for technical grade, and one for eye appeal. Or, maybe three stickers, with a "red bean" sticker for overall grade, and the other two. Wait! I can't see the coin anymore...too many stickers!! >>
One thing would be that if its solid/PQ for the grade it gets the grade; if not it gets the next one down.
Comments
Not me!! One man's PQ is another mans tarnish!!
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>They would find a significant new source of revenue if they decided to add this feature. >>
Sure, they would get some re-submissions from people seeking the designation, but by doing so PCGS would be de-valuing any non-PQ coins in their holders and damaging their brand in the process.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Like, take 2 Capped bust halves for example, both grade XF40. One is a perfect medium gray with absolutely no distractions. The other has a few ticks here and there and is an oogly silvery color.
<< <i>The other has a few ticks here and there and is an oogly silvery color >>
So this would be the PQ right?
Id rather see a CONSISTANT grading on RD RB AND BN copper.
"...oogly silvery color"
-----
Define "oogly".
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I can grade it myself. Others can determine it's actual value after it gets a sign put on it !
Edit:
ooops, I misspelled "label" the first go 'round.
<< <i>How about a lable with the date PCGS encapsulated it, and the price listed in the price guide at the time it was put in the plastic
I can grade it myself. Others can determine it's actual value after it gets a sign put on it !
Edit:
ooops, I misspelled "label" the first go 'round. >>
I like the idea of date of encapsulation...not the price thing
Menomonee Falls Wisconsin USA
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistr...dset.aspx?s=68269&ac=1">Musky 1861 Mint Set
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Well, you could have TWO stickers---one for technical grade, and one for eye appeal. Or, maybe three stickers, with a "red bean" sticker for overall grade, and the other two. Wait! I can't see the coin anymore...too many stickers!!
<< <i>I guess it was a bad idea, seems like everyone is against it. How about a * designation then ... Or perhaps an !.... AU50! >>
There are no bad ideas, Rob, but often times we end up with bad results from putting the horse in front of the cart.
Or in this case, putting the sticker on the obverse of the plastic. ( My thought would be to put the CAC sticker on the reverse side of NGC/PCGS encapsulated coins). This way...
Well, nevermind... My ideas are bad, too.
Edit :
Oooops >>>> I meant putting the cart in front of the horse.
Every coin in a PCGS holder from a PO1 to a MS/PR 70 is already PQ
that is why its in the holder to begin with.
you guys need to go get a cup o coffee (lay off the espresso) and take a real long look at your PCGS coins and IF you have any in another (God forbid) holder- COMPARE THEM SIDE BY SIDE. You will see the PQ coin plain and simple.
Enough chatter about adding a moniker to what is already the greatest coin you have or want to have.
PQ schmee que- come on over and we'll have a bar-b-que!
<< <i>NO. There are enough grades as it is. >>
PQ is subjective. Grading is (supposed to be) objective.
<< <i>WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE HERE BOYS N GIRLS.
Every coin in a PCGS holder from a PO1 to a MS/PR 70 is already PQ
that is why its in the holder to begin with. >>
I must respectfully disagree... all of them? I have seen some oogley coins in every companies holders, and I have viewed far fewer coins than many people on this board.
"Well, you could have TWO stickers---one for technical grade, and one for eye appeal."
-----
Define "eye appeal".
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
How about a plus or minus, such as AU50+ for a strong one or AU50- for one that just edges in...... it doesn't really seem to matter to me. I have several coins in various holders that seem undergraded (or overgraded)by a whole point or two, but the only time this will seem to matter is when I try to resell.
Edited for spelling
-Randy Newman
<< <i>PQ is subjective. Grading is (supposed to be) objective. >>
I had to stop and think about this for several minutes after I read it. I believe it's important for collectors to keep in mind that, no matter how many grading books are published or grading seminars are presented...no matter how much we try to make grading objective like a mathematical equation...grading will always be subjective, just as our own perceptions of beauty are subjective. PQ designations and CAC stickers and anything else we come up with to validate a grade are just added layers of subjectivity.
And that's ok as long as we remember that a grade is really nothing more than an opinion about a coin.
To answer the OP question, I don't think it would be a good idea for PCGS to add a PQ designation. I agree with CCU that PCGS would damage their brand name in the long run.
PQ:
Why not?
<< <i>Regular:
PQ:
Why not? >>
Of course, you could just look at the two and pick the one you liked better, right?
<< <i>Yea but what if somebody has orbital pics? >>
True, but I'd REALLY try to avoid buying like that....with or without a TPG grade.
great idea with application that is sound
eye appeal limited by a technical grade does warrant further review by all means
but such a lobby would reduce finding them unattributed as they are now
there's no real need to post examples here or i would but...
some strikes and toners sitting by side by side others in same grade just looks all together wrong...why ngc has star coins...pcgs should have "P.Q." as i'm partial to my coins in pcgs only
most search...and search...and search through alike grades looking for what could be included in a label easing such efforts
<< <i>i'd anty up for "P.Q." before a bean ok and seeing the addition of "P.Q." is more clear then a star
great idea with application that is sound
eye appeal limited by a technical grade does warrant further review by all means
but such a lobby would reduce finding them unattributed as they are now
there's no real need to post examples here or i would but...
some strikes and toners sitting by side by side others in same grade just looks all together wrong...why ngc has star coins...pcgs should have "P.Q." as i'm partial to my coins in pcgs only
most search...and search...and search through alike grades looking for what could be included in a label easing such efforts >>
See that's what I'm saying...NGC has the *
So, why not?
This coin would not get a PQ for the scratch, but would without it.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>Who would like to see PCGS add a PQ designation? >>
Not me.
Think of the BS and second-guessing that will cause.
I'll judge my own PQs, thank you very much.
<<<rd/r/b or brn only????
<<<toner support
<<<strike and surface support beyond fh or not fh this looks matte proof like
<< <i>
>>
Wowsers! That's sweet!
Just my thoughts.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you talking PQ from a technical grade standpoint or would it be more of an eye appeal thingy? >>
Well, you could have TWO stickers---one for technical grade, and one for eye appeal. Or, maybe three stickers, with a "red bean" sticker for overall grade, and the other two. Wait! I can't see the coin anymore...too many stickers!! >>
One thing would be that if its solid/PQ for the grade it gets the grade; if not it gets the next one down.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
<< <i>
<< <i>
>>
>>
Wow, I often forget how beautiful the SLQ series is because of all the weak strikes and heavy circulation.
GREAT coin!
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
>>
>>
Wow, I often forget how beautiful the SLQ series is because of all the weak strikes and heavy circulation.
GREAT coin! >>
Fine enough to get teenaged boys into collecting
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163