I use coin facts for cost and pricing analysis / auction data plus pop data. The thing that gives me pop / pop higher really important to me. Photos while fine not a big deal for me. Every purchase I put a code for cost, CDN bid, market retail (usually CPG or TPG price). My goal to get at least somewhere between the higher of cost or bid and MV in achieving plan ROI. Total pop graded for the issue another vital stat especially comparing issues with same CDN bid value.
I mainly use my phone in managing my coin business (active both online and shows) so the apps vital: eBay, CDN, CF, Kitco, Ngc cert verify, Pcgs cert verify.
I attended the PCGS luncheon and heard all the upcoming news to look forward to.
I really was very disappointed to hear that recently graded coins and photos of previous graded coins are no longer being shown. I felt that that was one of the very most important research abilities offered.
No new research tools were introduced. I really dont know what new tools that they are going to be offering?
@Lakesammman said:
I imagine the dealers had more to do with the CoinFacts change than the collectors. Let's face it - they submit a lot more than we do and have more sway.
How would showing those photos be a detriment to dealers? I would think those photos would be a plus for their bottom line.
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
@dpoole said:
Heather said that the diminished access to coin pictures on CoinFacts had to do with “privacy” issues, and was instituted by collector demand.
I dont believe that.
I believe they likely got tired of seeing the same coins in there 6/7/8/9 times as you can literally see people testing high end coins going for the grade bump or plus. Brings the grading standards into question. I remember one particular coin, I think a rainbow toned 1881-S Morgan, was in there like 11 times. You can trace its route from a 66+ to a 67+.
I once watched one go from a 64 to 67.
I watched a 1920 saint get denied a MS65 NINETEEN times
Sure screwed up the pop of MS64+ though (98 pop)
@dpoole said:
Heather said that the diminished access to coin pictures on CoinFacts had to do with “privacy” issues, and was instituted by collector demand.
I dont believe that.
I believe they likely got tired of seeing the same coins in there 6/7/8/9 times as you can literally see people testing high end coins going for the grade bump or plus. Brings the grading standards into question. I remember one particular coin, I think a rainbow toned 1881-S Morgan, was in there like 11 times. You can trace its route from a 66+ to a 67+.
I once watched one go from a 64 to 67.
I watched a 1920 saint get denied a MS65 NINETEEN times
Sure screwed up the pop of MS64+ though (98 pop)
Ideally, CoinFacts could be used to fix the pops. Removing certification from coins that had been resubmitted and fixing the pops are interesting problems.
Sorry, but that should come under the heading of the cost of doing business. No one is forcing these dealers to submit a coin 19 or a dozen times............nothing but greed. They certainly aren't doing it to benefit the collectors.
This leads to the question of who who comprises the core of PCGS's business, collectors or dealers. Is this where the loyalty of PCGS lies. Are the dealers the ones who control CoinFacts?
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This is the “appeal to the noisy base” mistake. The crack out guys have to use pcgs. They have no choice given the market. So pcgs owns them whether they’re happy or not.
It’s the guys on the margins, who could use either service that pcgs should be courting. Make the collectors happy, and the dealers that service them will come along, grumbling as always.
Make only high-volume dealers happy, and you risk collector revolt and disgust.
In the year of customer service, pcgs should remember that their customers are not really the dealers. It’s the collectors who demand the holder, long term. The dealers are “pass through” for the collectors.
@Justacommeman said:
Follow the money. It’s always about the money
m
I agree, but if you follow it to the end, doesn't it still lead to collectors? Or is the majority of all business just dealer to dealer now, with no collector at the end of the line to sell to?
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
So how about the dealers who crack these out send in the previous certificates to PCGS whereupon said images are deleted? That solves all problems you elude to..............
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
So how about the dealers who crack these out send in the previous certificates to PCGS whereupon said images are deleted? That solves all problems you elude to..............
I've mentioned that as have others. There is the issue of past certificates as well which crowdsourcing, another suggestion, would address.
I've also been wondering if we should make submitting inserts easier would help, like submitting a photo for authorized dealers and members.
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
So how about the dealers who crack these out send in the previous certificates to PCGS whereupon said images are deleted? That solves all problems you elude to..............
The problem with this issue is relying on people to send in the inserts, both for slabs going forward and slabs in the past. For some reason, people don't do it so the reasoning needs to be understood and mitigated. For example, if it's too difficult to mail them back, it may be possible to accept photos from authorized dealers and members. If people just won't do it, for whatever reason, a crowdsourcing solution to cleanup CoinFacts could help. One approach to help with CoinFacts (but not with the pops) would be to no longer post photos to CoinFacts at PCGS discretion but only when a submitter chooses it.
“sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” as Brandeis put it in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.”
But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:
“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”
PCGS- Bring back the pictures please.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
So how about the dealers who crack these out send in the previous certificates to PCGS whereupon said images are deleted? That solves all problems you elude to..............
The problem with this issue is relying on people to send in the inserts, both for slabs going forward and slabs in the past. For some reason, people don't do it so the reasoning needs to be understood and mitigated. For example, if it's too difficult to mail them back, it may be possible to accept photos from authorized dealers and members. If people just won't do it, for whatever reason, a crowdsourcing solution to cleanup CoinFacts could help. One approach to help with CoinFacts (but not with the pops) would be to no longer post photos to CoinFacts at PCGS discretion but only when a submitter chooses it.
I agree, perhaps PCGS themselves should cleanup Coin Facts but leave the crucial images with no multiples in. That would be a great research tool for the numismatic community.
I don't care why they did it. I just want it back the way it was. I used the see all pics everyday to compare my raw coins to the graded ones to help me determine whether or not to send in for grading. Besides now I can' t see the dozens of pictures of my coins in with the others.. Only a few now.
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
Not all 67's, 66's, 65's, etc are equal. Eye appeal is subjective.........Limiting each grade to one coin is almost as bad as it is now.
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
This would be detrimental for varieties, die states, toners, and more
@blu62vette said:
I have not read the back of the submission form, but I assume the submission form signs away your privacy regarding images. That came up in conversation today about the coinfacts change.
I am not sure how it could be a privacy issue as the data (e.g., grades, images) are de-identified and are owned by PCGS. The section section below, from the current PCGS submission form, may be the passage to which you are referring.
In the ordinary course of its grading operations, PCGS (i) compiles data regarding each coin submitted for grading, including, but not limited to, data relating to the identity, minting, condition and grade of the coin (the “Data”); and (ii) may take, or have taken, one or more digital or other types of photographs, images or reproductions of each such coin (collectively, the “Images”). In consideration for the grading services being provided by PCGS, Customer, on behalf of itself and any third party for whom Customer may be acting, hereby authorizes PCGS (i) to compile and maintain such Data with respect to each coin submitted hereunder for grading; and (ii) to take, or cause to be taken, one or more Images of each such coin, and further agrees that PCGS will be the owner of such Data and all such Images and that PCGS may use and exploit such Data and the Images for commercial and any other purposes, as PCGS in its sole discretion deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the publication and republication or reproduction in or on any media, of such Data and Images. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Customer, on behalf of itself and any third party for whom Customer may be acting with respect to this agreement, unconditionally and irrevocably transfers, conveys and assigns to PCGS any and all current and any hereafter acquired rights, title and interests (including, without limitation, rights in copyright, patent, trade secret and trademark) that Customer or any such third party may have in or to the Data and the Images (on whatever media or in whatever form such Images may be reproduced or published).
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
Not all 67's, 66's, 65's, etc are equal. Eye appeal is subjective.........Limiting each grade to one coin is almost as bad as it is now.
I said for every coin. Maybe i should have said every unique coin. What is not useful is to see the same exact coin 10 times. I think seeing multiples of the same coin within the same grade is very useful as you point out.
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
This would be detrimental for varieties, die states, toners, and more
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
Not all 67's, 66's, 65's, etc are equal. Eye appeal is subjective.........Limiting each grade to one coin is almost as bad as it is now.
I said for every coin. Maybe i should have said every unique coin. What is not useful is to see the same exact coin 10 times. I think seeing multiples of the same coin within the same grade is very useful as you point out.
@earlyAurum said:
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
This would be detrimental for varieties, die states, toners, and more
Same as above
Oh, ok. I agree with that. I was reading that you wanted only 1 coin per slot.
Yes, for sure eliminate duplicates of the same coin.
Every submitter of cracked out coins need to send in dead inserts, especially dealer who deal in volume.
@dpoole said:
Heather said that the diminished access to coin pictures on CoinFacts had to do with “privacy” issues, and was instituted by collector demand.
I think it is useful and interesting to see the number of times a coin is submitted before it ends up in the "right" plastic. It can be very educational. If you don't want people to see your crack out attempts, don't select the secure shield (although I guess you're stuck with it on express level and higher - that should be changed).
@cameonut2011 said:
I think it is useful and interesting to see the number of times a coin is submitted before it ends up in the "right" plastic. It can be very educational. If you don't want people to see your crack out attempts, don't select the secure shield (although I guess you're stuck with it on express level and higher - that should be changed).
@1Mike1 said:
Not sure how a photo of a coin could be traced to an owner, blowing their privacy?
I’m guessing this change is a negative for most of us here and may slow down a lot of collecting, but it would be good to hear from others with different perspectives.
@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS has indicated here that he likes privacy of his top pop coins with no photos posted online. Perhaps it would be good to hear his perspective and if he was part of this decision?
The large, smelly elephant in the room remains the inconsistency/gradeflation in grading.
We knowingly and sagely nod in agreement and assure newbies that grading is but an "opinion," yet price sheets abound with often vastly different prices associated with these current "opinions."
Ultimately, grades should reflect what a coin "is," at least in technical terms; a grade should be defined and should be constant.
Leave subjective stuff like eye appeal to the individual lust of the buyer. It may be a matter of fascination and interest whether Fred the Grader happens to think coin X is particularly cool for reasons beyond technical grading, but I don't know why Fred the Grader's opinion in the matter should trump anyone else's. That aspect of "grading" amounts to nothing more than a transient beauty contest, judged by a guy who may or may not be there tomorrow.
Access to pictures of coins that have experienced jumps in grade over time is instructive, and is a preliminary step to establishing some objectivity and permanence to a coin's grade.
I got my PCGS Calender in the mail today. Huge breach of privacy with that. WAY too many nice pictures passed out to the general public. Not sure how/why PCGS is giving those out with the privacy concerns and all.
Just a business decision, nothing more nothing less. CF photos is a victim of friendly fire, it happens and if anyone has read the sticky note from the boss you know that no amount of polls, or threads will ever revive it in it's prior form.
@logger7 said:
What would be the economic vs. the educational aspect of doing this? I haven't seen people complain on this forum about having their coins' images public for open view. So this is a private, behind the scenes pattern of complaints from people who would be afraid to expose their will to the light of day, would there be any legal rights of coin owners to demand their images be kept private? NGC also did this a few years ago where you couldn't even get their substandard scanner images with a certification number unless you have other information on the coin. It seems that some interests really have a thin skin and are afraid of equitable sharing of knowledge.
What you call "equitable sharing" I call a violation of my privacy and my property rights. By what convoluted perversion of "transparency" are you entitled to my proprietary information?.
My take is that the underlying principle is much the same as CAC in withholding the cert numbers of coins that don't make it.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@logger7 said:
What would be the economic vs. the educational aspect of doing this? I haven't seen people complain on this forum about having their coins' images public for open view. So this is a private, behind the scenes pattern of complaints from people who would be afraid to expose their will to the light of day, would there be any legal rights of coin owners to demand their images be kept private? NGC also did this a few years ago where you couldn't even get their substandard scanner images with a certification number unless you have other information on the coin. It seems that some interests really have a thin skin and are afraid of equitable sharing of knowledge.
What you call "equitable sharing" I call a violation of my privacy and my property rights. By what convoluted perversion of "transparency" are you entitled to my proprietary information?.
My take is that the underlying principle is much the same as CAC in withholding the cert numbers of coins that don't make it.
Anyone getting their coin True Viewed paid for that; shouldn't there be an opt out clause on a case by case basis? And on privacy being an absolute right, the Constitution in the 4th Amendment speaks to security against unreasonable searches not privacy, the First amendment speaks to a "right" of free speech.
What about the guy that buys that coin down the road, lets say that customer A submits a coin. According to the back of the submission form he signs away any rights to the photo, but if customer A then sells the coin to customer B what about his right to privacy. After all customer B did not sign away the right to have photos of what is now his property available to the public. It's a slippery slope.
If you are a Registry participant you can choose to obscure your set where no one sees anything. You also have the option as a CU member not to have TrueViews automatically download to your Inventory. These choices will prevent anyone knowing who the coin pictured in the TrueView belongs to. If anyone loaded the cert number and applied it to the Cert Page it would only give details about the coin and nothing about who owns it.
The only way anyone would know who the coin owner is by viewing the images in CoinFacts is if they had the coin in a Registry.
@logger7 said:
What would be the economic vs. the educational aspect of doing this? I haven't seen people complain on this forum about having their coins' images public for open view. So this is a private, behind the scenes pattern of complaints from people who would be afraid to expose their will to the light of day, would there be any legal rights of coin owners to demand their images be kept private? NGC also did this a few years ago where you couldn't even get their substandard scanner images with a certification number unless you have other information on the coin. It seems that some interests really have a thin skin and are afraid of equitable sharing of knowledge.
What you call "equitable sharing" I call a violation of my privacy and my property rights. By what convoluted perversion of "transparency" are you entitled to my proprietary information?.
My take is that the underlying principle is much the same as CAC in withholding the cert numbers of coins that don't make it.
Having a coin's picture on a website with absolutely no way to connect it to an individual's identity is not a violation of privacy rights OR property rights since PCGS retains the rights to the photo.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I would propose the registry program goes a step further toward being open with a "Contact Owner" link on each registry page. Why not be able to PM someone with an offer to buy or sell a piece?
I thought one of the main points when the registry was created was people competing against each other. If people feel so violated then stay off the registry and find some collecting software.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@logger7 said:
What would be the economic vs. the educational aspect of doing this? I haven't seen people complain on this forum about having their coins' images public for open view. So this is a private, behind the scenes pattern of complaints from people who would be afraid to expose their will to the light of day, would there be any legal rights of coin owners to demand their images be kept private? NGC also did this a few years ago where you couldn't even get their substandard scanner images with a certification number unless you have other information on the coin. It seems that some interests really have a thin skin and are afraid of equitable sharing of knowledge.
What you call "equitable sharing" I call a violation of my privacy and my property rights. By what convoluted perversion of "transparency" are you entitled to my proprietary information?.
My take is that the underlying principle is much the same as CAC in withholding the cert numbers of coins that don't make it.
PCGS owns the pics, not you.
So they are perhaps protecting my rights voluntarily out of respect for my need for privacy (which is not an absolute right, just like Justice Holmes 1st Amendment observation that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is over the line. Not that the 1st or 4th Amendments have anything to do with this issue).
Maybe 5 years ago I upgraded a beautifully-toned 75-CC 20c piece from 64 crack-out to 65. The coin was finest pictured as MS65 with the identical 64 right below it. I emailed and, at my request, the image was taken down. New administration, I can't say.... Made, earlier this year, in conjunction with a fellow Forum member, a total pop-top DCAM Morgan. No one asked my permission for CoinFacts, but my response would have been "Hell, yeah!".
YMMV, even from coin to coin. Mine can, but when you have skin in the game your attitude may shift.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
To me, the big reveal was the tasty salmon and the desserts at the luncheon!
I'm sorry, but removing the the pictures under the guise of "privacy" smacks of a musician that brags about how great he plays and writes songs, but doesn't want anyone to hear them.
You know, I also have this frog that sings and dances up a storm for me all night long. But I brought him to the show and - nothing...
@wondercoin said:
“sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” as Brandeis put it in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.”
But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:
“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”
PCGS- Bring back the pictures please.
Wondercoin.
Was this a civil or criminal case?
Does your business have any proprietary knowledge you chose to no longer withhold from us?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
The photos are why I go to CoinFacts, I mean went to CoinFacts.
I use coin facts for cost and pricing analysis / auction data plus pop data. The thing that gives me pop / pop higher really important to me. Photos while fine not a big deal for me. Every purchase I put a code for cost, CDN bid, market retail (usually CPG or TPG price). My goal to get at least somewhere between the higher of cost or bid and MV in achieving plan ROI. Total pop graded for the issue another vital stat especially comparing issues with same CDN bid value.
I mainly use my phone in managing my coin business (active both online and shows) so the apps vital: eBay, CDN, CF, Kitco, Ngc cert verify, Pcgs cert verify.
I attended the PCGS luncheon and heard all the upcoming news to look forward to.
I really was very disappointed to hear that recently graded coins and photos of previous graded coins are no longer being shown. I felt that that was one of the very most important research abilities offered.
No new research tools were introduced. I really dont know what new tools that they are going to be offering?
The issue has to do with stale photos of the same coin showing up. This was raised as an issue many times, including on the AMA.
This issue shows how often a coin has been submitted and how often it received one grade before getting bumped. This may impact the desirability or price of a coin in a dealer’s inventory. For some reason these submissions showed up in Coin Facts, whether it was due to the submitter asking for a TrueView, selecting Gold Shield or PCGS picking the coin themselves. Removing the vast majority of photos was like taking a hammer to the problem of these photos created by crack out dealers.
In addition to the crowdsourcing identification approach, some approaches going forward may be to only include paid TrueViews in CoinFacts or to ask if CoinFacts inclusion was desired to give submitters a choice about inclusion.
I watched a 1920 saint get denied a MS65 NINETEEN times
Sure screwed up the pop of MS64+ though (98 pop)
My Saint Set
Ideally, CoinFacts could be used to fix the pops. Removing certification from coins that had been resubmitted and fixing the pops are interesting problems.
Sorry, but that should come under the heading of the cost of doing business. No one is forcing these dealers to submit a coin 19 or a dozen times............nothing but greed. They certainly aren't doing it to benefit the collectors.
This leads to the question of who who comprises the core of PCGS's business, collectors or dealers. Is this where the loyalty of PCGS lies. Are the dealers the ones who control CoinFacts?
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Follow the money. It’s always about the money
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This is the “appeal to the noisy base” mistake. The crack out guys have to use pcgs. They have no choice given the market. So pcgs owns them whether they’re happy or not.
It’s the guys on the margins, who could use either service that pcgs should be courting. Make the collectors happy, and the dealers that service them will come along, grumbling as always.
Make only high-volume dealers happy, and you risk collector revolt and disgust.
In the year of customer service, pcgs should remember that their customers are not really the dealers. It’s the collectors who demand the holder, long term. The dealers are “pass through” for the collectors.
I agree, but if you follow it to the end, doesn't it still lead to collectors? Or is the majority of all business just dealer to dealer now, with no collector at the end of the line to sell to?
Last time I had a big reveal I got pepper sprayed.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
So how about the dealers who crack these out send in the previous certificates to PCGS whereupon said images are deleted? That solves all problems you elude to..............
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I've mentioned that as have others. There is the issue of past certificates as well which crowdsourcing, another suggestion, would address.
I've also been wondering if we should make submitting inserts easier would help, like submitting a photo for authorized dealers and members.
I’m failing to see the positives for the collector with all these changes within the company.
Maybe I’m just blind😎
EAC 6024
The problem with this issue is relying on people to send in the inserts, both for slabs going forward and slabs in the past. For some reason, people don't do it so the reasoning needs to be understood and mitigated. For example, if it's too difficult to mail them back, it may be possible to accept photos from authorized dealers and members. If people just won't do it, for whatever reason, a crowdsourcing solution to cleanup CoinFacts could help. One approach to help with CoinFacts (but not with the pops) would be to no longer post photos to CoinFacts at PCGS discretion but only when a submitter chooses it.
“sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” as Brandeis put it in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.”
But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:
“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”
PCGS- Bring back the pictures please.
Wondercoin.
I agree, perhaps PCGS themselves should cleanup Coin Facts but leave the crucial images with no multiples in. That would be a great research tool for the numismatic community.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I don't care why they did it. I just want it back the way it was. I used the see all pics everyday to compare my raw coins to the graded ones to help me determine whether or not to send in for grading. Besides now I can' t see the dozens of pictures of my coins in with the others.. Only a few now.
i think that they should just have one distinct image for every coin using only it's highest grade. This could be easily accomplished with software. This would eliminate the cluttering of duplicate images and solve the commercial problem associated with resubmissions.
Not all 67's, 66's, 65's, etc are equal. Eye appeal is subjective.........Limiting each grade to one coin is almost as bad as it is now.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
This would be detrimental for varieties, die states, toners, and more
The duplicate images showing with then an upgrade and the poor judgement on the remediation are equally embarrassing
Latin American Collection
I am not sure how it could be a privacy issue as the data (e.g., grades, images) are de-identified and are owned by PCGS. The section section below, from the current PCGS submission form, may be the passage to which you are referring.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I said for every coin. Maybe i should have said every unique coin. What is not useful is to see the same exact coin 10 times. I think seeing multiples of the same coin within the same grade is very useful as you point out.
Same as above
Oh, ok. I agree with that. I was reading that you wanted only 1 coin per slot.
Yes, for sure eliminate duplicates of the same coin.
Every submitter of cracked out coins need to send in dead inserts, especially dealer who deal in volume.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Oh, what a bunch of horse hockey.
I think it is useful and interesting to see the number of times a coin is submitted before it ends up in the "right" plastic. It can be very educational. If you don't want people to see your crack out attempts, don't select the secure shield (although I guess you're stuck with it on express level and higher - that should be changed).
Not sure how a photo of a coin could be traced to an owner, blowing their privacy?
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
I’m guessing this change is a negative for most of us here and may slow down a lot of collecting, but it would be good to hear from others with different perspectives.
@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS has indicated here that he likes privacy of his top pop coins with no photos posted online. Perhaps it would be good to hear his perspective and if he was part of this decision?
It's impossible.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The large, smelly elephant in the room remains the inconsistency/gradeflation in grading.
We knowingly and sagely nod in agreement and assure newbies that grading is but an "opinion," yet price sheets abound with often vastly different prices associated with these current "opinions."
Ultimately, grades should reflect what a coin "is," at least in technical terms; a grade should be defined and should be constant.
Leave subjective stuff like eye appeal to the individual lust of the buyer. It may be a matter of fascination and interest whether Fred the Grader happens to think coin X is particularly cool for reasons beyond technical grading, but I don't know why Fred the Grader's opinion in the matter should trump anyone else's. That aspect of "grading" amounts to nothing more than a transient beauty contest, judged by a guy who may or may not be there tomorrow.
Access to pictures of coins that have experienced jumps in grade over time is instructive, and is a preliminary step to establishing some objectivity and permanence to a coin's grade.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I got my PCGS Calender in the mail today. Huge breach of privacy with that. WAY too many nice pictures passed out to the general public. Not sure how/why PCGS is giving those out with the privacy concerns and all.
Just a business decision, nothing more nothing less. CF photos is a victim of friendly fire, it happens and if anyone has read the sticky note from the boss you know that no amount of polls, or threads will ever revive it in it's prior form.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
What you call "equitable sharing" I call a violation of my privacy and my property rights.
By what convoluted perversion of "transparency" are you entitled to my proprietary information?. 
My take is that the underlying principle is much the same as CAC in withholding the cert numbers of coins that don't make it.
Anyone getting their coin True Viewed paid for that; shouldn't there be an opt out clause on a case by case basis? And on privacy being an absolute right, the Constitution in the 4th Amendment speaks to security against unreasonable searches not privacy, the First amendment speaks to a "right" of free speech.
What about the guy that buys that coin down the road, lets say that customer A submits a coin. According to the back of the submission form he signs away any rights to the photo, but if customer A then sells the coin to customer B what about his right to privacy. After all customer B did not sign away the right to have photos of what is now his property available to the public. It's a slippery slope.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
If you are a Registry participant you can choose to obscure your set where no one sees anything. You also have the option as a CU member not to have TrueViews automatically download to your Inventory. These choices will prevent anyone knowing who the coin pictured in the TrueView belongs to. If anyone loaded the cert number and applied it to the Cert Page it would only give details about the coin and nothing about who owns it.
The only way anyone would know who the coin owner is by viewing the images in CoinFacts is if they had the coin in a Registry.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Having a coin's picture on a website with absolutely no way to connect it to an individual's identity is not a violation of privacy rights OR property rights since PCGS retains the rights to the photo.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I would propose the registry program goes a step further toward being open with a "Contact Owner" link on each registry page. Why not be able to PM someone with an offer to buy or sell a piece?
I thought one of the main points when the registry was created was people competing against each other. If people feel so violated then stay off the registry and find some collecting software.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Ture, but PCGS has customers too. They are business that need customers to be profitable. Right?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
So they are perhaps protecting my rights voluntarily out of respect for my need for privacy (which is not an absolute right, just like Justice Holmes 1st Amendment observation that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is over the line. Not that the 1st or 4th Amendments have anything to do with this issue).
Maybe 5 years ago I upgraded a beautifully-toned 75-CC 20c piece from 64 crack-out to 65. The coin was finest pictured as MS65 with the identical 64 right below it. I emailed and, at my request, the image was taken down. New administration, I can't say.... Made, earlier this year, in conjunction with a fellow Forum member, a total pop-top DCAM Morgan. No one asked my permission for CoinFacts, but my response would have been "Hell, yeah!".
YMMV, even from coin to coin. Mine can, but when you have skin in the game your attitude may shift.
And they have to please the majority.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
ROFLMAO . . they need to analyze their income streams and act accordingly to please meaningful proportions of their various stakeholders.
To me, the big reveal was the tasty salmon and the desserts at the luncheon!
I'm sorry, but removing the the pictures under the guise of "privacy" smacks of a musician that brags about how great he plays and writes songs, but doesn't want anyone to hear them.
You know, I also have this frog that sings and dances up a storm for me all night long. But I brought him to the show and - nothing...
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Was this a civil or criminal case?
Does your business have any proprietary knowledge you chose to no longer withhold from us?