@jom said:
Do something to rectify the discrepancy in value between really nice high-end AU and crappy lower mint state coins. Something descriptive like AU63 or some such.
jom
AU63????
Why not F45 or VG50?
Because AU58 is a unique case. No matter how fabulous a coin may be as far as lustre, strike, eye appeal, etc., if it has any hint of rub, it should be graded AU. Where there are 11 mint state grades, there is only one grade for a coin that has a minor rub (more wear and you start moving down to 55, 53...). As such, AU58 coins can easily be more appealing than many (particularly low-end) mint state pieces, and may largely appear similar to a mid or higher mint state grade, except for the rub.
>
Jeremy, I think one could reasonably substitute AU55 for AU58 in each instance you mentioned it in your above paragraph.
Fair enough. What I'm hearing is AU58 and AU55 should have two grades, the AU number to indicate wear, and the MS number to indicate what the grade would be without wear. So then we could argue about who would rather have an AU58(64) versus an AU55(65).
I’d be opposed to two grades for any one grade - let the market continue to determine the value of each coin based on its attributes, no matter what its assigned grade is.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DeplorableDan said:
I would humbly like to ask a question of the King, if permissible. @MFeld, what feasible change would YOU like to see the TPG’s make?
You can ask whatever you want…but that doesn’t mean you’ll get an answer. 😈 😉
My answer, which will follow, will be boring, far from imaginative, lacking in specific details and perhaps infeasible. However, I feel that the most important potential change/improvement, by far, would be better consistency in grading.
That was the easy part. The hard part would be how to try to accomplish it. Maybe a good first step would be to start a thread, asking for ideas/suggestiins?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lots of good suggestions. Here is mine. Standardize the size of the slab. I hate it when a slab doesn't fit in my current collection of archival boxes.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
I think the TPG's could borrow a few things from the paper money side.
Example, MS65-PQ or MS65-SS
(strong strike) MS65-EL (exceptional lustre) these are just examples. I'm sure many other attributes could be added. MS65-EC (exceptional color) MS65-FP (finger print)
If CAC is needed and we'll received why don't the TPG's add these special characteristics to the coins they grade. If they know they are A-B coins add it to the slab.
Just a thought.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
@OAKSTAR said:
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Given the lack of management response from the poor TrueView threads, I agree and doubt we will see any action taken based on the suggestions posted. I'm thinking that Mr. Feld's intent with the thread wasn't to magically change an unchangeable world, but at the minimum allow the issues we see and face to be brought up and shared... at least until people's frustration sets in and this thread goes out of control and is axed. So far it's still alive and cordial though.
Get variety attribution correct on the first submission. We are frequently the ones with the knowledge. We pay the fees including shipping and insurance then they mess it up. We might even catch their mistake before they ship the coin back to us and it turns into a too bad so sad situation and it’s shipped to us. Then we have to build an encyclopedia of evidence and fight to actually get someone to listen to us so we can send it back in so we can be out of pocket more money! It can be a very expensive and time consuming problem.
If only some submitters could be trusted as experts in the variety niches…and our submissions given more weight. Each person could apply to be an expert in certain areas. I would apply to be an expert in Mercury Dime varieties but would not want to do anything more than that. I could but I wouldn’t want that responsibility.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
@OAKSTAR said:
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Given the lack of management response from the poor TrueView threads, I agree and doubt we will see any action taken based on the suggestions posted. I'm thinking that Mr. Feld's intent with the thread wasn't to magically change an unchangeable world, but at the minimum allow the issues we see and face to be brought up and shared... at least until people's frustration sets in and this thread goes out of control and is axed. So far it's still alive and cordial though.
I started this thread in order to get a better understanding regarding which grading company issues are most important to various members here. I also hoped it would be beneficial to have different answers and suggestions contained in the same thread. It’s meant to be constructive, not destructive and so far, so good.
I appreciate the replies.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I caught a Colonial misattribution in time to fix it but it was a pain and unnecessary. CT Mutton Head initially called a Canadian blacksmith token. No excuse since I submitted it with the correct ID. So, comments regarding varieties are well-founded IMO and problems eminently fixable with the right eyes getting on top of these.
I have a mundane issue. As I’ve gotten older it seems to be getting harder to fill out the duplicate paper submission forms legibly. Small boxes and small fonts are getting smaller every day for me it seems. I would love if PCGS could simplify the submission process.
@heavymetal said:
I have a mundane issue. As I’ve gotten older it seems to be getting harder to fill out the duplicate paper submission forms legibly. Small boxes and small fonts are getting smaller every day for me it seems. I would love if PCGS could simplify the submission process.
I use the on line submission forms, then print them out.
Generally though I would like to see a greater reach out to the general public. The members only shows are nice and the Long Beach shows also are great. But maybe regional shows linking up with local shows that would include gold/silver buyers and appraisers, retailers, have on site grading etc. Goal is to get the general public interested in collecting coins. Its a great hobby it needs promotion on a regional/local basis with a national company and significant resources behind the effort. I would pay more for grading services, I know it would be expensive but it would pay dividends.
@Shurke said:
I’d like to see strike designations—e.g. Full Bands, Full Head, etc.—applied to circulated coins when appropriate. Many AU coins would qualify.
As others have mentioned, I’d also like to see general improvements made to variety attribution.
I've seen Full Head designation on AU SLQs but never seen anything below an AU recieve designation. I've also never seen any other circulated coins receive strike designations.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Stop "market" grading. I'm tired of seeing over dipped AU coins in XF45 holders.
I love market grading; I detest the arbitrary way TPGs consign coins to purgatory, whether or not they're unattractive, just as they straight-grade ugly coins. I'd vastly prefer that the market decide how much a coin is worth, not a grader.
Sure, kill a coin that has been destroyed by harsh cleaning or the like, and kill a coin whose damage is great. But, otherwise, let the market decide.
@Shurke said:
I’d like to see strike designations—e.g. Full Bands, Full Head, etc.—applied to circulated coins when appropriate. Many AU coins would qualify.
As others have mentioned, I’d also like to see general improvements made to variety attribution.
I've seen Full Head designation on AU SLQs but never seen anything below an AU recieve designation. I've also never seen any other circulated coins receive strike designations.
See the PCGS pop report for examples of AU Mercury dimes designated “FB” and a very small number of AU58 Franklin halves designated “FBL”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@hummingbird_coins said:
An alternative would be to branch out, preferably adding a Midwest location and an East Coast location.
IMHO I could see this being a problem. West Coast grading, say Morgans as ms63, same coin making ms64 on the East coast. We all know grading is subjective to a point. Graders at one location being more liberal, or more strict. " I want mine sent to the East coast service. They grade better ( higher ) " If your reasoning is faster grading, expand at one location where there would be more interaction between graders AND the same finalizers. Just my 2 cents.
@hummingbird_coins said:
An alternative would be to branch out, preferably adding a Midwest location and an East Coast location.
IMHO I could see this being a problem. West Coast grading, say Morgans as ms63, same coin making ms64 on the East coast. We all know grading is subjective to a point. Graders at one location being more liberal, or more strict. " I want mine sent to the East coast service. They grade better ( higher ) " If your reasoning is faster grading, expand at one location where there would be more interaction between graders AND the same finalizers. Just my 2 cents.
Many people here have previously stated that turnaround times are a problem. I know shipping time is not much of the problem there, but for many people, having a closer location would at least do something about the total time it takes. Also, having more locations to divide up the influx of coins to grade might help in some regard. As for the variation in grading, I would think that it is more on a coin by coin basis, where different people might see the same coin as different grades. Not so much that one person, or group of people, consistently grades all coins higher/lower.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Lots of great suggestions here... I definitely agree with turnaround times and grading standards... the crux is how to fix it. Turnaround time is going to be a direct reflection of the staff and how many hands they have processing the influx of material. The only real way around this issue is to hire more staff. The process could be streamlined to a point, but in reality 10 workers will get more done than 5. Upholding Grading standards requires experienced graders... realistically, how long does it take to train someone e to be good... at TPG level "good"? Its taken me years to get to where I can at least be in the ballpark for a grade.
Other issues that could be "low bearing fruit". Give grades for early collector coins and note deficiencies... I'm thinking early copper where a lot of it is corroded or damaged in some way... some minor... some major... but this could be in the grade, something like: VG8 Details, Scratches, or Corroded, or whatever instead of having to request a details grade.
Attribution... I think this could be streamlined by outsourcing to the experts in the collecting community (some of whom frequent this forum) and paying a consultant fee. Issue a 1099...
Counterfeiting... someone had the idea of photographing every coin and improving the holders to thwart the counterfeiters. I'd like the idea better if photography could be made more consistent across platforms and not be a function of who has the better photographer doing a "glamour shot" to get the best price for a coin. I want the image to reflect the coin... no more, no less. For me, this is more of an anti counterfeiting measure than one having a monetary incentive. I don't know how to change people's minds about that.
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
For P.C.G.S not that this one will ever happen is discontinue the $10 per order fee for submissions and charge more realistic return postage and insurance charges. But both will lower their revenue so not happening.
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@oldabeintx said:
Slab contemporary counterfeit half pennys. Absurd to slab Machin’s Mills counterfeits and not others. Also, stop straight-grading ED and damaged early copper.
Good luck with that as it will open up a huge can of worms. I have seen slabbed “Machin’s Mills” pieces that are in fact, contemporary counterfeits. Basically a $5-15 coin being offered as a $200+ item. Then they will have the problem of how to grade some of the cruder varieties. In addition, many colonial collectors that are experts in their given series can’t differentiate between a genuine George III halfpenny and a counterfeit.
TPG’s have a tough enough time being consistent grading simple things like New Jersey coppers. There was a NJ Maris 14-J auctioned this past month in a VG slab. The problem was that it was an AG at best.
@jom said:
Do something to rectify the discrepancy in value between really nice high-end AU and crappy lower mint state coins. Something descriptive like AU63 or some such.
jom
AU63????
Why not F45 or VG50?
Because AU58 is a unique case. No matter how fabulous a coin may be as far as lustre, strike, eye appeal, etc., if it has any hint of rub, it should be graded AU. Where there are 11 mint state grades, there is only one grade for a coin that has a minor rub (more wear and you start moving down to 55, 53...). As such, AU58 coins can easily be more appealing than many (particularly low-end) mint state pieces, and may largely appear similar to a mid or higher mint state grade, except for the rub.
Since coins grading lower than 58 can move up or down in grade based on amount of wear, there's no need for new classifications; XF and 45 go together. You can rename 45 to F, but it's still a 45. Less wear than a 45 and it should be a 50. More wear and it should be a 40. AU58 is the only grade where more numbers could provide additional value.
There's already multiple AU grades. Creating an AU63 says it's circulated but better than an uncirculated 62. The same "logic" could apply to lower circulated grades. It has to much wear to be XF but due to superior due appeal looks better than most XF coins.
You want more AU grades you have 20 possibly grades between 50 and 59 (including plus). Use those is you must. But giving an uncirculated grade to a circulated coin just confuses the issue.
@jom said:
Do something to rectify the discrepancy in value between really nice high-end AU and crappy lower mint state coins. Something descriptive like AU63 or some such.
jom
AU63????
Why not F45 or VG50?
Because AU58 is a unique case. No matter how fabulous a coin may be as far as lustre, strike, eye appeal, etc., if it has any hint of rub, it should be graded AU. Where there are 11 mint state grades, there is only one grade for a coin that has a minor rub (more wear and you start moving down to 55, 53...). As such, AU58 coins can easily be more appealing than many (particularly low-end) mint state pieces, and may largely appear similar to a mid or higher mint state grade, except for the rub.
>
Jeremy, I think one could reasonably substitute AU55 for AU58 in each instance you mentioned it in your above paragraph.
Fair enough. What I'm hearing is AU58 and AU55 should have two grades, the AU number to indicate wear, and the MS number to indicate what the grade would be without wear. So then we could argue about who would rather have an AU58(64) versus an AU55(65).
@DeplorableDan said:
I would humbly like to ask a question of the King, if permissible. @MFeld, what feasible change would YOU like to see the TPG’s make?
You can ask whatever you want…but that doesn’t mean you’ll get an answer. 😈 😉
My answer, which will follow, will be boring, far from imaginative, lacking in specific details and perhaps infeasible. However, I feel that the most important potential change/improvement, by far, would be better consistency in grading.
That was the easy part. The hard part would be how to try to accomplish it. Maybe a good first step would be to start a thread, asking for ideas/suggestiins?
This is absolutely spot on but it most likely won’t happen. If there was consistency, then people wouldn’t have to constantly resubmit coins, play the crackout game, send them to CAC, etc. Bottom line is, no consistency equals more revenue.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Stop "market" grading. I'm tired of seeing over dipped AU coins in XF45 holders.
I love market grading; I detest the arbitrary way TPGs consign coins to purgatory, whether or not they're unattractive, just as they straight-grade ugly coins. I'd vastly prefer that the market decide how much a coin is worth, not a grader.
Sure, kill a coin that has been destroyed by harsh cleaning or the like, and kill a coin whose damage is great. But, otherwise, let the market decide.
"Market acceptability" should be determined by those who primarily buy it, not those who don't, including a grader in a grading room who has no idea of actual market preferences and is using a US centric perception.
That's behind my prior post for applying the NGC ancients scale to many series in non-US coinage. For my series, Spanish collecting (the other primary collector base) "net grades" coins but there is no such thing as "details" grading outside the US or if there is, I've never heard of it anywhere.
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
@PerryHall said:
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders > @MFeld said:
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
This is the US forum, but your topic was about grading which is why I posted on what I collect.
I don't remember seeing this label description for US coinage but I'm not looking at US coins as much as I did in the past. It's for world coinage. The coins I'm describing have been cleaned to varying extent, but there isn't anything actually wrong with it. It should be worth less than a coin without this treatment, but because of the holder label, is almost certainly worth more outside of the holder than in it, certainly if sold outside the US.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
I'll also add that I've only seen it on "newer" holders. Not just the newest holders, but probably only the holders that at least had the grade in bold font. Mark was long gone from NGC by the time these came along, so I could imagine the designation never existed while he was there.
People conflate a grade with an ideal market standard of the top percentile of survivors that correlates to a maximum valuation. They forget that there is already a fluid barometer for this in pricing or if they acknowledge this they are often resentful that this is the area where dealers make much of their margins that consist of their living. Making moves off of, the mismatches between quality and pricing (both ways) on the buy and sell sides.
Market standards change, originality designations while impossible would only stratify the market further into the haves and have-nots hurting more people than it helps. Third party opinions will never protect the inexperienced more than fundamental comprehension of the subject matter. The goal of an advanced collector should be to assemble a collection that interests them with the attributes they prefer and in a manner that puts them into the asset right. 1000s of designations, stickers and grades really are marketing tools that allow easier maximization at retail, buying anything maximized isn’t the classic case of being in something right. While great coins are often easy to sell so or C coins when priced right.
I actually think the PCGSs of the world strike a decent balance between consumer protection and dealer empowerment. Many of the suggestions appear to these eyes to be under the assumption that collectors need help “knowing what they have” and that will always move the needle in the dealer empowerment direction IMHO.
Well, things that help the hobby often don’t help the bottom line of the TPGs. Inconsistency in grading results in more grading events in the future, for example.
If I could have a wish, it would be a technical grade (or no grade) and a separate eye appeal grade. The market could sort out the rest.
@Crypto said:
People conflate a grade with an ideal market standard of the top percentile of survivors that correlates to a maximum valuation. They forget that there is already a fluid barometer for this in pricing or if they acknowledge this they are often resentful that this is the area where dealers make much of their margins that consist of their living. Making moves off of, the mismatches between quality and pricing (both ways) on the buy and sell sides.
Market standards change, originality designations while impossible would only stratify the market further into the haves and have-nots hurting more people than it helps. Third party opinions will never protect the inexperienced more than fundamental comprehension of the subject matter. The goal of an advanced collector should be to assemble a collection that interests them with the attributes they prefer and in a manner that puts them into the asset right. 1000s of designations, stickers and grades really are marketing tools that allow easier maximization at retail, buying anything maximized isn’t the classic case of being in something right. While great coins are often easy to sell so or C coins when priced right.
I actually think the PCGSs of the world strike a decent balance between consumer protection and dealer empowerment. Many of the suggestions appear to these eyes to be under the assumption that collectors need help “knowing what they have” and that will always move the needle in the dealer empowerment direction IMHO.
That is very well stated Crypto, bravo. I know exactly what designations I think would be in PCGS's best interest to designate, however, I'd rather quietly buy all of those coins before they start designating them. Then, I'll wait patiently for the windfall 😉.
@Crypto said:
People conflate a grade with an ideal market standard of the top percentile of survivors that correlates to a maximum valuation. They forget that there is already a fluid barometer for this in pricing or if they acknowledge this they are often resentful that this is the area where dealers make much of their margins that consist of their living. Making moves off of, the mismatches between quality and pricing (both ways) on the buy and sell sides.
Market standards change, originality designations while impossible would only stratify the market further into the haves and have-nots hurting more people than it helps. Third party opinions will never protect the inexperienced more than fundamental comprehension of the subject matter. The goal of an advanced collector should be to assemble a collection that interests them with the attributes they prefer and in a manner that puts them into the asset right. 1000s of designations, stickers and grades really are marketing tools that allow easier maximization at retail, buying anything maximized isn’t the classic case of being in something right. While great coins are often easy to sell so or C coins when priced right.
I actually think the PCGSs of the world strike a decent balance between consumer protection and dealer empowerment. Many of the suggestions appear to these eyes to be under the assumption that collectors need help “knowing what they have” and that will always move the needle in the dealer empowerment direction IMHO.
That is very well stated Crypto, bravo. I know exactly what designations I think would be in PCGS's best interest to designate, however, I'd rather quietly buy all of those coins before they start designating them. Then, I'll wait patiently for the windfall 😉.
Ah! So that's why you've provided every dealer in the country with a want list for Standing Liberty Quarters and Saints with full toes?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
No one will ever replace @ricko, but I appreciate the effort.
Put the date graded on the label, issue a list by year and number when past coins were graded.
I would humbly like to ask a question of the King, if permissible. @MFeld, what feasible change would YOU like to see the TPG’s make?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I’d be opposed to two grades for any one grade - let the market continue to determine the value of each coin based on its attributes, no matter what its assigned grade is.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Membership tiers changed to: Yellow, Brown, and Dijon.
You can ask whatever you want…but that doesn’t mean you’ll get an answer. 😈 😉
My answer, which will follow, will be boring, far from imaginative, lacking in specific details and perhaps infeasible. However, I feel that the most important potential change/improvement, by far, would be better consistency in grading.
That was the easy part. The hard part would be how to try to accomplish it. Maybe a good first step would be to start a thread, asking for ideas/suggestiins?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lots of good suggestions. Here is mine. Standardize the size of the slab. I hate it when a slab doesn't fit in my current collection of archival boxes.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Same one I've mentioned numerous times before. I don't think the Sheldon scale should be applied to numerous series in world coinage.
I'd prefer the one NGC uses for ancients for my primary series.
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
FB FS on sms dimes and nickeks
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I think the TPG's could borrow a few things from the paper money side.
Example, MS65-PQ or MS65-SS
(strong strike) MS65-EL (exceptional lustre) these are just examples. I'm sure many other attributes could be added. MS65-EC (exceptional color) MS65-FP (finger print)
If CAC is needed and we'll received why don't the TPG's add these special characteristics to the coins they grade. If they know they are A-B coins add it to the slab.
Just a thought.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
Given the lack of management response from the poor TrueView threads, I agree and doubt we will see any action taken based on the suggestions posted. I'm thinking that Mr. Feld's intent with the thread wasn't to magically change an unchangeable world, but at the minimum allow the issues we see and face to be brought up and shared... at least until people's frustration sets in and this thread goes out of control and is axed. So far it's still alive and cordial though.
Get variety attribution correct on the first submission. We are frequently the ones with the knowledge. We pay the fees including shipping and insurance then they mess it up. We might even catch their mistake before they ship the coin back to us and it turns into a too bad so sad situation and it’s shipped to us. Then we have to build an encyclopedia of evidence and fight to actually get someone to listen to us so we can send it back in so we can be out of pocket more money! It can be a very expensive and time consuming problem.
If only some submitters could be trusted as experts in the variety niches…and our submissions given more weight. Each person could apply to be an expert in certain areas. I would apply to be an expert in Mercury Dime varieties but would not want to do anything more than that. I could but I wouldn’t want that responsibility.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I started this thread in order to get a better understanding regarding which grading company issues are most important to various members here. I also hoped it would be beneficial to have different answers and suggestions contained in the same thread. It’s meant to be constructive, not destructive and so far, so good.
I appreciate the replies.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I caught a Colonial misattribution in time to fix it but it was a pain and unnecessary. CT Mutton Head initially called a Canadian blacksmith token. No excuse since I submitted it with the correct ID. So, comments regarding varieties are well-founded IMO and problems eminently fixable with the right eyes getting on top of these.
I have a mundane issue. As I’ve gotten older it seems to be getting harder to fill out the duplicate paper submission forms legibly. Small boxes and small fonts are getting smaller every day for me it seems. I would love if PCGS could simplify the submission process.
I use the on line submission forms, then print them out.
I sound like a broken record playing the same request over and over AND over
Stop giving rare coins a free pass that have problems.
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Operate as a not for profit in the best interest of the collector rather than a public company beholden to share holders.
After all, it is called Collectors Universe, not Shareholders Universe.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Specifically right now? Yes, turnaround times.
Generally though I would like to see a greater reach out to the general public. The members only shows are nice and the Long Beach shows also are great. But maybe regional shows linking up with local shows that would include gold/silver buyers and appraisers, retailers, have on site grading etc. Goal is to get the general public interested in collecting coins. Its a great hobby it needs promotion on a regional/local basis with a national company and significant resources behind the effort. I would pay more for grading services, I know it would be expensive but it would pay dividends.
I've seen Full Head designation on AU SLQs but never seen anything below an AU recieve designation. I've also never seen any other circulated coins receive strike designations.
I love market grading; I detest the arbitrary way TPGs consign coins to purgatory, whether or not they're unattractive, just as they straight-grade ugly coins. I'd vastly prefer that the market decide how much a coin is worth, not a grader.
Sure, kill a coin that has been destroyed by harsh cleaning or the like, and kill a coin whose damage is great. But, otherwise, let the market decide.
See the PCGS pop report for examples of AU Mercury dimes designated “FB” and a very small number of AU58 Franklin halves designated “FBL”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
IMHO I could see this being a problem. West Coast grading, say Morgans as ms63, same coin making ms64 on the East coast. We all know grading is subjective to a point. Graders at one location being more liberal, or more strict. " I want mine sent to the East coast service. They grade better ( higher ) " If your reasoning is faster grading, expand at one location where there would be more interaction between graders AND the same finalizers. Just my 2 cents.
Many people here have previously stated that turnaround times are a problem. I know shipping time is not much of the problem there, but for many people, having a closer location would at least do something about the total time it takes. Also, having more locations to divide up the influx of coins to grade might help in some regard. As for the variation in grading, I would think that it is more on a coin by coin basis, where different people might see the same coin as different grades. Not so much that one person, or group of people, consistently grades all coins higher/lower.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Do TPG's ever make changes/improvements based on what collectors/customers want?
🤔
Seems to me they hold all the cards, take it or leave it buster...
My way or the highway comes to mind
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Lots of great suggestions here... I definitely agree with turnaround times and grading standards... the crux is how to fix it. Turnaround time is going to be a direct reflection of the staff and how many hands they have processing the influx of material. The only real way around this issue is to hire more staff. The process could be streamlined to a point, but in reality 10 workers will get more done than 5. Upholding Grading standards requires experienced graders... realistically, how long does it take to train someone e to be good... at TPG level "good"? Its taken me years to get to where I can at least be in the ballpark for a grade.
Other issues that could be "low bearing fruit". Give grades for early collector coins and note deficiencies... I'm thinking early copper where a lot of it is corroded or damaged in some way... some minor... some major... but this could be in the grade, something like: VG8 Details, Scratches, or Corroded, or whatever instead of having to request a details grade.
Attribution... I think this could be streamlined by outsourcing to the experts in the collecting community (some of whom frequent this forum) and paying a consultant fee. Issue a 1099...
Counterfeiting... someone had the idea of photographing every coin and improving the holders to thwart the counterfeiters. I'd like the idea better if photography could be made more consistent across platforms and not be a function of who has the better photographer doing a "glamour shot" to get the best price for a coin. I want the image to reflect the coin... no more, no less. For me, this is more of an anti counterfeiting measure than one having a monetary incentive. I don't know how to change people's minds about that.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
For P.C.G.S not that this one will ever happen is discontinue the $10 per order fee for submissions and charge more realistic return postage and insurance charges. But both will lower their revenue so not happening.
What is order fee to submit at N.G.C?
Show the grade on the True-View photo.
That's simple too...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Good luck with that as it will open up a huge can of worms. I have seen slabbed “Machin’s Mills” pieces that are in fact, contemporary counterfeits. Basically a $5-15 coin being offered as a $200+ item. Then they will have the problem of how to grade some of the cruder varieties. In addition, many colonial collectors that are experts in their given series can’t differentiate between a genuine George III halfpenny and a counterfeit.
TPG’s have a tough enough time being consistent grading simple things like New Jersey coppers. There was a NJ Maris 14-J auctioned this past month in a VG slab. The problem was that it was an AG at best.
There's already multiple AU grades. Creating an AU63 says it's circulated but better than an uncirculated 62. The same "logic" could apply to lower circulated grades. It has to much wear to be XF but due to superior due appeal looks better than most XF coins.
You want more AU grades you have 20 possibly grades between 50 and 59 (including plus). Use those is you must. But giving an uncirculated grade to a circulated coin just confuses the issue.
An AG coin without wear would be a 60 or better.
This is absolutely spot on but it most likely won’t happen. If there was consistency, then people wouldn’t have to constantly resubmit coins, play the crackout game, send them to CAC, etc. Bottom line is, no consistency equals more revenue.
"Market acceptability" should be determined by those who primarily buy it, not those who don't, including a grader in a grading room who has no idea of actual market preferences and is using a US centric perception.
That's behind my prior post for applying the NGC ancients scale to many series in non-US coinage. For my series, Spanish collecting (the other primary collector base) "net grades" coins but there is no such thing as "details" grading outside the US or if there is, I've never heard of it anywhere.
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have several coins in NGC holders > @MFeld said:
This is the US forum, but your topic was about grading which is why I posted on what I collect.
I don't remember seeing this label description for US coinage but I'm not looking at US coins as much as I did in the past. It's for world coinage. The coins I'm describing have been cleaned to varying extent, but there isn't anything actually wrong with it. It should be worth less than a coin without this treatment, but because of the holder label, is almost certainly worth more outside of the holder than in it, certainly if sold outside the US.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
I'll also add that I've only seen it on "newer" holders. Not just the newest holders, but probably only the holders that at least had the grade in bold font. Mark was long gone from NGC by the time these came along, so I could imagine the designation never existed while he was there.
People conflate a grade with an ideal market standard of the top percentile of survivors that correlates to a maximum valuation. They forget that there is already a fluid barometer for this in pricing or if they acknowledge this they are often resentful that this is the area where dealers make much of their margins that consist of their living. Making moves off of, the mismatches between quality and pricing (both ways) on the buy and sell sides.
Market standards change, originality designations while impossible would only stratify the market further into the haves and have-nots hurting more people than it helps. Third party opinions will never protect the inexperienced more than fundamental comprehension of the subject matter. The goal of an advanced collector should be to assemble a collection that interests them with the attributes they prefer and in a manner that puts them into the asset right. 1000s of designations, stickers and grades really are marketing tools that allow easier maximization at retail, buying anything maximized isn’t the classic case of being in something right. While great coins are often easy to sell so or C coins when priced right.
I actually think the PCGSs of the world strike a decent balance between consumer protection and dealer empowerment. Many of the suggestions appear to these eyes to be under the assumption that collectors need help “knowing what they have” and that will always move the needle in the dealer empowerment direction IMHO.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Well, things that help the hobby often don’t help the bottom line of the TPGs. Inconsistency in grading results in more grading events in the future, for example.
If I could have a wish, it would be a technical grade (or no grade) and a separate eye appeal grade. The market could sort out the rest.
Designate AU coins as Proof Like when they deserve it.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
That is very well stated Crypto, bravo. I know exactly what designations I think would be in PCGS's best interest to designate, however, I'd rather quietly buy all of those coins before they start designating them. Then, I'll wait patiently for the windfall 😉.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ah! So that's why you've provided every dealer in the country with a want list for Standing Liberty Quarters and Saints with full toes?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.