@SIowhand said:
Operate as a not for profit in the best interest of the collector rather than a public company beholden to share holders.
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
@SIowhand said:
Operate as a not for profit in the best interest of the collector rather than a public company beholden to share holders.
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
PCGS is a very small portion of CU. PSA is the moneymaker.
@nencoin said:
PCGS: Fix your online submission system. It's essentially unusable, which is ridiculous and inexcusable.
NGC: Create a (working) online submission system.
Not sure I'm following this. I do on line submissions and then print them out. No issues.
It's good to know their online submission system works for a least some folks. For us, it is much too slow to be considered a viable option. This has been a known and acknowledged issue for quite some time.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
Most colleges are not for profit. Nonetheless, there tuition increases have outstripped inflation significantly for the past half century.
Many/Most hospitals are also not for profit.
I'm not saying that eliminating the profit might not cause a one time drop of 20%. But I really don't think there's any long term windfall heading collectors way of they were to be a not for profit.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
@MFeld said:
What one feasible change/improvement would you like to see the major grading companies make?
For many series, and some esoteric items, it seems blatantly impossible to "grade" within a couple points of accuracy. For example, can someone explain the difference between AU-53 and AU-55 for a clad quarter blank planchet? Or what makes one New Jersey farthing grade VF-20 vs VF-25?
For certain series, such fine gradations imply an impossible level of accuracy and I think simple "word grades" would suffice.
(NGC seems to have taken a bit of a lead on this idea with certification of Ancients.)
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
To echo @Boosibri: we send coins to you in one box, and it'd be nice if you'd send them back to in one box (with only one set of handling/shipping/insurance fees).
My own addition, about which I feel strongly: let us request cascading services for one coin within a single shipment. Ex: submit a coin for RECONSIDERATION or REGRADE. THEN, upgrade or no, send to VARIETY ATTRIBUTION (with optional GOLD SHIELD).
In 2022 I needed cascading service: PCGS reconsidered a coin, didn't upgrade it, and then sent it back without honoring my written request to add Attribution and TrueView. I was told to resubmit. But every shipping instance incurs cost and risk as well as delaying the realization of the customer's goals.
The two ideas above reduce the number of shipping instances with their attendant cost and risk from potentially MANY to just TWO (out and back) every time!
Epilog: the paper submission form states: "ONLY ONE TYPE OF SUBMISSION AT ONE SERVICE LEVEL IS PERMITTED PER FORM." Maybe that existed in 2022 and I didn't know that. (Mea culpa!) But my "Cascading Services" request would eliminate this constraint.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
Again, the Star is for exceptional eye appeal, not about the coin being PQ. And the two terms shouldn’t be used together because that confuses the issue.
However, on the subject of “PQ” coins, if you need a + grade to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn’t PQ.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll add to my list:
6. Deliver all services paid for. If you pay for gold shield reconsideration and it fails, they should still take an in-slab Trueview if one does not already exist. The fee is already priced into the service.
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
To echo @Boosibri: we send coins to you in one box, and it'd be nice if you'd send them back to in one box (with only one set of handling/shipping/insurance fees).
Yeah, this would be nice for sure.
My own addition, about which I feel strongly: let us request cascading services for one coin within a single shipment. Ex: submit a coin for RECONSIDERATION or REGRADE. THEN, upgrade or no, send to VARIETY ATTRIBUTION (with optional GOLD SHIELD).
A better examples is Crossover - restoration. If it crosses, then restore it.
Comments
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
No more CAC!
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
PCGS is a very small portion of CU. PSA is the moneymaker.
It's good to know their online submission system works for a least some folks. For us, it is much too slow to be considered a viable option. This has been a known and acknowledged issue for quite some time.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
Most colleges are not for profit. Nonetheless, there tuition increases have outstripped inflation significantly for the past half century.
Many/Most hospitals are also not for profit.
I'm not saying that eliminating the profit might not cause a one time drop of 20%. But I really don't think there's any long term windfall heading collectors way of they were to be a not for profit.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
For many series, and some esoteric items, it seems blatantly impossible to "grade" within a couple points of accuracy. For example, can someone explain the difference between AU-53 and AU-55 for a clad quarter blank planchet? Or what makes one New Jersey farthing grade VF-20 vs VF-25?
For certain series, such fine gradations imply an impossible level of accuracy and I think simple "word grades" would suffice.
(NGC seems to have taken a bit of a lead on this idea with certification of Ancients.)
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
In 2022 I needed cascading service: PCGS reconsidered a coin, didn't upgrade it, and then sent it back without honoring my written request to add Attribution and TrueView. I was told to resubmit. But every shipping instance incurs cost and risk as well as delaying the realization of the customer's goals.
The two ideas above reduce the number of shipping instances with their attendant cost and risk from potentially MANY to just TWO (out and back) every time!
Epilog: the paper submission form states: "ONLY ONE TYPE OF SUBMISSION AT ONE SERVICE LEVEL IS PERMITTED PER FORM." Maybe that existed in 2022 and I didn't know that. (Mea culpa!) But my "Cascading Services" request would eliminate this constraint.
New website: Groovycoins.com Capped Bust Half Dime registry set: Bikergeek CBHD LM Set
Again, the Star is for exceptional eye appeal, not about the coin being PQ. And the two terms shouldn’t be used together because that confuses the issue.
However, on the subject of “PQ” coins, if you need a + grade to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn’t PQ.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll add to my list:
6. Deliver all services paid for. If you pay for gold shield reconsideration and it fails, they should still take an in-slab Trueview if one does not already exist. The fee is already priced into the service.
Yeah, this would be nice for sure.
A better examples is Crossover - restoration. If it crosses, then restore it.