@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they have a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
So you are saying that the empirical evidence presented by @ProofCollection that disagrees with you is untrue?
I thought you were a scientist? Empirical evidence (i.e. observations such as PC is making) is what hypotheses are built on. We all teach those to our 101 students pretty much the first lecture. Don't you?
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
It's not an opinion when that's what they did. Can I prove intent? No, I'm not sure anyone ever can. But when CS had a chance to say, "oh my gosh, I didn't realize we slabbed a coin with PVC, send it back and we'll get that taken care of" and didn't then we know where the company stands. That, and the statistically significant number of PCGS coins rejected by CAC for PVC cannot be ignored. Well, I guess you can ignore it.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
So you are saying that the empirical evidence presented by @ProofCollection that disagrees with you is untrue?
I thought you were a scientist? Empirical evidence (i.e. observations such as PC is making) is what hypotheses are built on. We all teach those to our 101 students pretty much the first lecture. Don't you?
He has ZERO empirical evidence that PCGS is INTENTIONALLY overlooking the PVC. And if you think what he's presented is empirical evidence of that, you might want to take my 101 course.
All kinds of things slip through or get missed. That is very different than their intentionally ignoring their own written policy.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
It's not an opinion when that's what they did. Can I prove intent? No, I'm not sure anyone ever can. But when CS had a chance to say, "oh my gosh, I didn't realize we slabbed a coin with PVC, send it back and we'll get that taken care of" and didn't then we know where the company stands. That, and the statistically significant number of PCGS coins rejected by CAC for PVC cannot be ignored. Well, I guess you can ignore it.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
It's not an opinion when that's what they did. Can I prove intent? No, I'm not sure anyone ever can. But when CS had a chance to say, "oh my gosh, I didn't realize we slabbed a coin with PVC, send it back and we'll get that taken care of" and didn't then we know where the company stands. That, and the statistically significant number of PCGS coins rejected by CAC for PVC cannot be ignored. Well, I guess you can ignore it.
It's your OPINION of their INTENT that I'm objecting to.
Every grading company has missed things and made numerous other mistakes. You claimed they were doing it intentionally.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they hands a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
It's not an opinion when that's what they did. Can I prove intent? No, I'm not sure anyone ever can. But when CS had a chance to say, "oh my gosh, I didn't realize we slabbed a coin with PVC, send it back and we'll get that taken care of" and didn't then we know where the company stands. That, and the statistically significant number of PCGS coins rejected by CAC for PVC cannot be ignored. Well, I guess you can ignore it.
All that might prove is that CAC is better at spotting it or, perhaps, that CAC doesn't take chances and will fail it even without definitive proof.
I've got a full roll of proof 1964 dimes that are in MS holders. That doesn't prove that PCGS INTENTIONALLY slabs proofs a uncs or even that they can't tell the difference.
No one is denying that EVERY grading company has missed PVC and even scratches and other damage. But you continue to impute intent.
Comments
I’m not sure that refusal to remove PVC from coins necessarily means that they’d knowingly encapsulate coins with PVC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They had the option to:
a) return the coin in the original slab untouched
b) restore it and remove the PVC as I was paying them to do
c) regrade and re-slab a coin with PVC
And they chose c, and did not regrade it "details."
What other conclusion can we draw?
BTW, the "before" pictures are in my thread. The PVC is not subtle.
The possible conclusion that they didn’t want to incur the downside of b) or of lowering the grade in c). Admittedly, I’m surprised that they didn’t choose a), unless there was confusion regarding their choices, based on the submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
On a restoration submission, they state that the coin will be removed from the holder, evaluated for restoration, and then restored (or not), and then regraded and re-holdered. Of course, declining service entirely is always an option. But opting to regrade and reholder the coin is reaffirmation of the grade they assign print on the label and are still liable for.
IMO, there should not have been an expected drop in grade from restoration. It was not like the coin's surface could not be fully and readily observed prior to restoration like some heavily toned coins are. So yes, the 27-S did lose a grade point when I resubmitted it, but I feel the coin could just as easily kept the 63 and not caused anyone heartburn. I know we have to be skeptical of people who talk about their grading skills but I buy, own, and collect a lot of low MS60's Peace and Morgan dollars so I feel my assessment of a 62/63 grade is reasonable.
Just because they may have effed up doesn't mean they accept PVC. Active PVC etches the surface. They know this which is why they have a code 99. For them to intentionally ignore PVC, COUNTER TO THEIR POLICY, would guarantee that they would lose millions in guarantees paid out. They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not), but that is very different than their intentionally ignoring it of which you keep accusing them.
Again, I would suggest that you remember where you are and consider what you are doing.
I'm not sure what you're saying, These are not opinions, they are experiences and observations. If you want to deny or ignore them that's your choice. When I raised these issues to customer service they stood behind their actions. You can accept or deny as you wish and draw your own conclusions.
To have a PVC coin slabbed is an experience. To claim (contrary to their policy) that they INTENTIONALLY permit PVC is an opinion, and almost definitely incorrect.
So you are saying that the empirical evidence presented by @ProofCollection that disagrees with you is untrue?
I thought you were a scientist? Empirical evidence (i.e. observations such as PC is making) is what hypotheses are built on. We all teach those to our 101 students pretty much the first lecture. Don't you?
It's not an opinion when that's what they did. Can I prove intent? No, I'm not sure anyone ever can. But when CS had a chance to say, "oh my gosh, I didn't realize we slabbed a coin with PVC, send it back and we'll get that taken care of" and didn't then we know where the company stands. That, and the statistically significant number of PCGS coins rejected by CAC for PVC cannot be ignored. Well, I guess you can ignore it.
He has ZERO empirical evidence that PCGS is INTENTIONALLY overlooking the PVC. And if you think what he's presented is empirical evidence of that, you might want to take my 101 course.
All kinds of things slip through or get missed. That is very different than their intentionally ignoring their own written policy.
It's your OPINION of their INTENT that I'm objecting to.
Every grading company has missed things and made numerous other mistakes. You claimed they were doing it intentionally.
All that might prove is that CAC is better at spotting it or, perhaps, that CAC doesn't take chances and will fail it even without definitive proof.
I've got a full roll of proof 1964 dimes that are in MS holders. That doesn't prove that PCGS INTENTIONALLY slabs proofs a uncs or even that they can't tell the difference.
No one is denying that EVERY grading company has missed PVC and even scratches and other damage. But you continue to impute intent.
They may be no good at identifying PVC (or not)....
Can we leave it at that?
this thread is like a page long if you ignore jmlanzaf, and you can still read everything in the quotes anyway
I believe that most of his posts have been in reply to those of another poster.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's not true. Don't make me count. The posts.
For you, I counted: This is my 26th post on this thread. 26 out of 216...I really need to up my game.
We're not allowed to have conversations on this forum. You're supposed to simply throw a comment or photo on a thread and move on.
Reading what other people write is strictly optional.
You'd think the King would know this. 😉
Edited to add: 27
oh man, that's hilarious - 2 ignores - I feel bad for not finding this feature sooner
How can you tell that two members ignore you?