@M4Madness said:
That clears things up. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation.
Excuse my questioning this, but huh? He picked the wrong attribution. It's not what he picked. How can anyone expect any TPG to knowingly erroneously attribute any coin? There's the issue.
@david3142 said:
I believe as their primary objective, PCGS should correctly identify the coin.
@M4Madness said:
That clears things up. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation.
Excuse my questioning this, but huh? He picked the wrong attribution. It's not what he picked. How can anyone expect any TPG to knowingly erroneously attribute any coin? There's the issue.
He said he chose 7100 because you aren't allowed to choose the PL designation (7101). It was then decided by PCGS that it was a 7102 that also happened to be PL, hence the 7103 designation. I know absolutely nothing about submitting PL's, so I have to take him at his word.
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
@M4Madness said:
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
This coin was submitted to this TPG for a grade. The only issue here is which designation this TPG believes is correct. His having a right to his beliefs in an erroneous designation is inconsequential, with all due respect.
@M4Madness said:
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
This coin was submitted to this TPG for a grade. The only issue here is which designation this TPG believes is correct. His having a right to his beliefs in an erroneous designation is inconsequential, with all due respect.
The submitter wanting the coin to be labeled as an 1880-CC without the 8/High 7 variety included didn’t amount to his believing in/wanting “an erroneous designation”. Many coins are graded without the specific variety being noted on the grading label. That, in itself, doesn’t mean they’re erroneously designated.
Edited to add: Despite my above comments, I still don’t think PCGS did anything wrong in this case.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
The submitter wanting the coin to be labeled as an 1880-CC without the 8/High 7 variety included didn’t amount to his believing in/wanting “an erroneous designation”. Many coins are graded without the specific variety being noted on the grading label. That, in itself, doesn’t mean they’re erroneously designated.
Piddling distinction although I'll grant the terminology got a little somewhat mixed up in this thread. Let the record reflect he wanted a PL designation and he got back an attribution he didn't want.
@M4Madness said:
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
This coin was submitted to this TPG for a grade. The only issue here is which designation this TPG believes is correct. His having a right to his beliefs in an erroneous designation is inconsequential, with all due respect.
Again and as MFeld said, it's not wrong to call the coin an 1880-CC. If you bought one sight unseen and got my coin, you'd feel that you got what you bought. Back to the McDonald's analogy, it like they put a tomato on your Big Mac. It's unexpected and will delight some customers, some will have no thoughts about it, and some will not be happy. The wrong part is that if they just got a traditional Big Mac there would be no issues.
@MFeld said:
The submitter wanting the coin to be labeled as an 1880-CC without the 8/High 7 variety included didn’t amount to his believing in/wanting “an erroneous designation”. Many coins are graded without the specific variety being noted on the grading label. That, in itself, doesn’t mean they’re erroneously designated.
Piddling distinction although I'll grant the terminology got a little somewhat mixed up in this thread. Let the record reflect he wanted a PL designation and he got back an attribution he didn't want.
Well it's a ~$250 distinction per the price guide which is not "piddling" to me.
It would simplify things if they would just treat all varieties the same. A popular red book variety is really no different than any other less appreciated variety. Your coin is both an 1880-CC Morgan and an 1880-CC 8/H7 Morgan. Neither is wrong. Motive shouldn't matter. I don't see why the submitter shouldn't be able to choose which one appears on the label.
@ProofCollection said:
Well it's a ~$250 distinction per the price guide which is not "piddling" to me.
Agreed. But then we wouldn't want our buyers to be tricked on what they were getting, would we?
What's the trick? Every Morgan dollar is a VAM. You seem to be suggesting that selling a Morgan dollar without disclosing the VAM number is deceit.
But it _is _an 1880-CC 8/High 7 PL+. Supposing it instead were an 1880/79-CC Reverse of 1878 PL+, wherein you're $250 to the better over an 1880-CC PL+ in the current price guide, you wouldn't be complaining they got that one right. You're complaining when they get it right and you're the worse for it in their current price guide; in this case, namely, $275 to the worse.
And then, let's get real. It's the market, not these price guides. Just because PCGS's market data has this variety $275 under what it would have been had it not been the variety, PCGS can't tell you what to ask for it, all it can tell is how its current market value is running based on its evaluation of the current market sales, and, comparatively, here, that market data discloses there's a $275 preference for the non-variety over the variety in this grade. And that's PCGS's business what varieties it chooses to attribute and track, not our business. And so, yes, you're tricking your buyer when you're not disclosing the PCGS variety designation it got pursuant to this submission. When you're aware, as you are, here, courtesy of the submission, you're not disclosing is tricking. How do you know your buyer isn't as price guide conscious as you on this variety? In fact, the whole reason you don't want it disclosed is you want to trick on it, that's your whole reason for this question, in effect. You think you should be able to get away with it, and you're sore you can't.
Finally, think of it like this.This is the PCGS market. Their price guide is based on their coins, not others' coins. You don't like the PCGS attribution, crack it out, and offer it in the raw market. But you want the PCGS endorsement and market you play by their rules. And this is what you got from them on this coin. Or, un-slab it. You need instruction on how to do that, ask. But there's your choice. IMO. FWIW.
PS: As an aside my notifications tell me somebody mentioned me in a recent reply at 2:11 PM yesterday and this is what I got back when I clicked on the notification and tried to read reply. Let's all make a concerted effort to try to remember to keep our composure in these threads, and to make sounds like we're at least somewhat civilized, I don't think it's asking too much...
@M4Madness said:
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
This coin was submitted to this TPG for a grade. The only issue here is which designation this TPG believes is correct. His having a right to his beliefs in an erroneous designation is inconsequential, with all due respect.
Again and as MFeld said, it's not wrong to call the coin an 1880-CC. If you bought one sight unseen and got my coin, you'd feel that you got what you bought. Back to the McDonald's analogy, it like they put a tomato on your Big Mac. It's unexpected and will delight some customers, some will have no thoughts about it, and some will not be happy. The wrong part is that if they just got a traditional Big Mac there would be no issues.
@MFeld said:
The submitter wanting the coin to be labeled as an 1880-CC without the 8/High 7 variety included didn’t amount to his believing in/wanting “an erroneous designation”. Many coins are graded without the specific variety being noted on the grading label. That, in itself, doesn’t mean they’re erroneously designated.
Piddling distinction although I'll grant the terminology got a little somewhat mixed up in this thread. Let the record reflect he wanted a PL designation and he got back an attribution he didn't want.
Well it's a ~$250 distinction per the price guide which is not "piddling" to me.
The tomato analogy is horrible. They didn't change your coin. They changed the wrapper to be MORE accurate. It's equivalent to writing "no pickles" on the box if they have a special order.
@jmlanzaf said:
The tomato analogy is horrible. They didn't change your coin. They changed the wrapper to be MORE accurate. It's equivalent to writing "no pickles" on the box if they have a special order.
@jmlanzaf said:
The tomato analogy is horrible. They didn't change your coin. They changed the wrapper to be MORE accurate. It's equivalent to writing "no pickles" on the box if they have a special order.
@Pnies20 said:
I wish they do it when I ASK them to.
I have 3 currently there because they didn’t add the redbook variety
I also have one on the way back where I asked them to and they didn’t 🤦♂️ do I waste the money to send it in again?
It’s to the point where I’m not going to bother anymore.
I feel your pain. Just another opportunity for me to complain about our host's failure to attribute 5 CPG-listed Buffalo nickel varieties submitted thru Great Collections, Demanded they be sent back for attribution and they have been languishing at PCGS for 2 months now. Where are they?
Proud recipient of the coveted "You Suck Award" (9/3/10).
I would expect PCGS to use the most accurate base or major variety coin number. If there is a conflict between the coin number the submitter entered and the coin number initially picked by the grader, I would expect PCGS to doublecheck and then use the most accurate coin number. If you want a coin labeled non-variety even though it is a major variety, I would imagine your best bet would be to leave a note on the submission requesting that they do that. They seem responsive to permissible simple notes (e.g. "please slab with reverse facing front").
As far as your initial question ("Were they correct or within stated policies to do this or should they have slabbed it as specified (although with PL, coin number 7101)? Was this policy or an over zealous employee?"), I can't answer that, because as far as I know there is no stated policy regarding the matter. PCGS is very much a black box, and we don't know what kind of internal policy they use. But, because they don't have a stated policy regarding this, I don't think you can argue that what they did was incorrect, because it does not contradict any stated policy (because they don't have one).
Do they check for major varieties on any given coin? If you submit a bunch of proof 1998/1999 cents, do they check for major variety CLOSE AM? Are their 1998/1999 proof cent coin numbers an implied "WIDE AM"? I don't know. But, major varieties are usually "major" enough that you would notice them during the course of looking at a coin for grading. Maybe they don't want to specify so they don't put themselves in a corner, so they whether they use the base number or the major variety number, they are still "correct", or at least not incorrect. (I used WIDE AM cents as an example because I've had issues with PCGS them labeling correctly, despite the major variety submission number being correct. Luckily, the coins were still able to be sold at the major variety value despite the less accurate label)
I agree that it would be nice if PCGS used clearer language on their site to help people understand these types of issues with submitting. I had to make an forum post back in the day because the PCGS Variety Attribution FAQ page doesn't explain that major varieties exist that you don't need to pay for attribution, nor does it explain how to determine which coins are major varieties. I'd imagine their lack of specificity works in their favor, as many coins might be submitted with a $20 attribution fee because the submitted does not know the coin would be a free major variety attribution.
@slimbert said:
I would expect PCGS to use the most accurate base or major variety coin number. If there is a conflict between the coin number the submitter entered and the coin number initially picked by the grader, I would expect PCGS to doublecheck and then use the most accurate coin number. If you want a coin labeled non-variety even though it is a major variety, I would imagine your best bet would be to leave a note on the submission requesting that they do that. They seem responsive to permissible simple notes (e.g. "please slab with reverse facing front").
I think PCGS has the least risk with following the customer's form entry and using the number provided. PCGS should assume their collectors know what they want and ask if they have any doubts or questions. But at the very least, they should post this policy somewhere. PCGS can do whatever they want, but the customer shouldn't have to guess what that's going to be.
In this case, the OP coin was previously unattributed in a PCGS holder that I cracked out. If you go on ebay and look at the base 1880-CC slabs for sale it's not hard to find several unattributed High or Low 7 varieties. This inconsistency is the other problem. If I had to guess PCGS's success at identifying all of the major varieties that they grade every day that the submitter does not point out or request is under 50%, but it's just a guess. I think for this reason alone they shouldn't even try unless they can achieve a very high rate and just stick to giving the customer what they specify. Oh well.
I had not intended to respond to your post but thought I would as part of my update here. The main reason of this post is an update:
I contacted PCGS CS and got this response: "After speaking with the operations team, major varieties automatically get attributed without the customer having to indicate anything. We would not be able to remove it." I followed up to ask if this policy is posted anywhere and they said no.
OP, does the higher value in the price guide actually reflect recent sales though?
I think they should attribute whatever they notice, but I know they spend so little time looking at each coin they aren't likely to notice most varieties unless requested. I do think it should work like ANACS where for a few $ more they figure out the variety, even if its a discovery coin, and shouldn't limit which varieties they attribute to some approved list. Its rather absurd to me that in 2024 we still don't have a database of varieties with photos and pops that all the grading companies and numismatists the world over can contribute to and reference.
The real question imho is what will the process look like in the near future, or how could they drastically increase the number of varieties they notice, adding value to their service and winning over customers. I predict that within 2 years they will be imaging every coin, and having computers analyze those images to find varieties errors etc and provide and "grade". The data from the image analysis informs how much time is spent grading/attributing by humans. I don't think they'll share the computer grade with us for a while until its been well tuned, if ever, but it could save them a lot of time and money if they can skip human grading on coins which aren't even worth the plastic they're holdered in or the postage to return them to the customer. It might take more advanced imaging to accomplish this, something like Stack's Coins In Motion, but my experimenting with coin photography shows that can be done very quickly.
Thanks for the update. A question is, do they actually have that policy posted anywhere internally, or is that 'policy' just the CS rep asking the operations team and the person saying 'this is how we do it'.
I agree they should have the policy posted somewhere, possibly in a FAQ. More clarity, less guessing.
@OwenSeymour said:
Varieties listed on the date pages of coin facts (in this case dollars>morgan dollars) are holdered as such for free. Varieties not listed on the main page (FS, Sheldon, Overton, etc.) require variety attribution. 80-CC 8/High 7 is listed on the date page on coin facts
Thank you @OwenSeymour
I’ve always wondered if this was the case.
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
@124Spider said:
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
One thing I've noticed in my primary series (CBH's) is that attributed halves (for example my 1808 O-108a) are listed at a often time listed at a fraction of the same coin without attribution.
I suspect this is the same case.
Not sure why if the date/type goes up, the attributed ones don't also rise.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Kinda weird to see a thread where someone's upset that the TPG got the variety right.
I get that you wanted the theoretically pricier non-variety designation but if the intent is to sell it, it all washes out the same anyway; any potential buyer who recognizes the variety will only pay based on the value for said variety and anyone finding that they bought an erroneously labeled piece will just mean potential hassle for both the seller and the TPG. Just saying.
I suspect the price guide does not get updated as frequently for the varieties. I have seen this for other coins. With lower pops I would think the fair value of the variety would be at least as high as the non-variety, as you can still use it in the registry for sets without varieties.
@telephoto1 said:
Kinda weird to see a thread where someone's upset that the TPG got the variety right.
It wasn't a matter of identifying the variety correctly, it was a matter of doing something they were not requested to do. FWIW and I don't know if I mentioned it, the coin was originally cracked out of a PCGS holder that was for the base coin number, not the variety.
I get that you wanted the theoretically pricier non-variety designation but if the intent is to sell it, it all washes out the same anyway; any potential buyer who recognizes the variety will only pay based on the value for said variety and anyone finding that they bought an erroneously labeled piece will just mean potential hassle for both the seller and the TPG. Just saying.
Not necessarily. Even though I have sets where you need the variety and the non-variety, I'd be satisfied with a variety coin in a non-variety slab. I doubt I am unique in that way. I can try arguing that I should get a discount on a coin when buying one, but I doubt most dealers will offer a discount when you point it out to them. They'll wait for a buyer who doesn't see the variety.
@124Spider said:
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
I only agree if the submitter were to have the option to check “Do not attribute”; otherwise, I find tremendous value in the included attribution service.
@124Spider said:
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
I only agree if the submitter were to have the option to check “Do not attribute”; otherwise, I find tremendous value in the included attribution service.
I hate to reboot the thread but the ask here is just for more transparency. There was clearly a change in policy but this policy is not published anywhere. This is along the lines of other unpublished policies and information like not all label codes are published and PCGS will ship using your shipping account number even if you don't put it on the form despite the form clearly stating "IF USING ALT. SHIPPING OPTION YOU MUST PROVIDE YOUR OWN ACCOUNT # AND INSURANCE COVERAGE." It's frustrating as a customer to not know what to expect even when you do your best to read every webpage, form, and policy.
@124Spider said:
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
Interesting and curious. Would you give us at least three examples?
@Copperindian said:
No. There are a multitude of varieties across all coin types, too many for graders to have complete knowledge of. They miss some now, even when the variety is requested to be added to the tag.
They cannot even get attribution requests correct, even when I supply them with the correct attribution. They change names and numbers to ESCAPE from doing attribution work. You must do all the work for them, including sending photo close-ups of key characters, photos of reed counts, etc. because the professional numismatists at PCSG don't do reed counts. They never contact the customer, instead, they blame the customer for their effing reckless mistakes, then tell you, "Have a nice day!"
I don't ever want them to volunteer any attribution because from my experience they will get it wrong. Unless you provide the die marriage for them, they will mess it up. Even when you do, they will mess it up! It's Mr. Magoo numismatics.
@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.
In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.
NO! You're assuming that they have the competence to make such changes correctly. I'm finding out that they simply don't have the staff to do such things properly. They don't know to recognize obvious Redbook varieties or Coin Facts varieties. They'd struggle with a blank planchet.
I realize I beat this to death, but I used to do this for a living with much smaller, more difficult objects than coins. Coins are relatively easy. PCGS's incompetence with coins and the huge mistakes they make is mind blowing.
@Copperindian said:
No. There are a multitude of varieties across all coin types, too many for graders to have complete knowledge of. They miss some now, even when the variety is requested to be added to the tag.
They cannot even get attribution requests correct, even when I supply them with the correct attribution. They change names and numbers to ESCAPE from doing attribution work. You must do all the work for them, including sending photo close-ups of key characters, photos of reed counts, etc. because the professional numismatists at PCSG don't do reed counts. They never contact the customer, instead, they blame the customer for their effing reckless mistakes, then tell you, "Have a nice day!"
I don't ever want them to volunteer any attribution because from my experience they will get it wrong. Unless you provide the die marriage for them, they will mess it up. Even when you do, they will mess it up! It's Mr. Magoo numismatics.
@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.
In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.
NO! You're assuming that they have the competence to make such changes correctly. I'm finding out that they simply don't have the staff to do such things properly. They don't know to recognize obvious Redbook varieties or Coin Facts varieties. They'd struggle with a blank planchet.
I realize I beat this to death, but I used to do this for a living with much smaller, more difficult objects than coins. Coins are relatively easy. PCGS's incompetence with coins and the huge mistakes they make is mind blowing.
If we're beating horses...Without getting into their issues with world coins which are much worse than issues with US coins, the variety team has been struggling of late.
In one recent instance, they spent weeks before acknowledging a variety with two variants, one a proof and the other a business strike that used the proof dies. It's not that they couldn't identify which my coin was but that couldn't acknowledge the business strike existed. I had to send them copies of the book they already use as a reference and make many phone calls to convince them.
I currently have an express order in that has been in QA for a week as they determine whether the coin I submitted is a large mint mark or a small mint mark, This is not rocket science.
» show previous quotes
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
Interesting and curious. Would you give us at least three examples?
This seriously made my laugh so hard,
“They'd struggle with a blank planchet.”
More PCGS numismatic struggles, this time with easy to separate rare die marriages.
This is an 1842 small date WB-3 DDR with easy to recognize Obverse die 1, with its right-positioned date that slants up to the right, the recut 4, and tine off the serif of the "1." Bill Bugert states that WB-3 (R6) is rarer than WB-4 (R5), which shares the same strongly doubled reverse die. The numismatic experts at PCGS determined that this was a WB-4, and I'm left wondering how they could possibly arrive at that determination. Did they even bother to look at the date?!
Of course, failing to recognize the rarer DM potentially hurts the seller, though, in this case, the seller wants $22.5K for the coin, which is more than 10 times what it's worth.
@telephoto1 said:
Kinda weird to see a thread where someone's upset that the TPG got the variety right.
It wasn't a matter of identifying the variety correctly, it was a matter of doing something they were not requested to do. FWIW and I don't know if I mentioned it, the coin was originally cracked out of a PCGS holder that was for the base coin number, not the variety.
I get that you wanted the theoretically pricier non-variety designation but if the intent is to sell it, it all washes out the same anyway; any potential buyer who recognizes the variety will only pay based on the value for said variety and anyone finding that they bought an erroneously labeled piece will just mean potential hassle for both the seller and the TPG. Just saying.
Not necessarily. Even though I have sets where you need the variety and the non-variety, I'd be satisfied with a variety coin in a non-variety slab. I doubt I am unique in that way. I can try arguing that I should get a discount on a coin when buying one, but I doubt most dealers will offer a discount when you point it out to them. They'll wait for a buyer who doesn't see the variety.
Haven't been checking bookmarks lately so I'm late to respond here.
The TPG was actually doing their job correctly in this instance, fixing a mistake that would reflect poorly on them down the road once noticed. Maybe not OP, maybe not a few others, but someone at some point would be ticked off about buying a mislabeled item. And given all the various threads on these boards over the years bemoaning improperly labeled and misrepresented items, you'd think more here would be unhappy with someone purposely wanting something misrepresented on a label so that they could (theoretically at least) profit from said misrepresentation- and even if said seller would be personally OK with it in their collection, I can feel safe stating with little fear of refutation that the vast majority of collectors would not. Especially if they paid up for the pricier (non)variety.
Comments
Excuse my questioning this, but huh? He picked the wrong attribution. It's not what he picked. How can anyone expect any TPG to knowingly erroneously attribute any coin? There's the issue.
There we go, and it's axiomatic.
He said he chose 7100 because you aren't allowed to choose the PL designation (7101). It was then decided by PCGS that it was a 7102 that also happened to be PL, hence the 7103 designation. I know absolutely nothing about submitting PL's, so I have to take him at his word.
As for the original debate, I believe that a coin should be labeled exactly what it is. He believes differently, and he has the right to do so.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
This coin was submitted to this TPG for a grade. The only issue here is which designation this TPG believes is correct. His having a right to his beliefs in an erroneous designation is inconsequential, with all due respect.
The submitter wanting the coin to be labeled as an 1880-CC without the 8/High 7 variety included didn’t amount to his believing in/wanting “an erroneous designation”. Many coins are graded without the specific variety being noted on the grading label. That, in itself, doesn’t mean they’re erroneously designated.
Edited to add: Despite my above comments, I still don’t think PCGS did anything wrong in this case.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Piddling distinction although I'll grant the terminology got a little somewhat mixed up in this thread. Let the record reflect he wanted a PL designation and he got back an attribution he didn't want.
Again and as MFeld said, it's not wrong to call the coin an 1880-CC. If you bought one sight unseen and got my coin, you'd feel that you got what you bought. Back to the McDonald's analogy, it like they put a tomato on your Big Mac. It's unexpected and will delight some customers, some will have no thoughts about it, and some will not be happy. The wrong part is that if they just got a traditional Big Mac there would be no issues.
Well it's a ~$250 distinction per the price guide which is not "piddling" to me.
I totally understand and get the point but the gripe ( if any) should be with Van Allen & Mallis ( that sounds like malice).
https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/vam-morgan-dollar-768404
Agreed. But then we wouldn't want our buyers to be tricked on what they were getting, would we?
What's the trick? Every Morgan dollar is a VAM. You seem to be suggesting that selling a Morgan dollar without disclosing the VAM number is deceit.
It would simplify things if they would just treat all varieties the same. A popular red book variety is really no different than any other less appreciated variety. Your coin is both an 1880-CC Morgan and an 1880-CC 8/H7 Morgan. Neither is wrong. Motive shouldn't matter. I don't see why the submitter shouldn't be able to choose which one appears on the label.
nope
But it _is _an 1880-CC 8/High 7 PL+. Supposing it instead were an 1880/79-CC Reverse of 1878 PL+, wherein you're $250 to the better over an 1880-CC PL+ in the current price guide, you wouldn't be complaining they got that one right. You're complaining when they get it right and you're the worse for it in their current price guide; in this case, namely, $275 to the worse.
And then, let's get real. It's the market, not these price guides. Just because PCGS's market data has this variety $275 under what it would have been had it not been the variety, PCGS can't tell you what to ask for it, all it can tell is how its current market value is running based on its evaluation of the current market sales, and, comparatively, here, that market data discloses there's a $275 preference for the non-variety over the variety in this grade. And that's PCGS's business what varieties it chooses to attribute and track, not our business. And so, yes, you're tricking your buyer when you're not disclosing the PCGS variety designation it got pursuant to this submission. When you're aware, as you are, here, courtesy of the submission, you're not disclosing is tricking. How do you know your buyer isn't as price guide conscious as you on this variety? In fact, the whole reason you don't want it disclosed is you want to trick on it, that's your whole reason for this question, in effect. You think you should be able to get away with it, and you're sore you can't.
Finally, think of it like this.This is the PCGS market. Their price guide is based on their coins, not others' coins. You don't like the PCGS attribution, crack it out, and offer it in the raw market. But you want the PCGS endorsement and market you play by their rules. And this is what you got from them on this coin. Or, un-slab it. You need instruction on how to do that, ask. But there's your choice. IMO. FWIW.
PS: As an aside my notifications tell me somebody mentioned me in a recent reply at 2:11 PM yesterday and this is what I got back when I clicked on the notification and tried to read reply. Let's all make a concerted effort to try to remember to keep our composure in these threads, and to make sounds like we're at least somewhat civilized, I don't think it's asking too much...
The tomato analogy is horrible. They didn't change your coin. They changed the wrapper to be MORE accurate. It's equivalent to writing "no pickles" on the box if they have a special order.
Now here's a man who knows his McDonald's.
They never should have discontinued the McDLT.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I feel your pain. Just another opportunity for me to complain about our host's failure to attribute 5 CPG-listed Buffalo nickel varieties submitted thru Great Collections, Demanded they be sent back for attribution and they have been languishing at PCGS for 2 months now. Where are they?
I would expect PCGS to use the most accurate base or major variety coin number. If there is a conflict between the coin number the submitter entered and the coin number initially picked by the grader, I would expect PCGS to doublecheck and then use the most accurate coin number. If you want a coin labeled non-variety even though it is a major variety, I would imagine your best bet would be to leave a note on the submission requesting that they do that. They seem responsive to permissible simple notes (e.g. "please slab with reverse facing front").
As far as your initial question ("Were they correct or within stated policies to do this or should they have slabbed it as specified (although with PL, coin number 7101)? Was this policy or an over zealous employee?"), I can't answer that, because as far as I know there is no stated policy regarding the matter. PCGS is very much a black box, and we don't know what kind of internal policy they use. But, because they don't have a stated policy regarding this, I don't think you can argue that what they did was incorrect, because it does not contradict any stated policy (because they don't have one).
Do they check for major varieties on any given coin? If you submit a bunch of proof 1998/1999 cents, do they check for major variety CLOSE AM? Are their 1998/1999 proof cent coin numbers an implied "WIDE AM"? I don't know. But, major varieties are usually "major" enough that you would notice them during the course of looking at a coin for grading. Maybe they don't want to specify so they don't put themselves in a corner, so they whether they use the base number or the major variety number, they are still "correct", or at least not incorrect. (I used WIDE AM cents as an example because I've had issues with PCGS them labeling correctly, despite the major variety submission number being correct. Luckily, the coins were still able to be sold at the major variety value despite the less accurate label)
I agree that it would be nice if PCGS used clearer language on their site to help people understand these types of issues with submitting. I had to make an forum post back in the day because the PCGS Variety Attribution FAQ page doesn't explain that major varieties exist that you don't need to pay for attribution, nor does it explain how to determine which coins are major varieties. I'd imagine their lack of specificity works in their favor, as many coins might be submitted with a $20 attribution fee because the submitted does not know the coin would be a free major variety attribution.
I think PCGS has the least risk with following the customer's form entry and using the number provided. PCGS should assume their collectors know what they want and ask if they have any doubts or questions. But at the very least, they should post this policy somewhere. PCGS can do whatever they want, but the customer shouldn't have to guess what that's going to be.
In this case, the OP coin was previously unattributed in a PCGS holder that I cracked out. If you go on ebay and look at the base 1880-CC slabs for sale it's not hard to find several unattributed High or Low 7 varieties. This inconsistency is the other problem. If I had to guess PCGS's success at identifying all of the major varieties that they grade every day that the submitter does not point out or request is under 50%, but it's just a guess. I think for this reason alone they shouldn't even try unless they can achieve a very high rate and just stick to giving the customer what they specify. Oh well.
I had not intended to respond to your post but thought I would as part of my update here. The main reason of this post is an update:
I contacted PCGS CS and got this response: "After speaking with the operations team, major varieties automatically get attributed without the customer having to indicate anything. We would not be able to remove it." I followed up to ask if this policy is posted anywhere and they said no.
OP, does the higher value in the price guide actually reflect recent sales though?
I think they should attribute whatever they notice, but I know they spend so little time looking at each coin they aren't likely to notice most varieties unless requested. I do think it should work like ANACS where for a few $ more they figure out the variety, even if its a discovery coin, and shouldn't limit which varieties they attribute to some approved list. Its rather absurd to me that in 2024 we still don't have a database of varieties with photos and pops that all the grading companies and numismatists the world over can contribute to and reference.
The real question imho is what will the process look like in the near future, or how could they drastically increase the number of varieties they notice, adding value to their service and winning over customers. I predict that within 2 years they will be imaging every coin, and having computers analyze those images to find varieties errors etc and provide and "grade". The data from the image analysis informs how much time is spent grading/attributing by humans. I don't think they'll share the computer grade with us for a while until its been well tuned, if ever, but it could save them a lot of time and money if they can skip human grading on coins which aren't even worth the plastic they're holdered in or the postage to return them to the customer. It might take more advanced imaging to accomplish this, something like Stack's Coins In Motion, but my experimenting with coin photography shows that can be done very quickly.
Thanks for the update. A question is, do they actually have that policy posted anywhere internally, or is that 'policy' just the CS rep asking the operations team and the person saying 'this is how we do it'.
I agree they should have the policy posted somewhere, possibly in a FAQ. More clarity, less guessing.
Also agree that the inconsistency is frustrating.
Thank you @OwenSeymour
I’ve always wondered if this was the case.
If a grader notices that the coin is a specific variety, why not attribute it? There would be no obligation to find (and identify) every variety, but why not point it out when it's noticed?
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
One thing I've noticed in my primary series (CBH's) is that attributed halves (for example my 1808 O-108a) are listed at a often time listed at a fraction of the same coin without attribution.
I suspect this is the same case.
Not sure why if the date/type goes up, the attributed ones don't also rise.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Kinda weird to see a thread where someone's upset that the TPG got the variety right.
I get that you wanted the theoretically pricier non-variety designation but if the intent is to sell it, it all washes out the same anyway; any potential buyer who recognizes the variety will only pay based on the value for said variety and anyone finding that they bought an erroneously labeled piece will just mean potential hassle for both the seller and the TPG. Just saying.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
I suspect the price guide does not get updated as frequently for the varieties. I have seen this for other coins. With lower pops I would think the fair value of the variety would be at least as high as the non-variety, as you can still use it in the registry for sets without varieties.
It wasn't a matter of identifying the variety correctly, it was a matter of doing something they were not requested to do. FWIW and I don't know if I mentioned it, the coin was originally cracked out of a PCGS holder that was for the base coin number, not the variety.
Not necessarily. Even though I have sets where you need the variety and the non-variety, I'd be satisfied with a variety coin in a non-variety slab. I doubt I am unique in that way. I can try arguing that I should get a discount on a coin when buying one, but I doubt most dealers will offer a discount when you point it out to them. They'll wait for a buyer who doesn't see the variety.
I only agree if the submitter were to have the option to check “Do not attribute”; otherwise, I find tremendous value in the included attribution service.
I hate to reboot the thread but the ask here is just for more transparency. There was clearly a change in policy but this policy is not published anywhere. This is along the lines of other unpublished policies and information like not all label codes are published and PCGS will ship using your shipping account number even if you don't put it on the form despite the form clearly stating "IF USING ALT. SHIPPING OPTION YOU MUST PROVIDE YOUR OWN ACCOUNT # AND INSURANCE COVERAGE." It's frustrating as a customer to not know what to expect even when you do your best to read every webpage, form, and policy.
Interesting and curious. Would you give us at least three examples?
They cannot even get attribution requests correct, even when I supply them with the correct attribution. They change names and numbers to ESCAPE from doing attribution work. You must do all the work for them, including sending photo close-ups of key characters, photos of reed counts, etc. because the professional numismatists at PCSG don't do reed counts. They never contact the customer, instead, they blame the customer for their effing reckless mistakes, then tell you, "Have a nice day!"
I don't ever want them to volunteer any attribution because from my experience they will get it wrong. Unless you provide the die marriage for them, they will mess it up. Even when you do, they will mess it up! It's Mr. Magoo numismatics.
NO! You're assuming that they have the competence to make such changes correctly. I'm finding out that they simply don't have the staff to do such things properly. They don't know to recognize obvious Redbook varieties or Coin Facts varieties. They'd struggle with a blank planchet.
I realize I beat this to death, but I used to do this for a living with much smaller, more difficult objects than coins. Coins are relatively easy. PCGS's incompetence with coins and the huge mistakes they make is mind blowing.
If we're beating horses...Without getting into their issues with world coins which are much worse than issues with US coins, the variety team has been struggling of late.
In one recent instance, they spent weeks before acknowledging a variety with two variants, one a proof and the other a business strike that used the proof dies. It's not that they couldn't identify which my coin was but that couldn't acknowledge the business strike existed. I had to send them copies of the book they already use as a reference and make many phone calls to convince them.
I currently have an express order in that has been in QA for a week as they determine whether the coin I submitted is a large mint mark or a small mint mark, This is not rocket science.
@ProofCollection said:
» show previous quotes
Clearly you didn't read the whole thread. The submitter should get what they ask for. My opinion, if PCGS wants to attribute it, they should get the OK from the submitter. Some coins are worth more without the attribution.
Interesting and curious. Would you give us at least three examples?
@Barberian
This seriously made my laugh so hard,
“They'd struggle with a blank planchet.”
More PCGS numismatic struggles, this time with easy to separate rare die marriages.
This is an 1842 small date WB-3 DDR with easy to recognize Obverse die 1, with its right-positioned date that slants up to the right, the recut 4, and tine off the serif of the "1." Bill Bugert states that WB-3 (R6) is rarer than WB-4 (R5), which shares the same strongly doubled reverse die. The numismatic experts at PCGS determined that this was a WB-4, and I'm left wondering how they could possibly arrive at that determination. Did they even bother to look at the date?!
Of course, failing to recognize the rarer DM potentially hurts the seller, though, in this case, the seller wants $22.5K for the coin, which is more than 10 times what it's worth.
https://ebay.com/itm/364251463626
Haven't been checking bookmarks lately so I'm late to respond here.
The TPG was actually doing their job correctly in this instance, fixing a mistake that would reflect poorly on them down the road once noticed. Maybe not OP, maybe not a few others, but someone at some point would be ticked off about buying a mislabeled item. And given all the various threads on these boards over the years bemoaning improperly labeled and misrepresented items, you'd think more here would be unhappy with someone purposely wanting something misrepresented on a label so that they could (theoretically at least) profit from said misrepresentation- and even if said seller would be personally OK with it in their collection, I can feel safe stating with little fear of refutation that the vast majority of collectors would not. Especially if they paid up for the pricier (non)variety.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012