I guess some questions just aren't suitable for the new Q&A forum?

Russ

I see that the new batch is done in the Q&A Forum. Strangely, the question I asked seems to be missing. Under the heading, "A very specific question about PR70DCAMs in the Kennedy series", I posted the following query:

In the years 1999-2001, one coin in this series was granted the PR70DCAM grade. In the years 1996-1998, 118 coins were granted the PR70DCAM grade.

What changed?

I'm sure it must just be some kind of system glitch that this question got lost.

Russ, NCNE

LanLord

Perhaps, or maybe there is a Russ specific filter in the database engine?

airplanenut

Russ,

Some questions were sent in after the cut, and thus don't appear... that happened and I had to resubmit them when they were open again for questioning.

Jeremy

dbldie55

Don't ask questions that cannot be answered (and still save face). They answered my question, didn't tell me much but at least he must have read it.

tradedollarnut

I also got dissed. I asked a followup question regarding strike and grading on trade dollars. I wanted him to be more specific about why I've seen PF66 and PF67 trade dollars with completely flat stars but they draw the line on MS64 for the notoriously poorly struck 1877 circulation strike.

It seems rather inconsistent to me to allow a weak strike on a PF67 but require a good strike on an MS65 and I wanted further explanation.

Russ

Jeremy,

This is the new batch of questions that he just answered yesterday. I submitted mine within minutes of Carol announcing it.

Russ, NCNE

keets

hey lanlord----------ROTFLMAO!!!!!!


i thought the first round went rather well, and although i only read a few of the questions it seems PCGS is at least aware of a PR problem and are sensibly taking some steps to correct it. i guess i should go in and read/print the questions----how long will they keep them posted and will they archive?? as interested members i feel we should try not to overdose RM and hopefully in time they can staff that forum with a regular monitor much like our beloved and all powerful carol!!! i don't really think that rick is the only one who can provide the answers we want. heck, many members already know a lot of the answers.

all in all i think the new forum is a good thing and i hope it evolves into a useful tool for us all.

and russ, back to your 99-01 PR70DCAM question, do you have that coin?

al h.

airplanenut

<< <i>Jeremy, This is the new batch of questions that he just answered yesterday. I submitted mine within minutes of Carol announcing it. Russ, NCNE >>


Oh... hmmmmmm... ?

DanC

Don't you just hate it when a really compelling question drops down through the threads like some forgotten stepchild?

Placid

<< <i>I also got dissed. I asked a followup question regarding strike and grading on trade dollars. I wanted him to be more specific about why I've seen PF66 and PF67 trade dollars with completely flat stars but they draw the line on MS64 for the notoriously poorly struck 1877 circulation strike.

It seems rather inconsistent to me to allow a weak strike on a PF67 but require a good strike on an MS65 and I wanted further explanation. >>



You mean this question?

dbldie55

That's okay, I was told that even if PCGS screws up, you lose and they will not take care of it. (makes sense as that is exactly what they did)

Russ

My question still seems to be floating around in the dryer void with the lost socks.

Russ, NCNE

tradedollarnut

Yes, Rick answered my question after I posted here.....tho I don't like the answer. Why would a circulation strike be held to a higher standard for strike than a proof?

Placid

From the answer that was given because they are not as rare(more minted).

tradedollarnut

A fully struck 1877 MS trade dollar is more rare than an 1880 proof. The mint had a seemingly deliberate policy of spacing the dies further apart that year.

If a coin is common fully struck, then strike should definitely limit the grade. It seems interesting that a coin that is rare fully struck is penalized more than a coin that by definition should be fully struck.

coinguy1

tradedollarnut - I'm with you on this one. And, in general, I believe that proof coins should be held to higher standards than business strikes. After all, they are supposedly specially made with extra care, etc. and struck in limited quantities.

Placid

I understand what the reasoning is. The most number of proofs stuck for any year was 1,097. All the years proofs combined for the series is still far less than the lowest number of business strikes for even the lowest year of 124,500.

You can disagree but unless you can change the graders at pcgs opinion then it dosen't really matter.

tradedollarnut

Yes, and those 1097 proofs were each struck twice - one at a time - with great care taken to have a finished product to sell to the public. The mint state coins were mass produced to be shipped to China and melted. Which should be held to the higher standard in strike when grading?

I understand his words, but the logic leaves a lot to be desired.

robertpr

Russ,

My understanding is that in 1999 PCGS instituted a new policy on pr70 and ms70 candidate coins, they must now undergo an additional inspection under higher magnification than normally used to search for flaws, I believe it's 20x or something like that.

-Robert

Nic

I gave up after the political/ predictable answers of the first round. Got to give him credit for responding at all, however. K

Russ

Robert,

If that's the case, then their continual assertions that grading standards have not changed would appear to be somewhat less then accurate. It also would beg the question: Are the earlier coins that were graded 70, really 70's?

Russ, NCNE

robertpr

Russ,

Yes, the grading standards have changed at PCGS for PR and MS70 coins. I got the info from Rick Tomaska, I believe. The old MS and PR70's are not really 70's and probably would not re-grade as 70's on a resubmission, but their policy is to not cross or regrade anything 70 without cracking it first, as you know.

DanC

Well... having now personally inspected some PCGS "70's", I can definitely say that I have FAR nicer PR69's in my set than every single one of the "70's" that I saw.

Now, just what that "means" is I suppose, open to interpretation.

robertpr

I think, to be fair to PCGS, the reason for the additional inspection is not to hold back the pops but to cover their butts by being certain they didn't miss anything. Usually things visible at 20x and even 30x are visible to the naked eye if you look really closely. I wouldn't want to call a coin perfect if it wasn't, either *NGC*.

DanC

Robert,

I don't really think anyone is suggesting that PCGS is purposely holding back the pops - I think (unless I missed the point) that he is simply asking if the grading standards have changed, and not once, but twice the question has been ignored. It's a pretty legitimate question, I thought.

All the evidence indicates they have changed the standards, but no one will admit it. It would seem that just being straightforward about it would add credibility. The "wall of silence" does nothing but create doubt.

I don't think there's a collector out there that would condone an over-graded coin, but to shift to an impossible standard is not the answer either. You could take it to extremes and say that any coin not "perfect" under a scanning electron microscope could not meet the "70" designation - and presto!, there'd never be another "70" coin. But that would not change the fact that in earlier years - the "standard" was different, because there's coins bearing that grade that aren't, and never were 70's.

The "70's" out there either need to be recalled, and re-graded - or the "real" standard clearly delineated and published, since nothing on the face of this earth meets the standard of "perfect" if you increase the magnification enough. Now I realize I'm a noob still - but everything I've seen suggests that the grade "70" was intended to be used, or it would not have been defined.

It's "71" that'd be impossible.

So - to the point... PCGS is a great company, with great people and a great product and a price guide that is useless. If you add to that a standard that is unattainable, it's PCGS hurting itself in the long run. Just being up front about it would silence alot of criticism, IMHO.

robertpr

Dan,

I agree with your points. I just don't think PCGS is holding the standard high for anything but the right reasons. There could be arguments either way, but I think if you say a coin is *perfect*, it certainly should be at least close. Again, I don't think they are trying to make 70's unattainable nor are they shooting for electron microscope accuracy. I think they are just trying to hold themselves more accountable by doing a "double check" so to speak.

Nonetheless, I think most 69's are good enough for me and they look great.

-Robert

Russ

<< <i>There could be arguments either way, but I think if you say a coin is *perfect*, it certainly should be at least close. >>



Robert,

It would not be possible to argue against your assertion, since you are absolutely right. But, the issue becomes: What about all of those people who have paid HUGE premiums for coins that were graded 70 before the standards change? I've seen some of these coins and, frankly, the buyer's got screwed.



<< <i>Nonetheless, I think most 69's are good enough for me and they look great. >>



Big ditto.

Russ, NCNE