What internal as well as external forces are at work to cause a good Service to go Bad?

braddick

I think we can agree that when ICG first opened its doors to grading, the Coin Community accepted them. What a terrific idea- sending coins to a third party where there would be no bias as to who owned the coins.
The grading seemed competent and the people running the organization well-equiped to be doing so.
ICG was respected although, of course, and as to be expected, collectors and Dealers were a bit leary.
Now there has been enough time passed to conclude that ICG, for the most part (I know they have their defenders) is NOT a first teir Grading Service.
Why? What caused ICG (and, to a lesser extent, SEGS and PCI) to change their Mission Plans and become what they now are and what they are now preceived to be?
Is it simply a numbers game and it is more profitable to be loose and lazy with the grades?
Why not keep it tight and fair and become known as a top Grading Service? Is there no money in honesty?
I know the Graders know how to grade.
What is the reason?

keets

am i missing something here? i've always been under the impression that most/all of the grading services have a receiver for coins sent to them. while we send coins to PCGS, it's a post office box for their receiver, or so i thought. by some of the things i've read in the last few days i get the impression that submissions head right to the grader. of course i could have it all wrong.

al h.

presleyh

I was a nuclear QA manager in a steel mill for about 7 years. I think the same problems I had then would apply to a grading service.
First of all nobody is happy with your decisions all the time. Second if you stick by your decisions because you believe you are right, everybody will disagree will you sooner or later. Third if you sway in your opinion so that you please someone, they will always expect you to sway towards them in the future. Forth the people that pay you EXPECT you to sway in their direction. Once you compromise your position, you begin a long downhill sleigh ride to total disrespect. Nobody will trust your ability when that happens.

Russ

Keets,

The difference is that the "receiver" at PCGS is an employee of PCGS.

Braddick,

I think you answered your own question while asking it. In order to make any inroads against the more established services, ICG needed submissions. What better way to encourage that than with looser grading standards?

Russ, NCNE

keets

DOH!!!!!!

al h.

robertpr

The problem is that the people that run the companies think if they are a little looser they will get more business...and they're RIGHT...but in the SHORT TERM. If you sacrifice the business from bulk scumbag dealers who just want the extra grade point by being honest and strict, you will gain the business of the long term collector community. Which would you rather have, a flash in the pan or long term sustainability? Many grading companies can't see out more than a few months and that's their downfall.

dan1ecu

The only comment I’ll add is that it is possible that different services sincerely interpret ANA grading standards differently. The ICG people might look at PCGS as being tight to a fault, while PCGS might look at ICG as being lenient to a fault. One grader’s “hairline” might be another grader’s “contact mark.” This difference in interpretation might account for the apparent difference in standards, as it might result in different grades being assigned. I think ICG could have become a top tier service had they been more concerned with how they were being perceived. Maybe the right thing for them to do would have been to tighten their standards. It may be too late now, though.

Dan

braddick

Right Russ, but that's a short term fix, at best. It would be like if Burger King decided to use soy instead of meat in their Whoppers and pass the savings on to us. Cheap burgers, but we're going to catch on pretty quick and head back to McDonalds.

Why isn't/wasn't ICG thinking long term?
Just keep producing a great product and the market will find you and buy. Produce (grade) garbage and the word is out.

I really can't imagine ICG is still getting tons of submissions anymore, whereas if they had remained consistent with high(er) Standards they'de be a foe PCGS and NGC would need to take seriously.

Fairlaneman

Pat:

When they first opened I sent a submission of 7 Mercs in to them all MS IMO. Well thier grading standard at the time was so tight that only 3 coins came back in MS holders. Right then and there I decided to never use them again. Maybe some of the early tightness affected others in this way. For them to stay afloat they need submissions and maybe over a period of time thier standards have just plain eroded to where people consider them a 2nd tier grading enitity. My thoughts on the subject.

Ken

FC57Coins

It really boils down to plain economics. Provide the best service you can at a reasonable price. I can guarantee you that if ICG, or any other service that comes down the pike delivers consistent and accurate grading at a reasonable price, they will have the business necessary to succeed. But what happens instead, new services, for some reason, try to lure collectors with the promise of the above, and instead it turns into a machine churning slabs. Look at NTC - what's been their downfall as far as this board is concerned? Crappy grading. Look, if you're going to go into this business you have to provide what your customer is craving. I want a coin that is graded in such a way that dealers will be hard pressed to give me any crap about the grade, and I want it done in such a way as to be able to afford it. That seems to be the formula that PCGS, NGC, and ANACS seem to be sticking to with varying degrees of success. As for the second and third teir services, they will survive as long as some collectors and dealers feel that there's a market out there for this kind of service. But in the long run, I think that these services will eventually go by the wayside.

Frank

IrishMike

This is totally speculation on my part. In a crowded and established industry, a new company has to carve out a niche to survive. They tried to be all things to everyone in the beginning, I am speculating that to increase submissions they lowered the standard on Moderns, which continue to be the most often submitted coins. I think they tried to first show the major grading companies that they were going to adhere to stricter grading standards and it backfired. With most of the submissions being modern, this cut off submissions, then they swung way to far the other way. They gave the submitters what they wanted, high grades. The market realized this and they lost credibility. Lastly that goofy hat, ugh.