You do not have to do a 90% Confidence Level, statistical survey on ACG, all you have to do is try and sell your ACG coins. Many dealers will not even look at them. I have 2 ACG Kennedy proof coins that I bought several years ago in a weak moment. I tried twice to sell them on EBay and could not get bids of 30% of what NGC/PCGS coins would have drawn. Funny thing is: they are actually well graded, certainly with in a grade of the slabs.
I have never seen a Peace Dollar that I did not like!!
The point that ACG does not explicitly state they are using ANA standards while printing the 70-point scale and jargon on their slabs, is simply an example of what I'm talking about. It's like you're an agent saying you have a third baseman who bats .370, but then saying to the owner after he signs the guy, that your "standard" for specifying batting averages is "different."
If ACG uses a different "standard," then why are they using a number and a jargon whose meaning is so widely connoted as referring to ANA standards, if not to DECIEVE?
To carry the anology further, you can always say the stupid owner did not observe the old saw, "buy the ballplayer, not the average." That obviously is true. But if this is a newbie owner with alot to learn about the sleeze of the baseball world, might he not be forgiven for "learning the hard way" by being attracted by such an "average"? And might not the ballplayer and his agent be suspect, for taking advantage of an atmosphere set by more reputable folks, to deceive such a newbie?
If Accugrade really doesn't want their PR70DCAM coins to be considered to reflect the same standard as the leading grading services, then why don't they abandon the 70-point scale, and just put something like "REALLY COOL COIN" or "L@@K" on their slab?? And doesn't their name, "Accugrade," denote some message to the customer like "accurate GRADING?"
And another thing. We're not just talking about MS65 vs MS64 here. We're talking about doctored, whizzed, heavily hair-lined, artificially colored coins making it into slabs. The act and status of slabbing, again, communicates to consumers that an expert has examined and has honestly endeavored to authenticate the coin, in the consumer's behalf. By buying the slab, the consumer is buying an honest application of that expertise, as the consumer's representative. If this is not Accugrade's intent, then what is the point of slabbing the coin, if not to deceive??
TOTALLY disagree here. you can't make me believe that ford, GM, GE, IBM, EXXON, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BOEING, MICROSOFT, etc etc etc base their commerce on OPINIONS. absolutely no way, scientific study IS what makes them successful. if the PNG wants to do something useful, an unbiased, scientific study is the only way to make a convincing argument
Come again? Are you telling me that these and other companies care nothing about opinions? The world of commerce is nothing BUT opinion. Advertising is not "scientific data." It is entirely calculated to shape perceptions and consumer OPINIONS.
Technically and legalistically, you can claim that the surveyees in the Coin World article were drone-like labdogs of PCGS, so besotted by their subservience to the major services that they would lie about little ACG on the basis of no professional judgment or experience whatever, even though their opinions were confidential. You might even say that the "informal survey" started on this Board is slanted by the fact that the people here are so appreciative of PCGS for sponsoring this Forum, that the vast majority anonymously vote against ACG in order to kiss up.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE such preposterous notions, even if technically the surveys were not designed to account for it? Do you really believe that the people here, who's comments you have been reading over time, have no basis in their direct experience, to hold the opinions they do on ACG??
And anyway, companies and products rise and fall on perception. You can have the greatest product in the world, but if you don't sell it, or the opinions of people discount it, your out of business. If you have a scientifically implausible product (the Pet Rock) and you market it right, you're rich.
But if a cabal of deception and disreputable dealers take advantage of the public naivete by inferring in promotions that a product is what it is not, then that's fraudulent, unethical, and I think worthy of investigative reporting by a news organ such as Coin World.
I return to my point: if Accugrade really felt they were being unfairly judged, than they would do like any company: THEY would do the study, THEY would publish the facts, THEY would make sure that the facts were objective, scientifically arrived-at and exhaustively verified beyond all suspicion. THEY would make sure the facts were known by the leading experts in the field.
Their failure to do so, and their turning only to bald denials, does a great deal to reinforce all these "opinions."
David, Very articulate and spot on. I had a collector show me an ACG graded PR67Cameo Buffalo. He exclaimed that PCGS had only designated 2 as cameo, and both of those sold for over $10K. He got a steal on the coin at $5,000 - half price. What he got was a PR63-64 Buffalo with virtually no cameo contrast. Probably not worth even $1,000. It is this type of deep screwing that ACG is responsible for because an innocent (though incredibly naive) investor just lost over 80% of their investment. Should this person be buying coins of this caliber? Say what you want about grading ability, but ACG's representation as a credible grading firm based on ANA standards drastically exacerbates this thievery.
Tom
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981 Current focus 1855 date type set
<< <i>...all you have to do is try and sell your ACG coins. Many dealers will not even look at them ... I tried twice to sell them on EBay and could not get bids of 30% of what NGC/PCGS coins would >>
whether they'd admit it or not, if feel pretty darned comformtable that some one out there has tried & failed to sell ngc/pcgs coins on ebay too!
<< <i>The point that ACG does not explicitly state they are using ANA standards while printing the 70-point scale and jargon on their slabs >>
the way to attack this issue is w/ statistics comparing sales of coins in differnt slabs at the same grades from the same pop. of dealers. then you would have facts that the public (ie. newbies) could accept & understand! but asking for & then publishing biased opinions weakly disguised as a "survey" ain't gonna do it.
<< <i>If ACG uses a different "standard," then why are they using a number and a jargon whose meaning is so widely connoted as referring to ANA standards, if not to DECIEVE? >>
because ALL GRADES are an opinion! acg is absolutely 100% entitled to offer an opinion as much as you, me and anacs are. i think a better approach to introduce newbies to the hobby is to explain in excruciating detail that GRADES are not FACTS, they are OPINIONS.
<< <i>If Accugrade really doesn't want their PR70DCAM coins to be considered to reflect the same standard as the leading grading services, then why don't they abandon the 70-point scale, and just put something like "REALLY COOL COIN" on their slab?? >>
again, grades represent opinions, not facts.
<< <i>doctored, whizzed, heavily hair-lined, artificially colored coins making it into slabs ... slabbing, again, communicates to consumers that an expert has examined and has honestly endeavored to authenticate the coin, in the consumer's behalf. >>
another area where statistics would be a wonderful way to support your argument, & would be acceptable & convincing to newbies. examine a population of each slabing company, then publish statistics showing what % of their slabed coins had the various prob's you mentioned.
<< <i>TOTALLY disagree here. you can't make me believe that ford, GM, GE, IBM, EXXON, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BOEING, MICROSOFT, etc etc etc base their commerce on OPINIONS. absolutely no way, scientific study IS what makes them successful. if the PNG wants to do something useful, an unbiased, scientific study is the only way to make a convincing argument
Come again? Are you telling me that these and other companies care nothing about opinions? The world of commerce is nothing BUT opinion. Advertising is not "scientific data." It is entirely calculated to shape perceptions and consumer OPINIONS. >>
those OPINIONS are carefully, scientifically and statistically SURVEYED, though, which is the reason they have blind taste tests, consumer test programs, etc, etc. believe you me, & i work for a large manufacturing company, there isn't some guy sitting in a room upstairs & deciding what their marketing strategy is based on his opinion!
<< <i>Technically and legalistically, you can claim that the surveyees in the Coin World article were drone-like labdogs of PCGS >>
not so. i claim that the populations "surveyed" has virtually no experience w/ selling acg coins, & therefore is not qualified to comment on their product.
<< <i>Do you really believe that the people here, who's comments you have been reading over time, have no basis in their direct experience, to hold the opinions they do on ACG?? >>
the people on the forum are NOT the point here - the point is allegedly to protect newbies, who couldn't give a lick about this forum, nor do the humongous, vast majority of collectors. this forum is an extremely small population, and i sure as heck would not want my numismatic future decided by this population, nor by the even smaller population of the png. again, the population AT LARGE is what counts, & again i say that real value for newbies would come from a fair & unbiased survey.
<< <i>I return to my point: if Accugrade really felt they were being unfairly judged, than they would do like any company: THEY would do the study, THEY would publish the facts, THEY would make sure that the facts were objective, scientifically arrived-at and exhaustively verified beyond all suspicion. THEY would make sure the facts were known by the leading experts in the field. >>
perhaps they have! has anyone asked them?
folks, again & again, i say that i am neither defending nor supporting acg, or pcgs for that matter. but if you truly have the interests of newbies at hear, give them facts supported by unbiased statistics, & the rest will take care of itself.
<< <i>believe you me, & i work for a large manufacturing company, there isn't some guy sitting in a room upstairs & deciding what their marketing strategy is based on his opinion! >>
Unfortunately, this is the only type of marketing strategy I've seen since I graduated college. Despite my constant pleas for more objective data from people NOT connected with the company....
I think in the discussion here we are splitting hairs a bit. I do believe we can accurately say that the majority of people on this board do not believe that ACG is a satisfactory grading company. And we can say about the survey that (regardless of motivation) the respondents did not consider ACG to be satisfactory. The surveys do not say more than that.
However, moving out of the realm of the objective into the subjective, it would be in ACG's best interest to understand their market and the negative opinion held by many and either address the issue or respond to the issue. To ignore the negative or fight against it does not accomplish anything. The same, incidentally, can be said of any company. As the old marketing axiom goes, a person with a happy experience tells 3-4 people. The person with an unhappy experience tells 10-20 people.
It is NOT in Accugrade's best interest to address the opinions of their detractors. Accugrade could not survive against the competition without their niche. Their niche consists of feeding sleazy scum sucking lowlifes the raw materials necessary to rip off the uninformed. What the heck do they care about the opinion of those too knowledgable to buy their crappy coins?
Comments
The point that ACG does not explicitly state they are using ANA standards while printing the 70-point scale and jargon on their slabs, is simply an example of what I'm talking about. It's like you're an agent saying you have a third baseman who bats .370, but then saying to the owner after he signs the guy, that your "standard" for specifying batting averages is "different."
If ACG uses a different "standard," then why are they using a number and a jargon whose meaning is so widely connoted as referring to ANA standards, if not to DECIEVE?
To carry the anology further, you can always say the stupid owner did not observe the old saw, "buy the ballplayer, not the average." That obviously is true. But if this is a newbie owner with alot to learn about the sleeze of the baseball world, might he not be forgiven for "learning the hard way" by being attracted by such an "average"? And might not the ballplayer and his agent be suspect, for taking advantage of an atmosphere set by more reputable folks, to deceive such a newbie?
If Accugrade really doesn't want their PR70DCAM coins to be considered to reflect the same standard as the leading grading services, then why don't they abandon the 70-point scale, and just put something like "REALLY COOL COIN" or "L@@K" on their slab?? And doesn't their name, "Accugrade," denote some message to the customer like "accurate GRADING?"
And another thing. We're not just talking about MS65 vs MS64 here. We're talking about doctored, whizzed, heavily hair-lined, artificially colored coins making it into slabs. The act and status of slabbing, again, communicates to consumers that an expert has examined and has honestly endeavored to authenticate the coin, in the consumer's behalf. By buying the slab, the consumer is buying an honest application of that expertise, as the consumer's representative. If this is not Accugrade's intent, then what is the point of slabbing the coin, if not to deceive??
TOTALLY disagree here. you can't make me believe that ford, GM, GE, IBM, EXXON, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BOEING, MICROSOFT, etc etc etc base their commerce on OPINIONS. absolutely no way, scientific study IS what makes them successful. if the PNG wants to do something useful, an unbiased, scientific study is the only way to make a convincing argument
Come again? Are you telling me that these and other companies care nothing about opinions? The world of commerce is nothing BUT opinion. Advertising is not "scientific data." It is entirely calculated to shape perceptions and consumer OPINIONS.
Technically and legalistically, you can claim that the surveyees in the Coin World article were drone-like labdogs of PCGS, so besotted by their subservience to the major services that they would lie about little ACG on the basis of no professional judgment or experience whatever, even though their opinions were confidential. You might even say that the "informal survey" started on this Board is slanted by the fact that the people here are so appreciative of PCGS for sponsoring this Forum, that the vast majority anonymously vote against ACG in order to kiss up.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE such preposterous notions, even if technically the surveys were not designed to account for it? Do you really believe that the people here, who's comments you have been reading over time, have no basis in their direct experience, to hold the opinions they do on ACG??
And anyway, companies and products rise and fall on perception. You can have the greatest product in the world, but if you don't sell it, or the opinions of people discount it, your out of business. If you have a scientifically implausible product (the Pet Rock) and you market it right, you're rich.
But if a cabal of deception and disreputable dealers take advantage of the public naivete by inferring in promotions that a product is what it is not, then that's fraudulent, unethical, and I think worthy of investigative reporting by a news organ such as Coin World.
I return to my point: if Accugrade really felt they were being unfairly judged, than they would do like any company: THEY would do the study, THEY would publish the facts, THEY would make sure that the facts were objective, scientifically arrived-at and exhaustively verified beyond all suspicion. THEY would make sure the facts were known by the leading experts in the field.
Their failure to do so, and their turning only to bald denials, does a great deal to reinforce all these "opinions."
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Very articulate and spot on. I had a collector show me an ACG graded PR67Cameo Buffalo. He exclaimed that PCGS had only designated 2 as cameo, and both of those sold for over $10K. He got a steal on the coin at $5,000 - half price. What he got was a PR63-64 Buffalo with virtually no cameo contrast. Probably not worth even $1,000. It is this type of deep screwing that ACG is responsible for because an innocent (though incredibly naive) investor just lost over 80% of their investment. Should this person be buying coins of this caliber? Say what you want about grading ability, but ACG's representation as a credible grading firm based on ANA standards drastically exacerbates this thievery.
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set
<< <i>...all you have to do is try and sell your ACG coins. Many dealers will not even look at them ... I tried twice to sell them on EBay and could not get bids of 30% of what NGC/PCGS coins would >>
whether they'd admit it or not, if feel pretty darned comformtable that some one out there has tried & failed to sell ngc/pcgs coins on ebay too!
<< <i>The point that ACG does not explicitly state they are using ANA standards while printing the 70-point scale and jargon on their slabs >>
the way to attack this issue is w/ statistics comparing sales of coins in differnt slabs at the same grades from the same pop. of dealers. then you would have facts that the public (ie. newbies) could accept & understand! but asking for & then publishing biased opinions weakly disguised as a "survey" ain't gonna do it.
<< <i>If ACG uses a different "standard," then why are they using a number and a jargon whose meaning is so widely connoted as referring to ANA standards, if not to DECIEVE? >>
because ALL GRADES are an opinion! acg is absolutely 100% entitled to offer an opinion as much as you, me and anacs are. i think a better approach to introduce newbies to the hobby is to explain in excruciating detail that GRADES are not FACTS, they are OPINIONS.
<< <i>If Accugrade really doesn't want their PR70DCAM coins to be considered to reflect the same standard as the leading grading services, then why don't they abandon the 70-point scale, and just put something like "REALLY COOL COIN" on their slab?? >>
again, grades represent opinions, not facts.
<< <i>doctored, whizzed, heavily hair-lined, artificially colored coins making it into slabs ... slabbing, again, communicates to consumers that an expert has examined and has honestly endeavored to authenticate the coin, in the consumer's behalf. >>
another area where statistics would be a wonderful way to support your argument, & would be acceptable & convincing to newbies. examine a population of each slabing company, then publish statistics showing what % of their slabed coins had the various prob's you mentioned.
<< <i>TOTALLY disagree here. you can't make me believe that ford, GM, GE, IBM, EXXON, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BOEING, MICROSOFT, etc etc etc base their commerce on OPINIONS. absolutely no way, scientific study IS what makes them successful. if the PNG wants to do something useful, an unbiased, scientific study is the only way to make a convincing argument
Come again? Are you telling me that these and other companies care nothing about opinions? The world of commerce is nothing BUT opinion. Advertising is not "scientific data." It is entirely calculated to shape perceptions and consumer OPINIONS. >>
those OPINIONS are carefully, scientifically and statistically SURVEYED, though, which is the reason they have blind taste tests, consumer test programs, etc, etc. believe you me, & i work for a large manufacturing company, there isn't some guy sitting in a room upstairs & deciding what their marketing strategy is based on his opinion!
<< <i>Technically and legalistically, you can claim that the surveyees in the Coin World article were drone-like labdogs of PCGS >>
not so. i claim that the populations "surveyed" has virtually no experience w/ selling acg coins, & therefore is not qualified to comment on their product.
<< <i>Do you really believe that the people here, who's comments you have been reading over time, have no basis in their direct experience, to hold the opinions they do on ACG?? >>
the people on the forum are NOT the point here - the point is allegedly to protect newbies, who couldn't give a lick about this forum, nor do the humongous, vast majority of collectors. this forum is an extremely small population, and i sure as heck would not want my numismatic future decided by this population, nor by the even smaller population of the png. again, the population AT LARGE is what counts, & again i say that real value for newbies would come from a fair & unbiased survey.
<< <i>I return to my point: if Accugrade really felt they were being unfairly judged, than they would do like any company: THEY would do the study, THEY would publish the facts, THEY would make sure that the facts were objective, scientifically arrived-at and exhaustively verified beyond all suspicion. THEY would make sure the facts were known by the leading experts in the field. >>
perhaps they have! has anyone asked them?
folks, again & again, i say that i am neither defending nor supporting acg, or pcgs for that matter. but if you truly have the interests of newbies at hear, give them facts supported by unbiased statistics, & the rest will take care of itself.
K S
<< <i>believe you me, & i work for a large manufacturing company, there isn't some guy sitting in a room upstairs & deciding what their marketing strategy is based on his opinion! >>
Unfortunately, this is the only type of marketing strategy I've seen since I graduated college. Despite my constant pleas for more objective data from people NOT connected with the company....
I think in the discussion here we are splitting hairs a bit. I do believe we can accurately say that the majority of people on this board do not believe that ACG is a satisfactory grading company. And we can say about the survey that (regardless of motivation) the respondents did not consider ACG to be satisfactory. The surveys do not say more than that.
However, moving out of the realm of the objective into the subjective, it would be in ACG's best interest to understand their market and the negative opinion held by many and either address the issue or respond to the issue. To ignore the negative or fight against it does not accomplish anything. The same, incidentally, can be said of any company. As the old marketing axiom goes, a person with a happy experience tells 3-4 people. The person with an unhappy experience tells 10-20 people.
But that's just my unscientific opinion.