POLL - Allow NGC Coins with a Caveat

BJ

Let's just pretend that PCGS had a new service and you could send your NGC coins in for "sticker service." PCGS would assign a certification number and grade to the NGC coin. The NGC certification number would be cross referenced to the new PCGS certification in the database. Of course, if the coin came out the same grade, you could opt to cross the coin if you wanted to. You would then be able to register your stickered NGC coin in the PCGS Set Registry at the grade PCGS assigned.

TomB

It's much better than the system that is currently in place.

Russ

I think it's the perfect solution. It eliminates the "dillution" argument (mostly a modern problem) at the same time allowing some very nice classic coins to participate.

Russ, NCNE

kieferscoins

I think it should not be allowed.

PCGS coins only - OK.
NGC coins and PCGS - OK.
PCGS coins and NGC coins that have to be sent in (and paid for a grading I presume) for a sticker - Crazy.

Either slab the coin in a PCGS holder, allow NGC coins in the registry or don't allow them period.

Cameron Kiefer

braddick

Scary! That best be one heck of a decal that can't be peeled off, no matter what.
I like your style of thinking though.

It's "outside the box".

Next? Thinking 'outside the slab'.

Lets just get those NGC coins into the Registry as is.

tradedollarnut

Braddick: It wouldn't matter if the sticker is removable or not - the Registry number is assigned to the NGC label inside the slab. I would imagine that the sticker might even have the NGC number printed right on it, but in any event removing the sticker and switching it to another coin would accomplish nothing - it would be just like entering a cert number when you don't own the coin. Easily accomplished but accomplishes nothing!

Cameron: Why? Please explain your logic. I'll explain why I voted yes: Because I want to create the truly finest set of something and that means that occasionally I'll have to purchase an NGC coin at full price for the grade. The coin usually won't cross (you know, the old argument that if it could cross it already would have) but is perceptively finer than anything I've seen in a PCGS holder. To have the truly finest set, I need to have this coin. Let's say the coin cost $75,000 (true example) but the same coin in the lower PCGS grade is only worth $45,000 (true example). Do you honestly think I'd downgrade the coin and take a $30,000 loss? I could own a duplicate PCGS coin and lose $5,000 a year in interest, or I could participate across the street. Which would you do? Most people would participate across the street. The simple solution of paying for a crossover and getting a registry grade solves this problem. Allowing NGC coins straight up will never happen - you know it and I know it. Giving a "Registry Grade" is not only the next best solution, it is the FINEST solution!

gmarguli

No.

Why? Because we can't trust PCGS to grade the NGC coins fairly.

We've already seen the dark hand of PCGS push the crossover rates to around 20% for political reasons.

We've already seen David Hall admit on these very forums that only the top 50% of coins should be crossed regardless of the condition of those other 50% of the coins.

Now we should send money to PCGS so they can look at our coins thru a biased eye and give us a sticker so I can enter my coin into your hype and marketing machine?

Ummm, no. No thanks. If I want to register my coins, then I'll go over to NGC where they aren't so elitist and allow both PCGS and NGC coins.

Fair is fair, but all I can imagine here is paying to get screwed AGAIN. I can see it now. Send in an NGC coin that is graded MS68 and PCGS - for political reasons - grades it MS66 even though it should have crossed. I'm sure PCGS would love to have a bunch of coins listed in their registry that says PCGS MS66 (NGC MS68) or PCGS PR63CAM (NGC PR67UCAM).

Basically, this will turn into a way for PCGS to show how much tougher (yet ever so inconsistent) they are than the competition. No thanks. I've got better ways to spend my money that promote your company.

Of course, that's just my opinion....

tradedollarnut

Greg: there's a grain of truth in that, but the good done by the change outweighs your concern.

ONE MORE REASON TO VOTE YES:

"Registry Grades" already exist on the Set Registry. The estimated sets of the all time greats aren't in PCGS holders. They are estimated off of the grader's notes from the auction catalogs. Maybe each of you don't have an estimated set that you are in competition with, but I do. Eliasberg's proof trade dollars are listed as the all time finest. They aren't. I own his very 1884 and 1885, but they are in NGC holders. The balance of my set is nicer, but I can't list the 84 and 85. They count for Eliasberg, but they don't count for me. That's the rules of the game, and I'm fine with that, but making this adjustment will make the rules of the game that much fairer. Level the playing field for everybody and make the Set Registry more inclusive - vote Yes!

DeepCoin

One small recommendation to avoid biasing the poll, put the default vote to No Opinion. You may bias the outcome by putting in a default answer of yes. I have a background in academic research (just a qualifier for MHO on this)

I think there is the potential for the flaws that Greg points out. I am not saying it would happen, but it is a possibility.

For my series (Mercs), just take one point off NGC and let them in. I know that is a rash opinion, but it is just that...my opinion.

Good luck and I like the idea of looking into possibilities for a better registry. I am a big registry fan, even if I only have one set.

geb209

I'm with Cameron on this one. Just another way for PCGS to increase its fee revenue. Why not simply post the coins on the NGC registery for free?

Tradedollarnut, you collect the holder and not the coin. You would have the finest set, regardless of the fact that PCGS wouldn't cross the coin.

raycyca

NO!!! If I wanted to put together an NGC set, I'd be going on the NGC registry. Right now I'm only using the PCGS registry but collecting NGC coins(better value and grading IMHO). PCGS is just marketing new ways to gain money and help themselves. There must be a reason why some of the highest ranking members are leaving. No modern coins deserve a 70? What's wrong with this picture? Just my 50 cents! Ray

Typetone

BJ:

I really like the idea. It has no down side. Nobody has to play who doesn't want to. It basically allows a coin to be graded by both services. It is even possible that a coin could grade higher at PCGS and have a higher sticker. I could see NGC doing the same. It would be like two opinions on a coin. If you did it, I would however recommend having the NGC grade covered to make sure it is two separate opinions. This is a good idea!!

Greg

Fairlaneman

I have a Very Definite Opinion on this that will not be stated at all. No need to start another War around here.

Its Your Registry PCGS do as you choose and either people will accept your decisions or they will leave. The Ball is in your hands.

Ken

kieferscoins

<< <i>Cameron: Why? Please explain your logic. >>



If PCGS won't slab it (hypothetical coin) a MS-65 what makes it better in a NGC holder (MS-65) with a PCGS grade label on it of a MS-64? If you don't recognize PCGS giving it a lower grade, then a sticker in a lower grade for a registry set seems like the same thing to me.

Cameron Kiefer

Russ

<< <i>Why not simply post the coins on the NGC registery for free? >>



Because a) In many series PCGS grades more strictly than NGC. In my series, Proof Kennedies, I don't want to compete with a bunch of NGC PR70UCAM sets that I KNOW are not as good as my PCGS PR69DCAMs.

and, b) It is NEVER going to happen. BJ has posted a "possible" solution that has a realistic chance of actually coming in to being.

Russ, NCNE

Dog97

Me pay PCGS $$$ just to put my NGC coin in their Set Registry?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

geb209

<< <i>Because a) In many series PCGS grades more strictly than NGC. In my series, Proof Kennedies, I don't want to compete with a bunch of NGC PR70UCAM sets that I KNOW are not as good as my PCGS PR69DCAMs. >>



If you know it, what does it matter?

dpoole

Amen to what Russ said. He points out the elephant in the room, namely that the grades for the two services do not necessarily reflect the same kind of coin. Consequently, the NGC ratings and rankings refer to factors other than your coins.

In three of my series (Lincoln MS 1909-1958, Washington MS silver quarters, Three Cent Nickel proofs), the services go by different standards, and PCGS is commonly a point lower. The Lincolns in particular are notorious in that regard. In another set, Franklin FBLs, NGC is tougher. Apples to Oranges. Over at NGC, I find myself looking at other sets, to see how much the ratings are influenced by the service grading the coin. NGC may include both services, but they also provide a derived score for the grade that do not take the differences between the services into account. Since this score is patently not "cross-service accurate" in so many series, the NGC ratings then are much more likely to be inaccurate and invalid.

BJ is proposing an opportunity for apples to apples comparisons, without going through the crossover or (God forbid) crackout game.

A creative notion. Dpoole votes "yea."

tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut, you collect the holder and not the coin.

That is an atrocious statement with no basis in fact whatsoever. If that were the case, I wouldn't be pushing for this. This is a solution for those who collect the coin and NOT the holder but wish to participate in the PCGS Set Registry.

Why am I so "for" this solution? Because the current system just doesn't factor in reality. Let's take my Eliasberg 1884 for example (NGC PF66). I traded in my PCGS PF65 plus $135,000 for the coin. It's never been submitted for crossover, but let's say I did and it didn't cross. Am I going to downgrade the coin to a 65? Did I really pay $135k MORE to get a PQ example of the same grade - hell no, I'm not going to downgrade it. So my choice is to leave it off and keep an obviously inferior PF65 as a duplicate (wow - there goes $25k a year in interest) or make my set inferior by keeping the PF65 and not buying the Eliasberg coin. Or, not have an 1884 listed at all and have Eliasberg's very same coin beat me out. All rotten choices.

So, I've illustrated with real life examples why it makes sense. Greg is the only one who has illustrated with an example why he's against it. Let's hear some logic!

Fairlaneman

TDN:

The points made by Yourself, Greg, Russ and DPoole are all valid points IMO and have been Hashed Over and Over here. PCGS will do what they believe is correct and thats the bottom line period.

Ken

mdwoods

Yes, such a thing has been discussed. It would be a good idea. I think I would still buy PCGS coins, the set would match, but if some preferred the NGC holder, they would still have an option. And I think it might provoke some interesting discussions too. mdwoods

andy007

so what happens if you don't agree with the PCGS sticker and resubmit it again for another sticker and it does regrade higher, are you going to keep putting stickers all over the slab each time? or is PCGS going to remove the first sticker and so on............

tradedollarnut

If PCGS won't slab it (hypothetical coin) a MS-65 what makes it better in a NGC holder (MS-65) with a PCGS grade label on it of a MS-64? If you don't recognize PCGS giving it a lower grade, then a sticker in a lower grade for a registry set seems like the same thing to me.

Cameron: The reality is that the marketplace rewards an NGC coin of the higher grade with a higher value - if the quality is there. In order to buy that coin, one has to spend significantly more money. To only buy PCGS coins limits one too much in the pursuit of the true finest coins. NGC will give out MS68 and PF68 for classic coins much more easily than PCGS. This means that there are some overgraded coins in that holder, but there are also coins significantly finer than PCGS MS or PF67's in that holder. Take Lincolns for example. An NGC MS68 is going to go for more money than a PCGS MS67. A PCGS MS68 will go for a whole lot more, but PCGS maxes out at 67RED these days. So the very top notch coins available for purchase are going to go to NGC for the MS68 grade. That's reality. But they can't participate here. That's the rules. So the very finest sets have that awful choice to make.

Also, there are some classic coins that are very rare and just don't exist in quantities available enough to ensure you can pass on an NGC coin and find a PCGS coin. Sometimes it comes down to a choice between an NGC coin or no coin FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. What do you do? Pass and never see another or buy an NGC and have to downgrade it to participate? Not very inclusive choices!

I still don't see the drawback to allowing this. If you want just PCGS, then buy just PCGS. But allow more coins to compete on an equal footing. If you don't want to pay PCGS just to allow your NGC coins to play, don't. But allow those that do the opportunity at no cost to you.

homerunhall

Greg (Grmarguli)...It is absolutely not my position that only 50% of NGC coins should be crossed regardless of the coins' grades. My position is that PCGS should cross every NGC coin that meets the PCGS rgading standards...the standards represented by our grading set and published in the PCGS grading book. We should cross every coin that meets those standards, even if the percentage is 100%. It is not to our advantage to piss people off by crossing a low percentage of their coins. I simply do not understand why people think there is some hidden agenda to crossovers. I'm here every day and have been since crossovers began. Our only agenda is to make money by providing a good service. Crossovers are a part of the grading service scene and the better job we do at crossovers, the more money we'll make. There is no percentage "cap" on crossovers and there never has been...David

keithdagen

It is a very interesting idea, and something that I would like, however:

Since the service does not require the cost of a slab, I would like to see some kind of discounted rate -- for example, a modern slabbed coin would run me $10, but since I am not paying for the cost of the slab, only for a "sticker," I would not want to pay full price for that service. After all, I can always just keep my set registered at NGC, where they let me keep my PCGS coins for FREE.

littlewicher

Mr. Hall, people have talked about when they've sent in NGC coins, they come back on average a point lower then what the NGC grade was. Yet, when they crack the coins out of the PCGS holders, they "regain" that point. You can not honestly tell me that you and NGC don't have politics in mind when grading coins. I honestly think that goes against human nature.

gmarguli

Greg: there's a grain of truth in that, but the good done by the change outweighs your concern.

Grain? Maybe if you consider Ayers Rock a pebble.


ONE MORE REASON TO VOTE YES:
"Registry Grades" already exist on the Set Registry. The estimated sets of the all time greats aren't in PCGS holders. They are estimated off of the grader's notes from the auction catalogs.

Then this is something that PCGS needs to address. I remember you talking about them adding cameos to the grade of some Trade dollars for "questionable" reasons. PCGS just needs to remove all these fake scores or at the very least revise the scores when they are shown one of the coins in either a PCGS or NGC slab.


Maybe each of you don't have an estimated set that you are in competition with, but I do. Eliasberg's proof trade dollars are listed as the all time finest. They aren't. I own his very 1884 and 1885, but they are in NGC holders. The balance of my set is nicer, but I can't list the 84 and 85. They count for Eliasberg, but they don't count for me.

I hate to say this, but why do you care if you cannot showcase them here? That is PCGS's loss. Put them on the NGC site. Put them on your TDN site. Put them on the Legend site. Let PCGS recognize a clearly inferior set as the #1 set instead of yours. If enough people did this, PCGS would have to change.



That's the rules of the game, and I'm fine with that, but making this adjustment will make the rules of the game that much fairer. Level the playing field for everybody and make the Set Registry more inclusive - vote Yes!

Make PCGS level the playing field by not promoting their BS. Make them level the playing field for everyone by grading consistently. Vote No!

If PCGS does offer this service, it is fine. I am sure there are a lot of people that will be sending PCGS their money in order to advertise the PCGS product. Maybe PCGS will start a trend. Before you know it, Tiger Woods will be sending Nike money to advertise their product?

Keyrock

I'm really on the fence with this one. Possibly yes, however the number of NGC coins CAN NOT exceed 10%.

Why? Well where does it end? This system should then be open to ANACS and PCI etc, etc, etc.....The coin collections that we are building are supposed to be the best we can do. If the companies do not use the same standards then why bother.

I think the integrity of the system is weak. This should be a hobby of enjoying your coins. Not a contest of who has the highest graded set etc. etc... If PCGS won't cross it/slab it, and you enjoy the coin be happy with it. Gradding is subjective, not a science. I know numerous dealers who submitt numerous times and play the game. If at first you don't get the grade you like, keep cracking until you have blisters on your fingers....

I can see it now, "well John I got the number one set on the NGC site and the number 13 spot on the PCGS site and now NGC is discounting my PCGS coins so I'll drop on the NGC site too. Maybe I need to get some ACG coins registered, those ACG MS85's should come in around MS64......"

Rich

dddangerousdan

<< <i>Me pay PCGS $$$ just to put my NGC coin in their Set Registry?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha >>



Thats not going to happen here either

DAN

cosmicdebris

I vote yes with one stipulation. There is no cost to us, PCGS pays for the stickering service including shipping both ways.

coinkat

I voted no because I am not in favor of the registry set concept in general. I will spare everyone from reading my reasons... But if there are more "yes" votes, then do we vote again for ANACs and other services? It would seem that a vote for NGC is a vote for ANACs or any other grading service as long as PCGS approves the grade. Where does it all end?

tradedollarnut

I would gladly pay the regular crossover rate for this service. I know one collector who has been searching for a PCGS AU or UNC 1878-CC trade dollar for 5 years! He still hasn't found one. He has an NGC AU58. I suspect he'd gladly pay for the service also.

leothelyon

I simply do not understand why people think there is some hidden agenda to crossovers. I'm here every day and have been since crossovers began.

Perhaps it's coming from your own people......over your phones to the submitters. At least this is what I have been told, "We (pcgs) crossover 20% on average on crossover submissions. Of course that doesn't exactly sound like a hidden agenda but not everyone believes along the (pcgs) lines why this message is passed onto the public.

Leo

Dog97

I thought the whole ? was funny because I'm supposed to pay PCGS to "grade" another service's holder just to put it in their Registry? How bout for free like NGC does?
Paying to have a coin put in plastic is funny enough but paying to have it put in plastic by NGC then paying PCGS to verify NGC's plastic is taking the plastic a little too far in my opinion.
So ok I used logic and just voted NO because my 2 PCGS Registry Sets are ALL PCGS graded coins and I like it like that.

Dabigkahuna

I want to change my vote now.

Russ touched on a point that that got me thinking and that is why, after paying a premium for PCGS slabbed coins in order to compete here, would you want to allow NGC slabs into the rigistry? Wouldn't it then make more sense to buy the higher graded NGC coin rather than the PCGS regardless of of the fact that PCGS may give the NGC coin a lower grade to compete in the registry? As I understand this the NGC coin will reamain in the original slab unless you opt to cross it, right? It just doesn't souind like a good marketing idea for PCGS. IMHO

Larry
Dabigkahuna

Russ

<< <i>If the companies do not use the same standards then why bother. >>



Keyrock,

The proposed solution addresses that issue (IMO, a valid concern, BTW). If an NGC coin is not graded to the same standards as PCGS, the "sticker" grade would reflect that.

Russ, NCNE

gmarguli

Greg (Grmarguli)...It is absolutely not my position that only 50% of NGC coins should be crossed regardless of the coins' grades. My position is that PCGS should cross every NGC coin that meets the PCGS rgading standards...the standards represented by our grading set and published in the PCGS grading book. We should cross every coin that meets those standards, even if the percentage is 100%.

David, here is YOUR exact quote: Every month we got to look at 2000 NGC coins and cream the best half to put in PCGS holders. A permanent rape of their quality inventory. A great deal for us and a bad deal for them. We want to have as many coins as possible in PCGS holders. We do not want nice coins to be in NGC holders.

Now honestly, what are we supposed to read into that? You clearly state that you want to put the best half of NGC coins into PCGS slabs. You want the "nice" coins out of NGC slabs and into PCGS slabs. You never stated that you want to put "all coins that meet the PCGS grading standards" into PCGS slabs. Not the average coins into PCGS slabs. The best HALF. This statement of yours was made around the time PCGS was crossing ~20%.

I know that you are not going to admit that there is a political bias against non-PCGS slabs. That is OK. No one is expecting you to admit this. However, given the fact that crossover rates plunged close to the 20% level and there are enough incidents of people trying to cross coins and failing, then submitting the coin raw and it grading the same or (gasp) higher, I think we ALL know the TRUTH. Did the glare of the plastic slab really obscure the clear viewing of the coin on *THAT* many occasions?


It is not to our advantage to piss people off by crossing a low percentage of their coins. I simply do not understand why people think there is some hidden agenda to crossovers.

No, but it is to your advantage to keep average coins out of PCGS slabs. You fool the generic public into thinking that PCGS grades stricter than NGC. After all, if this NGC MS65 didn't cross to a PCGS MS65, then NGC must be looser. Come on David, I took Marketing 101. You've found a way to get people to pay you to slam your competition.


I'm here every day and have been since crossovers began.

Yet you didn't know the crossover rate plunged to ~20% and feigned being away from the action for the reason to not know about all the problems people were having when you first started coming to these forums.

Until the crossover rate gets to ~80% for NGC (which is easily where it should be) then there are going to be questions about slab bias.

TAP444

I would have to vote no also,
Greg has many valid points. send your coin for
crossover if you want it in the pcgs registry
or just go across the street ( like several people have been doing)
or an other option would be for pcgs to assign a grade to all
coins sent in for crossover, reslab the ones that cross and have a data
base for the ones that don't cross referenced to the ngc cert number with a pcgs cert number
and the grade if someone wants to add that to a set, but that will stop the multiple
submissions for crossover in the slab and reduce revenue
Tim

mdwoods

The idea is a good one. You wouldn't even need a sticker on the coin. Just a record that NGC coin xxxxxx-xxx was considered to be MSxx at PCGS. I still feel that PCGS has tighter standards for most coin series, so I don't want NGC coins being let in without a grade review. Besides, sometimes NGC coins upgrade. It happened here not so long ago when a NGC MS65 FBL Frankie went to PCGS MS67 FBL. One of the rainbow tone lovers crossed it over.
I have had a SEGS coin upgrade on crossover, and last fall had 2 out of 3 coins upgrade that were in PCGS holders. I think PCGS will grade the coins fairly. I hope they implement the plan. mdwoods

prooflike

NO! There already are registries for NGC/PCGS coins across the street.

Keep the PCGS registries sacred!

I can;t believe this thought has even come up...wait, it's another money maker idea..

cardinal

I voted "Yes," and I agree with TDN's reasoning.

Sometimes, when building and upgrading a set, the only upgrade available is in an NGC holder. In tough series, simple availability may be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome. I can see a number of reasons why someone would prefer the sticker and NOT want to crossover to a new slab: perhaps the crossover grade would represent a downgrade that negatively affects the perceived value of the coin; perhaps the coin has "monster" toning that is better showcased by the white NGC holder; perhaps the existing holder is an "old style" holder than makes the coin seem more important; or perhaps there are other reasons that are equally important to the collectors. Why else would the GSA dollar owners want the NGC sticker service instead of breaking the coins out of their original holders, and why would that service be expected to be profitable enough for NGC to offer it?

I can certainly understand that some may view the "sticker service" as just another marketing tactic, but then, many consider the Registry Set concept to be just a marketing tactic. No one is forced to participate in the Registry, but many collectors do. Likewise, no one would be forced to participate in the sticker program.

Some have commented that the stickers would give PCGS a chance to take pot shots at NGC, to demonstrate how much "tougher" their grading is than NGC. How visible would this be to the marketplace? I'm sure the Registry would only list the sticker grade number, and not be so blatant as to list the grade as something like "MS64 (currently encapsulated in overgraded NGC66 holder)." So, the public at large wouldn't really see the grade difference. When Registry sets go on display, as they sometimes do (mine has been displayed at a half dozen shows over the past year), might it not seem embarrassing to PCGS to see a display of a "Number One All Time Finest PCGS Registry Set" containing multiple NGC coins? I think there is every bit of an equal likelihood that the viewer of such a set might come away thinking "PCGS really blew it not crossing that coin," as he might think "Wow, NGC sure overgraded that one!" So, I really don't see this as becoming a big problem with PCGS taking an unfair advantage.

It just seems to me that this approach would provide more benefits to those that want to participate than it would create negatives to those who do not.

-- Cardinal

Early Dollar Website

Android

I voted yes, for the reasons stated by TDN. People who compete for the all time finest known set of COINS shouldn't be penalized simply because of the plastic that surrounds them. When discussing a finest known COIN, does the plastic really matter? TDN's Eliasburg example was a good one. Why should an acknowledged finest know example (if not the only example) of a very rare coin not be allowed into a the registry simply because it is not in the right kind of plastic?

Andy

EVillageProwler

I voted yes as well. The crossover gamesmanship needs to stop.

EVP

Tonelover

Sounds like somebody is feeling the pressure. I looked at the NGC sets today and there are a lot more than the last time I checked.

I don't participate in the Registry program, one of the reasons is the PCGS exclusivity rule. I can understand why they do it, but I've always felt it did a great injustice to some of the great sets out there. There are a a lot of great coins out there even if you can't see through the holder.

IrishMike

Russ you just posted last week on the dog PF 70's kennedies in the Teletrade auction, the PCGS dogs. Your credibility slip is showing a bit. You and I and everyone who has no bias knows that they slabbed many 70's that were crappy. Deny it if you want but we long time collectors know that.

David, you moaned about us helping your stock price at the Registry get together at FUN. Maybe you ought to listen to what the market is telling you. Whether you open the registry to NGC coins is immaterial to me. If you don't more and more people will continue to open sets at NGC. I would never pay a fee to have a sticker put on my coin by PCGS or any other grading company. You ought to do the smart thing and open it up to NGC coins. I know this won't happen, the company ego and the risk of angering collectors of slabs who have convinced themselves that the only slab to use is PCGS will prohibit it. The market is speaking you had better listen.

BigD5

Greg makes a bunch of good points, and Dog steals the show with his logic concerning paying one company to slab the coin, and another to verify the first companies grade. The sticker idea is nonsense to me.
The heck with the sticker idea, I'd LOVE for Mr. Hall to elaborate on the quotes Greg posted concerning the crossover rates. I remember those from a while back, and can't remember any legitimate response to them.
Can you imagine? Paying a company to offer an opinion on the grade of a coin, and then paying another company to offer an opinion of the opinion of the grade of the coin. I can't stop giggling. Wait, it gets better.....some of you are going to PAY money for that. My belly hurts.....

EVillageProwler

Darrin,

It's not that funny... Oh, wait. Maybe it is that funny!

EVP

tradedollarnut

Can you imagine? Paying a company to offer an opinion on the grade of a coin, and then paying another company to offer an opinion of the opinion of the grade of the coin. I can't stop giggling.

Yeah, it's called a crossover submission. And it's a very frustrating process. If this goes thru, at least you'd have the option of a Registry sticker.

Is it perfect. No. Is it the best available (realistic) solution. Yes.

Greg: How do you train an elephant? Do you beat him about the head and ears until he ignores you completely or do you praise him when he does little things right until he finally figures out exactly what you want?

leothelyon

Would you be in favor of allowing NGC coins in the PCGS Set Registry if they had gone through the "sticker service."

I would like to stress the very importance to why these forums need to welcome and accept collectors who have raw coin collections of every series because this is most likely where such a coin could exist and be discovered and brought to light. So what if a collection is raw, would it be possible for raw collections to be rated among the PCGS certified sets? But yet, because these sets are not yet certified, therefore, they would not qualify for rank’n-identification (new word people, make a note of it, lol) among the Certified sets. What could be wrong with that? This could be a great promotion and PR for PCGS to open its doors to raw collections. PCGS could charge a marginal fee, say $100 min. per collection or $5 per coin, for grading entire raw coin collections, placing each coin in a saflip, and rendering a possible sticker grade without a guarantee.

And at PCGS’s strong recommendation if a coin deemed worthy for certification, that coin would go beyond the C-S6JC.

Upon BJ's question, I remembered posting my sticker grade idea awhile back.
The above bold type is from this Thread
Not that it may be coincidental but there are some simularities.
Do I care? Should I post something....without taking credit. 10% of profits sounds correct! lol

Leo

IrishMike

Uh Leo, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but they already have raw sets in the all time finest. You are a little bit late on that suggestion.

leothelyon

With sticker grades assigned to them? I was aware of some bygone collections that have been added to the registry sets.

Leo