Dog, your points make no sense. The "sticker" would have the PCGS grade on them. If a NGC modern 70 only warrants a PCGS 68, then it will only get the value of being a 68 (not sure how that affects the price of other PCGS coins). If the coin was a PCGS 70, then you can have it crossed, and the coin "would" be in a PCGS holder and thus worth the premium so many seem to be willing to pay.
It seems the basic thing is you can register a coin that PCGS has graced with a grade. Seems to be logical to me. How does this diminish anything?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
dbldie55 Thanks for pointing that out to me. Apparently I didn't fully understand the question. If a NGC coin is not competing under it's NGC grade but rather a PCGS grade that certianly does change my views somewhat and makes my last post to this thread irrevelant so I deleted it. Good thing BJ said it was just play pretend.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
<< <i>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? >>
LOL. Yep.
The PCGS web site is better, but you can't beat the price across the street.
Besides I spend too much time trying to REMOVE stickers that certain dealers like to put on holders already.
But maybe the idea will catch on and you can get each grading company to put a sticker on your coin.
Look if PCGS really wants us to be able to put NGC graded coins in the registry, how about this? PCGS for the most part believes coins in their holders are graded tighter in most cases ( I know not all us would agree ) so why not just deduct 1 point for the NGC holder and be done with it.
Yeah, I can see it now TDN. They crossover, stickerstyle, one of your tradedollars and get you thinking you should send it on over to be holdered by them, and then they go and bag the coin for "unseen pvc" which they couldn't pick up through the original ngc slab. They should just include a percentage of ngc slabs into their registry. Anacs slabs for that matter too. We could argue about what the percentage should be, but this sticker stuff is silly. We'll end up with coins like Relayer's image, with stickers all over the plastic. Poor pcgs should just admit that while their registry sets of modern series sure do carry some weight, with pcgs' dominance of the modern coin certification market, they just aren't going to get all the good sets in all of the "classic" series. Trade dollars are a good example There are too many great coins NOT in pcgs holders to allow the classic registries to hold much water.
I voted yes. The good slightly outweighs the bad. Cardinal's response is quite accurate from my perspective. The thing I worry about the most is the ease in which one can now obviously play the "one upsmanship" game. As noted by the slab graphic presented (by the way, excellent job!), it makes it very easy to take the quick route and just say "every coin is a point lower" without taking the risk of stating what the coin really is! Will the grade guarantee apply to the stickered level? I think not. I the long run, I'm note sure that I want to play in this sandbox (but I might). I'd like to see how it develops. At the very least, I could at least find out why coins DNC.
Seems that at least half the no votes explain their reasoning as either NGC coins should be allowed straight up or that the idea of paying for this service is stupid. Very few so far have expressed a reason why other than taking pot shots at PCGS. This surprises me greatly.
I voted yes, not so much for myself, but as for others with truely rare and high grade collections. Cardinal and TDN have fantastic collections, and they should be able to place them in the registry if they so desire. If they wish to pay the extra fee for it, so be it, we all collect different ways.
I don't think I could justify the fee at my current collecting level, but should that increase and I start to develope a truely fine set, I would want it recognized as well.
But to exclude Cardinal's 1794 silver dollar grading NGC MS64 ex F.C.C Boyd Collection, or TDN's 1884 and 1885 Eliasbergs.. Just seems like such a waste to have these fine historic coins not included.
I voted 'yes', only because I had to. I have had a five figure NGC coin that I bought a long time ago which did not cross to PCGS. It is a 1910 PR67 $10 Indian. I bought it because it is the finast known. The highest graded by PCGS is only a PR65. If, and that is a big IF, this coin is allowed into a 'stickered' PCGS holder at PR66 or even PR65, I will still have saved a great amount of money. The coin could finally be used in my Registry set and it would still retain it's value as a PR67. Since this idea is just for Registry set purposes, I think the amount of coins allowed to cross by 'sticker' should be limited to 10% of a set. Deep down, I do not like the idea of the stickers, but it is the only solution to certain Registry sets where a person has a finast known NGC coin that does not even exist in that grade or even two grades lower, at PCGS. An all out, blanket sticker crosssover, does not work for me. Allowing 10%, only, for each and every set makes more sense to me, as it would correct certain flaws or inconsistencies that have occured between PCGS and NGC.
You have some fantastic sets! All I have to do is look up. lol!
Your point is exactly why I think PCGS is shooting themselves in the foot if they were to allow this. Why would you buy a top grade PCGS coin when (a. you could buy an NGC coin in the same grade for less or (b. you could buy a higher grade from NGC and still be able to use it in the registry without risk of having it cracked out or crossed? It seems like a no brainer to buy NGC over PCGS! What advantage (besides PCGS picking up some additional grading fee) is there in making NGC coins more desirable than their own PCGS coins for the registry?
I understand that that here are special coins, like Paul's NGC pop 1 $10 Eagle and the Eliasberg coins for example, that perhaps could be given this option. After all PCGS felt it was okay to list those sets so why not allow them in now?
There are Registry sets with only 4 coins (proof twenty cent pieces) and even more with less than 10. A strict 10% limit would not be feasible in these cases. Perhaps one coin for each 5, or a portion of 5, PCGS coins? A set with 4 could have one, a set with 7 could have two, a set with 11 could have three, a set with 19 could have 4, etc.
However, I still feel the question comes down to maintaining the integrity of the Registry. Is it pure and simple a marketing tool for PCGS or is it, as stated by David Hall last night, something provided by PCGS for the betterment of the hobby? If the latter, allowing ALL coins (on a consistently graded basis) is imperative! This statement would argue against an artificial limit on the number of coins allowed and argue for allowing those coins.
I am still absolutely for only 10% of a set. A set with only 4 coins is an abnormally and the ten % would have to equal one coin. There are a great many sets containing 8 coins. 10% x 8 =.8, which would equal one coin. Also in the majority, are the sets with 24 coins. 10% x 24 = 2.4. This could be either 2 or 3 coins. I would rather see two. As I said, I am not for the same concept as NGC, ( allowing a mixture of ALL PCGS and ALL NGC ). I am only for allowing the smallest amount of NGC coins in to the PCGS Registry, in order to correct some impossible situations.
HI Larry, You missed my main point. I am only voting for 10% of a set be allowed by 'sticker'. This is just to correct a lot of problems. I am not in favor of a total mixture of PCGS and NGC. I think allowing 10% will create more business for PCGS by creating more PCGS Registry sets. I agree this is a monumental decision for PCGS to make, so I hope if they do it, they only do it so only a very small percentage of coins are affected. But in the end The PCGS Registry will still be mainly PCGS, with just a little help from NGC.
Just curious, but will any of the PCGS-only people here change their mind if (when?) the NGC registry becomes more popular that the PCGS one?
Most everyone has posted their coins here for some sort of recognition and I'm just curious if the NGC site takes off and the PCGS registry becomes second rate, what will you do?
I just looked at the NGC registry and I notice 156 sets were updated in the last 3 days. Now, I don't know if that is normal or not, but I can't recall seeing 156 sets updated at PCGS in a 3 day period. The only time you see that activity over here is right after a major show/auction or when PCGS decides to break a series into a few dozen individual sets.
I looked at a few series and it seems that NGC has quite a few sets registered. I picked sets to look at randomly and I noticed that most sets seemed to have a solid mixture of PCGS/NGC coins. Of course, for modern coin sets, PCGS seems to have the advantage there.
Does anyone who is PCGS-only think that some of the millions of coins that NGC graded (last I saw, about 1,000,000 more than PCGS) just might be nice coins and worthy of your set?
<< <i>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. >>
Mike,
My "credibility" is perfectly intact. I'm no happier about the fact that I know my 69DCAMs are better than many of the earlier graded PCGS 70DCAMs in other sets than I would be if NGC PR70UCAMS were allowed in as graded. BJ's proposal doesn't address that issue, so I responded to what she did address.
Greg, that is why I would like to see a small percentage of NGC ' stickered coins ' in the PCGS Registry. My 1910 NGC PR 67 $10 is a great coin, but I cannot use it in my PCGS registry set. MY proof gold set is almost complete, but I do not have and cannot find a PCGS PR $10 Indian. Since I already had, ( obviously, I did not buy this coin for my PCGS set ), and it is a very rare and high grade coin, I would like to be able to add it to my PCGS Registry Set. So in answer to your question, yes there are nice NGC coins, but the few I have I cannot use in my PCGS Registry Set. This is a tricky subject and I can foresee a lot of pro's and con's. In fact I have changed my position on this subject several times this morning. I also admit to having 3 or four sets registered at NGC, but they are only sets that contain one or two NGC coins, and I would rather have all my sets registered at PCGS. Just my personal preference, and that is just the way it is for me at this date. In the future, WHO KNOWS ??
..........couldn't read the entire thread through, but we are certainly a varied group of individuals with strong, personal and sometimes paranoid opinions. what i believe to be at the heart of this all is an attempt by PCGS to achieve a compromise which retains the one-grading-service-opinion integrity of the registry while allowing us to enter non-PCGS slabbed coins which don't crossover at the same grade, the best of both worlds for me.
my opinion diverges from that of some on a few key points. i fail to understand any sensible reason why PCGS would purposely conspire to not cross coins from their competitors, which lands them a larger share of holdered coins and the better coins in their holders. Mr. Spock's eyebrows would raise to hear the other-sides paranoid arguement!! also, it's ludicrous to imagine a multi-service opinion registry when their is already so much angst expressed over supposed changing standards within the one service format presently in place.
as i grow older, i come to understand the importance of compromise in any worthwhile endeavor. the approach of "my way or the highway" is futile. i, for one, applaud PCGS for at least asking how we feel about a proposed solution to a real problem. we really can be an overbearing group at times. we whine when something doesn't suit us and we whine when a change is suggested. some of us apparantly just like to whine, a sad truth in the human experience of some. pass the koolaid, i need a drink on this issue which drives to the heart of some registry problems while offering itself as an example of what may be around the next bend in the way of customer service changes, another whining point for some.
I wish to change my answer from a YES to a NO. I feel that NGC coins should be allowed in without any grade or point reservations. The likelihood of a PCGS-slabbed coin being mis-graded is certainly not ZERO. Some may say that PCGS is, on average, more accurate than NGC. In that case, then I would be fine if PCGS put a %-age cap on the number of non-PCGS slabs per set -- especially since this registry system belongs CU and I'm sure they prefer to showcase their own products as much as possible.
As for the %-age, I suggest 20%, with a minimum of 1 coin. (I believe that the proof ED set has only 4 slots.)
When tabulating the final vote count, please move one vote from YES to NO.
I wonder what the vote totals would have looked like if the question had stated Would you be in favor of allowing NGC coins in the PCGS Set Registry and there had been 4 choices:
* Yes * Yes, if they had been thru a grade review process and the PCGS grade assigned * No * No opinion
Right now the totals are:
* Yes 50 * No 39 * No Opinion 3
A slight plurality in favor. This may not be a large enough 'Yes' vote to get a change made
Based on how some have posted, I suspect that the results might have been as follows:
* Yes 10 * Yes, if they had been thru a grade review process and the PCGS grade assigned 50 * No 29 * No opinion 3
This result would have shown a more accurate picture - that 2/3 of respondants favor at least some opening of the Set Registry!
From a marketing standpoint, if PCGS allowed NGC grades in it would erode the perception in the marketplace that their coins are "better" then other services.
<< <i>Does anyone who is PCGS-only think that some of the millions of coins that NGC graded (last I saw, about 1,000,000 more than PCGS) just might be nice coins and worthy of your set? >>
I'll try to answer this. Of course some NGC coins are Nice Coins and worthy of a Registry Set here. The situation is that a decision was made to collect PCGS coins for a Registry Set and the decision has been absolutely stuck too. This decision was for Registry Set purposes only. Other coins, NGC, are within the collection but just are not used for the registry purpose either here or in the NGC Registry. The decision was made to use PCGS coins only because on the whole the PCGS coins for the series I collect are a better product at the same grade. I truly believe the reason the PCGS coins are a better product is because the two major grading companys PCGS and NGC just grade the coins to a different standard. If the standards were the same for these companys I do believe the products would both be equal.
The different grading standard is exactly why I do not believe NGC coins should be allowed in the PCGS Registry in any way,shape or form. Maybe some extreme rarity exceptions should be made but for a blanket use of the NGC coins in the registry I certainly say No.
Did not Vote so the Tally will not reflect my feelings on this subject.
Ok? I've come up with a better sollution. Well, maybe not better, depends if it's a great idea. I say the heck with the sticker grades and just make all the slabs identical but each slab would have the grading companies name on it for whoever graded the coin. Then with the registry sets, it could simply be shown what the percentages of each grading company the set was comprised of. Not only would this help make the collections look more presentable, it would also be interesting to see a #3 set be worth more or sell for more then a #1 set based on what certification company carried the collection in value and integrity.
And yes, I want 10% of the profits for this ingenious idea.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
As a concession to collectors "stuck" with coins graded by two different services, why not allow NGC coins to be included in PCGS registry sets at a one grade discount?
BTW, that should NOT be interpreted to mean that their standard is one point looser. In fact, I think NGC should offer the same concession, allowing PCGS coins to be included in NGC registry sets at a one point discount.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think the strongest argument made in favor of crediting NGC coins for the PCGS Registry is that some of the world's greatest coins just happen to be in NGC slabs, so if they are the best coins, shouldn't they be recognized in the best registry? If the answer is no, then the registry system is flawed.
If the focus is on crediting the best coins, then the focus has to be on the coin and not the slab.
Let's face facts, even PCGS has not been consistent with its grading over time. We tend to love first generation holdered coins, not for the holders but for the conservatively graded coins inside. We tend not to love the green holdered slabs, as the move toward more liberal standards was too big a leap from the prior years. The pendulum has tended to swing back toward better grading with the current slabs.
Even if the PCGS registry were to credit only PCGS slabs, then should bonus points be offered for first generation slabs, and points deducted for green slabs?
And how about us morgan collectors? In the morgan registry, a ms66 is given equal weight as an ms66dmpl, as I understand it. Who is going to pay equal money for those two coins? Granted the pl/dmpl registry takes into account the increased rarity of the pl/dmpl populations, and the premiums paid over non-pl/dmpl coins, but that is one tough registry to complete.
If NGC coins are credited, other questions arise. How about those extremely rare date pl/dmpl morgan dollars that grade in au 58, 55, 53, or 50 by NGC? PCGS has apparently never seen a pl/dmpl coin in less than ms60, so rather than recognize mirrored coins below ms60, PCGS has comprised the pl/dmpl registry by allowing a rather startling fifty percent (50%) non-mirrored coins into the mirrored registry.
In conclusion, the system needs some fine tuning. The registry seems to gain a lot more credibility if it recognizes the best coins, rather than the best coins slabbed by just one company. This competition between PCGS and NGC does not need to filter into the registry system unless the system is really designed for the benefit of the companies, versus the collectors. NGC recognizes this.
The sticker proposal seems like another business decision aimed at making money. How many third party opinions does one coin need? If we have to take the business side of things into consideration it seems to me that the point system can take into account the inaccuracies that might come from the other grader. In other words, PCGS could give credit for unseen NGC coins at 85% of the points otherwise given to the same coin in a PCGS slab, without requiring collectors to submit the NGC slabs for PCGS inspection.
As a concession to collectors "stuck" with coins graded by two different services, why not allow NGC coins to be included in PCGS registry sets at a one grade discount?
I like this, only I would add that you would have a 1 point discount if you chose not to have a PCGS review of the NGC coin. If you did have a PCGS review, you may or may not get the same grade, or you might even get a higher grade. That does happen on occasion. mdwoods.
Allowing a descrepancy of 1 or 2 points because of another grading co. opinion on a coin is heresay. Who's to say, down the road, that opinion about who grades better shifts to another. Will we then be adding points back on and taking them off from another. lol Let the collectors and buyers, the percentages of what the collections are comprised of, decide the merits and values, when that day arrives. Heck, let the coins speak for themselves. We're not a bunch of idiots, are we?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Why the big paranoia over why PCGS is asking about our preference for this? They are simply responding to one or more requests to consider the idea. They aren't pushing this as a new revenue stream, they probably DON'T want to do this. But they are willing to consider it. Get off your paranoid high horses!
No we are not a bunch of idiots but how many actually want to pay to have a coin graded twice by 2 different services and still have it in the first services holder just so it can be put into a registry set? If NGC can have another services slabs in its registry with no extra charge so can PCGS.
My vote is no. Why does a pcgs 26s buffalo in ms65 sell for 100k+ and a ngc 26s buffalo ms65 sell for 39k? Answer the grading is one half to one point different and the guy with the ngc coin has tried to get it into a pcgs 65 holder many times and the coin is a pcgs ms64 that is worth 12k. In buffalo nickels, any quality rare buffalo in an ngc holder, with a possibility of crossing at the same grade has been tried. It is wishfull thinking to think that pcgs will ever allow ngc coins in their registry and they shouldn't. It would totally destroy their credibility and business. Carl
<< <i>Why does a pcgs 26s buffalo in ms65 sell for 100k+ and a ngc 26s buffalo ms65 sell for 39k? Answer the grading is one half to one point different and the guy with the ngc coin has tried to get it into a pcgs 65 holder many times and the coin is a pcgs ms64 >>
Well, does that mean the NGC coins should never be credited for registry purposes at any grade, or does it simply mean that the NGC coins should not be credited at the same grade?
As I understand it, PCGS puts an emphasis on completing a registry set, so to the extent there are missing coins from the set, deductions are taken. Even if NGC coins were discounted, at least crediting them at some level would spare a collector from feeling like he/she has to either run out and buy the same coin in a PCGS slab, or resubmit the coin to PCGS.
Although BJ's question was yes or no, I think we need to consider alternatives. In Carl's example, PCGS is no worse off if the NGC 65 is credited as being a 64. If the collector wants credit for the full 65, then the collector can think about the crossover. In the meantime, the collector at least gets credit for a 64. That may be a little harsh, but it is an alternative, and is far less harsh in my opinion that simply giving no credit for NGC coins.
One down-side, as I see it, is that NGC may retaliate and do the same thing in its registry, which would be a shame, particularly in my case, where NGC gives credits for coins that PCGS does not recognize (pl morgans below ms60).
My vote is no. Why does a pcgs 26s buffalo in ms65 sell for 100k+ and a ngc 26s buffalo ms65 sell for 39k? Answer the grading is one half to one point different and the guy with the ngc coin has tried to get it into a pcgs 65 holder many times and the coin is a pcgs ms64 that is worth 12k. In buffalo nickels, any quality rare buffalo in an ngc holder, with a possibility of crossing at the same grade has been tried. It is wishfull thinking to think that pcgs will ever allow ngc coins in their registry and they shouldn't. It would totally destroy their credibility and business
Did you completely understand the question that you voted 'no' on? Your argument stating that NGC is looser is not a valid one against allowing REVIEWED NGC coins. When PCGS reviews that 26-S buffalo and assigns a 64 grade to it for the Registry, it's the same for Registry purposes as downgrading the coin.
How does allowing very rare coins for which there are few PCGS available (such as the AU or low MS 1878-CC trade dollar that my friend has been searching for patiently for OVER FIVE YEARS) and that have been reviewed for grade against PCGS standards compromise the integrity of the Registry? I simply fail to see the downside and I certainly see the upside.
You state yourself that the grading is a half point different. Does that mean that you agree that a NGC MS68 is in many cases finer than a PCGS MS67? If so, wouldn't you agree that if there are no PCGS MS68's and the collector's goal is to create the absolute finest set that he will eventually need to add a few NGC coins to the mix? And that driven collector, absent this change, will eventually migrate to the NGC Registry because of frustration over 1) not being able to cross the coins, 2) not being able to list the coins, and 3) having to maintain duplicates or have empty slots here at the Set Registry? Isn't it in PCGS's best interest to maintain a high participation in the Set Registry? How exactly will allowing a few NGC coins that have been grade reviewed to PCGS standards harm participation? It seems to me that it will encourage participation and that is good for ALL.
Allowing NGC coins with a blanket 1 point deduction is not a good idea. I've seen plenty of AU61's and 62's (in series where there's no MS PCGS coins) and simply knocking a single point off will not suffice to bring the coin in line with PCGS standards on a consistent basis. The only way to do it right and do it consistently is to allow the coins if they've been reviewed. And I must admit that I've yet to see a good argument against it.
Some say "no" because I want the Registry to allow all NGC coins at the holdered grade - that simply isn't gonna happen. Some say "no" because it's not fair to allow those overgraded NGC coins on the Registry - well the grade review process handles that problem. Some say "no" because I don't want to pay for it - well, nobody's forcing you to do so but how about allowing those of us who want to do so the opportunity? And some say "no" simply because of a knee jerk reaction against any change at all. Would somebody please show me a valid downside from the collector's point of view to this change?
And that's the last I have to say on this whole subject.
Well, maybe the people who wish to use ngc coins in the registry can send the coin in for crossover at anygrade ,let pcgs cross the coin , put it in a pcgs holder with the pcgs grade and place a ngc sticker on the new pcgs slab showing the old grade. bet not very many of the yes people would want it to happen this way. but then it would remain a pcgs registry. TIm
LOOKING FOR 1931-s merc that is nice for the grade and fb
Well thanks for explaining everything TDN. The next time BJ asks a question I'll be sure and consider which answer you want to hear and not how I truly feel about it. (don't mind the smile on my face). You have a situation where you have some expensive coins that you want to showcase in a registry setting, but can't because the owners of the program feel any other graded coins are inferior to theirs. So far so good? You don't like it because the owners of the registry profess they the finest know sets are registered with them. Well we all know that simply is not true and just poor marketing. A company with a good marketing department would never allow their company to make such a claim. Still on track?
Ok now explain to me why again that we collectors who don't own an entire set worth one of your coins should care whether or not they change their mind an put a sticker on one of your coins so you can play their game?
Why don't you just request that if they are going to claim to have registered the all time finest sets that they change that claim to the all time finest sets graded by PCGS and not worry about it? Anyway you and anyone else that thinks they will ever allow any other slabbed coins in their registry hasn't been reading David Hall's posts and hasn't come to understand the man and how much he hates NGC.
TDN, pardon my cynicism, but you did ask the question. Please take my response in the manner it was intended.
Since no coins are bought for the plastic anyway... Crack your ngc coins out, keep the insert for use in the ngc registry. Send the raw coin to pcgs for a grade, for use in their registry. Crack out the coin again and keep it raw, and be in both registries. Simple. No muss, no fuss. No stickers, no plastic.
<< <i>Since no coins are bought for the plastic anyway... Crack your ngc coins out, keep the insert for use in the ngc registry. Send the raw coin to pcgs for a grade, for use in their registry. Crack out the coin again and keep it raw, and be in both registries. Simple. No muss, no fuss. No stickers, no plastic. >>
A) Once a coin is cracked, it cannot be used in a Registry (their rules, not mine), would this be the same with stickers? Why would someone risk 10's of thousands of dollars doing this. We are not talking about 2002 Sac dollars here (although they would qualify too).
If PCGS has reviewed a coin, and given it a grade, why should it not be allowed? (I am waiting for a real answer to this too)
It really is starting to look like some people here are plastic collectors, and the coins inside are irrelevant.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
IrishMike, you make some valid points, but I agree with tradedollarnut. Each registry system holds out the finest sets, as defined by the particular rules. While it is true that one set may only be the finest for a particular registry and not truly "the finest," if we have to qualify the "finest" sets doesn't that kind of destroy the purpose of the registry? NGC has moved in the right direction by crediting PCGS coins. You ask, IrishMike, why you should care? Well, if you don't care, then presumably you should obstain from voting, and let those of us who do care carry the day. Like you, my comments are not at all intended to be mean spirited, but like tradedollarnut, I don't seem who is harmed by BJ's proposal. For those collectors that do not wish to submit, they don't have to. If their registry sets move down slightly because PCGS determines for itself that an NGC ms65 is truly an ms65 and is so credited, so be it -- the owner of the NGC coin now has two professional opinions on the grade.
How does BJ's proposal hurt anyone, that is tradedollarnut's question. I do not see any harm. At the same time, I would prefer not to have to pay for some sticker service and mail all my NGC coins to PCGS, but if I have to, I have to.
I guess I should add the disclaimer that while I prefer PCGS coins, I prefer the NGC registry for the simple fact that a coin does not have to be ms60 to be prooflike, and I have some blinding au examples in PCGS holders to prove my point. Those coins will someday be submitted to NGC since only the NGC registry credits prooflike coins in grades under ms60.
lava, don't disagree with you at all. I just don't feel the necessity to have to spend more money with another grading company to get a second opinion on a coin. I won't do that, period. Now for you guys that buy expensive coins that might be a solution. My point to TDN is that I don't so I don't care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry, so don't expect me to get on his band wagon or not understand why some of us aren't. I can admire TDN's tradedollars just as much in the NGC registry or his website as I can in the PCGS Registry. I hope this clarifies my thoughts on the matter.
Comments
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
It seems the basic thing is you can register a coin that PCGS has graced with a grade. Seems to be logical to me. How does this diminish anything?
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Apparently I didn't fully understand the question. If a NGC coin is not competing under it's NGC grade but rather a PCGS grade that certianly does change my views somewhat and makes my last post to this thread irrevelant so I deleted it. Good thing BJ said it was just play pretend.
<< <i>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? >>
LOL. Yep.
The PCGS web site is better, but you can't beat the price across the street.
Besides I spend too much time trying to REMOVE stickers that certain dealers like to put on holders already.
But maybe the idea will catch on and you can get each grading company to put a sticker on your coin.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
09/07/2006
They should just include a percentage of ngc slabs into their registry. Anacs slabs for that matter too. We could argue about what the percentage should be, but this sticker stuff is silly. We'll end up with coins like Relayer's image, with stickers all over the plastic.
Poor pcgs should just admit that while their registry sets of modern series sure do carry some weight, with pcgs' dominance of the modern coin certification market, they just aren't going to get all the good sets in all of the "classic" series. Trade dollars are a good example
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
keoj
But if you voted for Nader instead of Gore, do you have a right to complain about Bush?
I don't think I could justify the fee at my current collecting level, but should that increase and I start to develope a truely fine set, I would want it recognized as well.
But to exclude Cardinal's 1794 silver dollar grading NGC MS64 ex F.C.C Boyd Collection, or TDN's 1884 and 1885 Eliasbergs.. Just seems like such a waste to have these fine historic coins not included.
Since this idea is just for Registry set purposes, I think the amount of coins allowed to cross by 'sticker' should be limited to 10% of a set.
Deep down, I do not like the idea of the stickers, but it is the only solution to certain Registry sets where a person has a finast known NGC coin that does not even exist in that grade or even two grades lower, at PCGS. An all out, blanket sticker crosssover, does not work for me.
Allowing 10%, only, for each and every set makes more sense to me, as it would correct certain flaws or inconsistencies that have occured between PCGS and NGC.
Paul Taylor
You have some fantastic sets! All I have to do is look up. lol!
Your point is exactly why I think PCGS is shooting themselves in the foot if they were to allow this. Why would you buy a top grade PCGS coin when (a. you could buy an NGC coin in the same grade for less or (b. you could buy a higher grade from NGC and still be able to use it in the registry without risk of having it cracked out or crossed? It seems like a no brainer to buy NGC over PCGS! What advantage (besides PCGS picking up some additional grading fee) is there in making NGC coins more desirable than their own PCGS coins for the registry?
I understand that that here are special coins, like Paul's NGC pop 1 $10 Eagle and the Eliasberg coins for example, that perhaps could be given this option. After all PCGS felt it was okay to list those sets so why not allow them in now?
Larry
Dabigkahuna
However, I still feel the question comes down to maintaining the integrity of the Registry. Is it pure and simple a marketing tool for PCGS or is it, as stated by David Hall last night, something provided by PCGS for the betterment of the hobby? If the latter, allowing ALL coins (on a consistently graded basis) is imperative! This statement would argue against an artificial limit on the number of coins allowed and argue for allowing those coins.
As I said, I am not for the same concept as NGC, ( allowing a mixture of ALL PCGS and ALL NGC ). I am only for allowing the smallest amount of NGC coins in to the PCGS Registry, in order to correct some impossible situations.
I am not in favor of a total mixture of PCGS and NGC. I think allowing 10% will create more business for PCGS by creating more PCGS Registry sets. I agree this is a monumental decision for PCGS to make, so I hope if they do it, they only do it so only a very small percentage of coins are affected. But in the end The PCGS Registry will still be mainly PCGS, with just a little help from NGC.
Most everyone has posted their coins here for some sort of recognition and I'm just curious if the NGC site takes off and the PCGS registry becomes second rate, what will you do?
I just looked at the NGC registry and I notice 156 sets were updated in the last 3 days. Now, I don't know if that is normal or not, but I can't recall seeing 156 sets updated at PCGS in a 3 day period. The only time you see that activity over here is right after a major show/auction or when PCGS decides to break a series into a few dozen individual sets.
I looked at a few series and it seems that NGC has quite a few sets registered. I picked sets to look at randomly and I noticed that most sets seemed to have a solid mixture of PCGS/NGC coins. Of course, for modern coin sets, PCGS seems to have the advantage there.
Does anyone who is PCGS-only think that some of the millions of coins that NGC graded (last I saw, about 1,000,000 more than PCGS) just might be nice coins and worthy of your set?
<< <i>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. >>
Mike,
My "credibility" is perfectly intact. I'm no happier about the fact that I know my 69DCAMs are better than many of the earlier graded PCGS 70DCAMs in other sets than I would be if NGC PR70UCAMS were allowed in as graded. BJ's proposal doesn't address that issue, so I responded to what she did address.
Russ, NCNE
$10 Indian. Since I already had, ( obviously, I did not buy this coin for my PCGS set ), and it is a very rare and high grade coin, I would like to be able to add it to my PCGS Registry Set. So in answer to your question, yes there are nice NGC coins, but the few I have I cannot use in my PCGS Registry Set. This is a tricky subject and I can foresee a lot of pro's and con's. In fact I have changed my position on this subject several times this morning. I also admit to having 3 or four sets registered at NGC, but they are only sets that contain one or two NGC coins, and I would rather have all my sets registered at PCGS. Just my personal preference, and that is just the way it is for me at this date. In the future, WHO KNOWS ??
my opinion diverges from that of some on a few key points. i fail to understand any sensible reason why PCGS would purposely conspire to not cross coins from their competitors, which lands them a larger share of holdered coins and the better coins in their holders. Mr. Spock's eyebrows would raise to hear the other-sides paranoid arguement!! also, it's ludicrous to imagine a multi-service opinion registry when their is already so much angst expressed over supposed changing standards within the one service format presently in place.
as i grow older, i come to understand the importance of compromise in any worthwhile endeavor. the approach of "my way or the highway" is futile. i, for one, applaud PCGS for at least asking how we feel about a proposed solution to a real problem. we really can be an overbearing group at times. we whine when something doesn't suit us and we whine when a change is suggested. some of us apparantly just like to whine, a sad truth in the human experience of some. pass the koolaid, i need a drink on this issue which drives to the heart of some registry problems while offering itself as an example of what may be around the next bend in the way of customer service changes, another whining point for some.
wah, wah!!! pass the koolaid!!!!
al h.
As for the %-age, I suggest 20%, with a minimum of 1 coin. (I believe that the proof ED set has only 4 slots.)
When tabulating the final vote count, please move one vote from YES to NO.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
* Yes
* Yes, if they had been thru a grade review process and the PCGS grade assigned
* No
* No opinion
Right now the totals are:
* Yes 50
* No 39
* No Opinion 3
A slight plurality in favor. This may not be a large enough 'Yes' vote to get a change made
Based on how some have posted, I suspect that the results might have been as follows:
* Yes 10
* Yes, if they had been thru a grade review process and the PCGS grade assigned 50
* No 29
* No opinion 3
This result would have shown a more accurate picture - that 2/3 of respondants favor at least some opening of the Set Registry!
From a marketing standpoint, if PCGS allowed NGC grades in it would erode the perception in the marketplace that their coins are "better" then other services.
That's why I voted Yes
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Good observation, big guy! It seems, from monitoring the message boards, that many dislike the totally closed nature of the registry system here.
Perhaps you can put up your own poll, with more options...
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns
<< <i>Does anyone who is PCGS-only think that some of the millions of coins that NGC graded (last I saw, about 1,000,000 more than PCGS) just might be nice coins and worthy of your set? >>
I'll try to answer this. Of course some NGC coins are Nice Coins and worthy of a Registry Set here. The situation is that a decision was made to collect PCGS coins for a Registry Set and the decision has been absolutely stuck too. This decision was for Registry Set purposes only. Other coins, NGC, are within the collection but just are not used for the registry purpose either here or in the NGC Registry. The decision was made to use PCGS coins only because on the whole the PCGS coins for the series I collect are a better product at the same grade. I truly believe the reason the PCGS coins are a better product is because the two major grading companys PCGS and NGC just grade the coins to a different standard. If the standards were the same for these companys I do believe the products would both be equal.
The different grading standard is exactly why I do not believe NGC coins should be allowed in the PCGS Registry in any way,shape or form. Maybe some extreme rarity exceptions should be made but for a blanket use of the NGC coins in the registry I certainly say No.
Did not Vote so the Tally will not reflect my feelings on this subject.
Ken
And yes, I want 10% of the profits for this ingenious idea.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
BTW, that should NOT be interpreted to mean that their standard is one point looser. In fact, I think NGC should offer the same concession, allowing PCGS coins to be included in NGC registry sets at a one point discount.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>In fact, I think NGC should offer the same concession, allowing PCGS coins to be included in NGC registry sets at a one point discount. >>
PCGS coins are allowed and at the same grade point level.
Cameron Kiefer
If the focus is on crediting the best coins, then the focus has to be on the coin and not the slab.
Let's face facts, even PCGS has not been consistent with its grading over time. We tend to love first generation holdered coins, not for the holders but for the conservatively graded coins inside. We tend not to love the green holdered slabs, as the move toward more liberal standards was too big a leap from the prior years. The pendulum has tended to swing back toward better grading with the current slabs.
Even if the PCGS registry were to credit only PCGS slabs, then should bonus points be offered for first generation slabs, and points deducted for green slabs?
And how about us morgan collectors? In the morgan registry, a ms66 is given equal weight as an ms66dmpl, as I understand it. Who is going to pay equal money for those two coins? Granted the pl/dmpl registry takes into account the increased rarity of the pl/dmpl populations, and the premiums paid over non-pl/dmpl coins, but that is one tough registry to complete.
If NGC coins are credited, other questions arise. How about those extremely rare date pl/dmpl morgan dollars that grade in au 58, 55, 53, or 50 by NGC? PCGS has apparently never seen a pl/dmpl coin in less than ms60, so rather than recognize mirrored coins below ms60, PCGS has comprised the pl/dmpl registry by allowing a rather startling fifty percent (50%) non-mirrored coins into the mirrored registry.
In conclusion, the system needs some fine tuning. The registry seems to gain a lot more credibility if it recognizes the best coins, rather than the best coins slabbed by just one company. This competition between PCGS and NGC does not need to filter into the registry system unless the system is really designed for the benefit of the companies, versus the collectors. NGC recognizes this.
The sticker proposal seems like another business decision aimed at making money. How many third party opinions does one coin need? If we have to take the business side of things into consideration it seems to me that the point system can take into account the inaccuracies that might come from the other grader. In other words, PCGS could give credit for unseen NGC coins at 85% of the points otherwise given to the same coin in a PCGS slab, without requiring collectors to submit the NGC slabs for PCGS inspection.
Happy collecting.
I like this, only I would add that you would have a 1 point discount if you chose not to have a PCGS review of the NGC coin. If you did have a PCGS review, you may or may not get the same grade, or you might even get a higher grade. That does happen on occasion. mdwoods.
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
09/07/2006
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
09/07/2006
How about creating TWO registries.
The PCGS Premium Registry which has only PCGS coins and the PCGS Open Registry.
Then offer free submissions to the Premium participants and give the Open Registry participants a discount on cross-overs.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Why does a pcgs 26s buffalo in ms65 sell for 100k+ and a ngc 26s buffalo ms65 sell for 39k? Answer the grading is one half to one point different and the guy with the ngc coin has tried to get it into a pcgs 65 holder many times and the coin is a pcgs ms64 >>
Well, does that mean the NGC coins should never be credited for registry purposes at any grade, or does it simply mean that the NGC coins should not be credited at the same grade?
As I understand it, PCGS puts an emphasis on completing a registry set, so to the extent there are missing coins from the set, deductions are taken. Even if NGC coins were discounted, at least crediting them at some level would spare a collector from feeling like he/she has to either run out and buy the same coin in a PCGS slab, or resubmit the coin to PCGS.
Although BJ's question was yes or no, I think we need to consider alternatives. In Carl's example, PCGS is no worse off if the NGC 65 is credited as being a 64. If the collector wants credit for the full 65, then the collector can think about the crossover. In the meantime, the collector at least gets credit for a 64. That may be a little harsh, but it is an alternative, and is far less harsh in my opinion that simply giving no credit for NGC coins.
One down-side, as I see it, is that NGC may retaliate and do the same thing in its registry, which would be a shame, particularly in my case, where NGC gives credits for coins that PCGS does not recognize (pl morgans below ms60).
Did you completely understand the question that you voted 'no' on? Your argument stating that NGC is looser is not a valid one against allowing REVIEWED NGC coins. When PCGS reviews that 26-S buffalo and assigns a 64 grade to it for the Registry, it's the same for Registry purposes as downgrading the coin.
How does allowing very rare coins for which there are few PCGS available (such as the AU or low MS 1878-CC trade dollar that my friend has been searching for patiently for OVER FIVE YEARS) and that have been reviewed for grade against PCGS standards compromise the integrity of the Registry? I simply fail to see the downside and I certainly see the upside.
You state yourself that the grading is a half point different. Does that mean that you agree that a NGC MS68 is in many cases finer than a PCGS MS67? If so, wouldn't you agree that if there are no PCGS MS68's and the collector's goal is to create the absolute finest set that he will eventually need to add a few NGC coins to the mix? And that driven collector, absent this change, will eventually migrate to the NGC Registry because of frustration over 1) not being able to cross the coins, 2) not being able to list the coins, and 3) having to maintain duplicates or have empty slots here at the Set Registry? Isn't it in PCGS's best interest to maintain a high participation in the Set Registry? How exactly will allowing a few NGC coins that have been grade reviewed to PCGS standards harm participation? It seems to me that it will encourage participation and that is good for ALL.
Some say "no" because I want the Registry to allow all NGC coins at the holdered grade - that simply isn't gonna happen. Some say "no" because it's not fair to allow those overgraded NGC coins on the Registry - well the grade review process handles that problem. Some say "no" because I don't want to pay for it - well, nobody's forcing you to do so but how about allowing those of us who want to do so the opportunity? And some say "no" simply because of a knee jerk reaction against any change at all. Would somebody please show me a valid downside from the collector's point of view to this change?
And that's the last I have to say on this whole subject.
in for crossover at anygrade ,let pcgs cross the coin , put it in a pcgs holder with the
pcgs grade and place a ngc sticker on the new pcgs slab showing the old grade.
bet not very many of the yes people would want it to happen this way.
but then it would remain a pcgs registry.
TIm
Ok now explain to me why again that we collectors who don't own an entire set worth one of your coins should care whether or not they change their mind an put a sticker on one of your coins so you can play their game?
Why don't you just request that if they are going to claim to have registered the all time finest sets that they change that claim to the all time finest sets graded by PCGS and not worry about it? Anyway you and anyone else that thinks they will ever allow any other slabbed coins in their registry hasn't been reading David Hall's posts and hasn't come to understand the man and how much he hates NGC.
TDN, pardon my cynicism, but you did ask the question. Please take my response in the manner it was intended.
<< <i>Since no coins are bought for the plastic anyway... Crack your ngc coins out, keep the insert for use in the ngc registry. Send the raw coin to pcgs for a grade, for use in their registry. Crack out the coin again and keep it raw, and be in both registries. Simple. No muss, no fuss. No stickers, no plastic. >>
A) Once a coin is cracked, it cannot be used in a Registry (their rules, not mine), would this be the same with stickers?
If PCGS has reviewed a coin, and given it a grade, why should it not be allowed? (I am waiting for a real answer to this too)
It really is starting to look like some people here are plastic collectors, and the coins inside are irrelevant.
How does BJ's proposal hurt anyone, that is tradedollarnut's question. I do not see any harm. At the same time, I would prefer not to have to pay for some sticker service and mail all my NGC coins to PCGS, but if I have to, I have to.
I guess I should add the disclaimer that while I prefer PCGS coins, I prefer the NGC registry for the simple fact that a coin does not have to be ms60 to be prooflike, and I have some blinding au examples in PCGS holders to prove my point. Those coins will someday be submitted to NGC since only the NGC registry credits prooflike coins in grades under ms60.