This has been an interesting thread, reading everyone's opinions and their reasons. From my reading, it seems that the people who answered "Yes" either want to be able to include NGC coins in their own Registry sets or are willing to let others do so -- as long as those coins only get included at their PCGS reviewed grades. It also seems (to me at least) that the people who answered "No" not only do not want to include NGC coins in their own Registry sets, they don't want anyone else to either. Sounds a bit like the Prohibition Era to me -- "I don't drink alcohol, so I want it to be illegal for YOU."
Some of the "No" people have commented that if a "Yes" person really wants to get their NGC coin into the PCGS Registry, they should simply cross it at any grade. After all, "the coin is the coin." Right? My question is, though, would the PCGS-Review/Sticker service really be that different from the Crossover as far as observers of the Registry Sets are concerned? Here's an example, Joe "Deep Pockets" Collector has two super high value NGC-slabbed coins that won't cross to PCGS. (And don't say the ONLY reason is because the coins don't merit the grade, as we all know there can be inconsistencies with subjective grading OPINIONS. I've read numerous threads of members complaining that THEIR raw coins came back from PCGS with the WRONG grades -- read "low grades" -- and yet these same people who feel their coins were undergraded say YOUR coins must have been overgraded.) Let's say that Joe sends one coin in for "Cross at Any Grade," and the other one through some future "Registry Review/Sticker" program. Both coins get reviewed by the SAME PCGS grading staff, both come back with PCGS grading labels -- one label inside the plastic holder, one label stickered to the outside -- and both coins get listed in Joe's Registry set. As an outside viewer of Joe's Registry, how do you know which coin is in the PCGS slab and which one just has the sticker? Like the commercial says, "If you can't tell, why should we?"
In this example, how are any collectors or Registry Set participants hurt by the PCGS review sticker? ALL of the coins in the set are still listed at their PCGS grades. It's just that one of the coins is protected by NGC-brand plastic instead of PCGS-brand plastic. Very few Registry Sets ever physically go on display, and not that many sets have images of their coins on the PCGS site. Some sets are closed, such that you can't even see what the set's composition is -- you only get to see their set totals. So, since hardly ANYONE (other than the set's owner) ever sees the plastic surrounding the coin, is it really so bad that some of the plastic is from NGC? Isn't it the important thing for a PCGS Registry that all of the coins are in protective/tamper-resistant holders, all graded by the PCGS experts?
In my opinion, allowing such a grade-review/sticker for Registry purposes would take the emphasis off the plastic, and place it squarely on obtaining the very best COINS ever graded by PCGS. No one needs to be forced to participate with this, but I do think that those who would like to should have the freedom to do so.
Guys they already give a grade on dnc coins and if you look at an invoice of crossover coins with any dnc's they have a cert number(all they have to do is add the info to there data base)if they don't assign a grade to the coin then how do they know it did not cross??so actually they are already doing this as the grade is in the computer for a short period and the dnc coin has a cert number and grade, but they delete it from the system. so you can pay them for something they already do, the only change would be to keep the info in the system like they would if a coin crossed, but what kind of sticker is tamper proof but as Cardinal said most sets have no pics or are closed, so really all they would have to do is give the cert info to the owner of the coin, and make it valid for only that one owner this would allow the really scarce pieces to be included in the registry( and since the owners would not except a lower pcgs grade if it were a true crossover)upon sale of said piece there would be no reason for the next owner to have the cert number. Tim
LOOKING FOR 1931-s merc that is nice for the grade and fb
The PCGS-review grade IS already assigned during the cross-over process, so PCGS just needs to maintain that data for Registry purposes. As you point out, there really is no need to have a "sticker," since PCGS can simply attach the Registry Grade in their database with the NGC serial number and provide the new PCGS serial number to the Registry submitter.
Seems like an easy way to attract more of the best COINS into the Registry, without the potential negative side effect of actually downgrading the slabbed grade to one with a lesser perceived monetary value, and without the risk (shudder) of an important coin being damaged during the crack-out process.
I agree. The "sticker" need only be data entered into the PCGS database. The PCGS # would be just a number associated with the NGC serial number. Also, most pictures in the Registry don't include the slab, if there are pictures at all. I currently don't have a single NGC coin that I would want to include in my Registry set, but there are certainly a lot of nice NGC slabbed coins out there that would qualify. I like to look at nice coins. Personally, I think any slabbed coins should qualify for a PCGS review and certification #. Some will make it some won't. mdwoods.
This is an important issue with a sound solution. I agree with TDN and Cardinal. Those that don't wish to participate...don't! Those that desire the feature, now have the option! I VOTE YES! Jim Swan
You would want something like a stuicker on the slab in case you go to sell. Yeah they can be switched, but it would be alot harder on the bourse floor to have to go and check the PCGS # in the database without a sticker showing what PCGS graded the coin.
Here's one more point to ease the fears of the naysayers, who might worry that opening the PCGS Registry would dilute all the sets with a flood of NGC coins.
Logic would suggest that the number of NGC coins submitted for PCGS grade-review would not be enormous, as the service would likely be used primarily for only the very toughest of coins. Those coins that DO exist in great numbers not only are common in NGC holders, but they are common in PCGS holders as well. So, if someone REALLY wanted to participate in the PCGS Registry in those series, they'd just buy the readily available PCGS coins. Take the year 2002 Silver American Eagle for example. The current online Pop reports show 1,523 specimens graded as MS70 and 45,422 specimens graded as MS69 by NGC. The PCGS Pop shows ZERO in MS70 and 3,781 in MS69. Would someone really pay a fee to use a grade review service to get an NGC MS70 coin into the PCGS Registry? I don't think so. A current Internet seller lists the NGC70 at $140. Add a PCGS review fee of, let's say, $10 minimum and the owner gets the chance of listing a (likely) PCGS69 in the Registry for a total investment of $150. Meanwhile, the Internet seller is listing PCGS69s for $29 each. Simple economics will keep all of the common NGC "stuff" out of the Registry.
Where the PCGS grade-review service would likely be used (in my opinion) is with TRULY rare coins selected by knowledgeable collectors. These are people who know their series well and select only the best they can obtain. So, if any of their coins are NGC coins, you can be sure they are top-notch specimens, not the mass-produced, mass-marketed NGC "stuff" being hawked on Shop-AT-Home TV. Take Tradedollarnut's 1885 Eliasberg Proof for example. TDN is an unquestioned expert in that series -- PCGS already voted his circulation strike set into their Hall of Fame in the first year, with EVERY specimen being Pop Top coins! TDN's 1885 is graded PR-66 by NGC. Why buy the NGC-graded coin? Well, according to the PCGS Pop report, the finest graded by PCGS is PR-62. If TDN is building the very finest set of Trade Dollars, should he settle for a lowly 62 when he has the opportunity to acquire a 66? Of course not! Everyone, including PCGS recognizes TDN's coin as the finest known. It deserves to be part of his Registry set, but currently is ineligible due to its brand of plastic.
Every series has its toughest coin. In my series of Early Dollars, the stopper is the 1794 Dollar. I used to have a PCGS-XF40 specimen in my Registry Set. Here it is:
According to the current Pop report, the 1794 Dollar in XF40 is a Pop-9 coin with 10 graded higher (1 XF45, 3 AUs, and 6 mint state). I feel quite certain the the figure of 10 coins includes duplications, reducing the real number out there. Nonetheless, there has not been a single PCGS-graded 1794 Dollar higher than XF-40 on the market for over five years! Consequently, to upgrade my coin, I needed to turn to NGC-graded specimens. This is the one I came up with:
I know I'm biased, but to my eyes, my new 1794 Dollar just somehow seems better than my previous one. Yet, the previous one gave me 40 grading points and an extra 2.63% completion in my Registry Set, and my new one (NGC64, with numerous consenting opinions of experts -- including some PCGS execs) adds ZERO to my set. Just doesn't seem right to me. I'm sure there are many other examples out there of magnificent coins owned by PCGS Registry members that deserve to be included in the Registry on some basis, but are currently excluded due to the color of their slabs. I, for one, would love to see all of those coins in the Registry.
I say we make the PCGS Registry the place with the best COINS, not just the best slabs.
Send in coins to have a sticker placed on them nope not for me especially with all the assocaiated costs. But why stop w/ NGC coins.....let any graded coins go through the "sticker shock system". Heck lets use raw coins to.......
Just one more point to those who have a problem with this solution....I assume everyone has an issue with the Best Ever sets that are NOT PCGS graded and yet are in the Registry? Some of these are the sets that are based on historical recollection not on attributed PCGS grades. To me, this is as big a deal yet no discussion.
keoj, that too has been kicked around many times in here. David Hall defended it at FUN by saying he and other "people in the know" examined the sets and knew enough about them to feel comfortable placing them in the set registry.
I agree with TDN and others that this would be a great idea. For what it's worth, here is my thinking:
1. It provides people like TDN, with very valuable perhaps one of a kind coins, that happen to be in NGC holders, an opportunity to include them in their set at minimal cost and without devaluing the coin. While there has been a lot of talk of "collecting the coin" versus "collecting the plastic", it is clear that some of the value of many coins IS derived from the plastic. TDN has offerred couple of very real-world examples.
2. It provides the rest of us an opportunity to see these collections. Perhaps there should be a caveat on these coins that they can ONLY be included in an open visible set!!
3. The service should not be limited to NGC. It should apply to any coin in any services tamper-proof slab. What possible reason is there to not include any coin in this?
4. To the argument that PCGS is just doing this to create another money making service, I am sure that is part of their motivation: they are in business to make money. But they make money by offering services that their customers want. If we want it, they'll offer it---sure, they'll make a little money out of it. A number of years ago you could have said the same thing about certifying and slabbing coins----but the coin collecting community was (and still is) willing to pay for the service. I believe this would be a service some people would be willing to pay a relatively small amount for---as other have said, perhaps comparable to a cross-over fee, or a little less, since there is no slab involved.
5. I think there is a real problem with biasing the process unless the grade of the coin is hidden to the graders. While these people are honest professional, I would be concerned that there might be a little inadvertant downgrading especially on borderline coins.
6. (and possible the most important in my thinking) If you don't want to use the service, nobody is forcing you! You can continue to only use )PCGS slabs; not include your NGC coins; or play the game across the street. Nobody is holding a gun to your head saying you MUST send your NGC coins in for a PCGS grade.
7. I would suggest that the sticker NOT be affixed to the slab by PCGS---instead the sticker could specify the grading company and certificate number as well as the PCGS assigned grade and number (which would also be in the PCGS database so there is little opportunity for cheating). I have received many coins with dealer stickers on them. While many of these peal off, some don't---even some from the same dealer. I guess a little extra glue on the sticker stock, or leaving it on the slab a litle longer makes it stick to the slab. If they send a losse sticker, I can chose to affix it or not.
...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.
Mike: you missed the point of my frustration. I am NOT frustrated because you and others that "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry" aren't on my bandwagon. I was frustrated because you, and others, seem to have voted "no" and are arguing against the option, even tho you "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry".
I certainly respect dissenting opinions on the matter. But I must say that I find it troubling when those who "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry" still take a stand against it!
I vote yes for the same reasons that TDN, Cardinal, tompkins and others have pointed out. No one is making you play the game and there is no negative effect on the price of PCGS coins. If anything it provides more revenue for PCGS and for all the Kool Aid drinkers among us, more revenues = stronger PCGS and stronger PCGS = GOOD!
No TDN I voted yes, but used this thread to make some points. I dislike the idea of a sticker. If its in an NGC holder it is good enough for me. If NGC had been the first out with the registry concept and had been able to exploit it the way PCGS has done I am sure they would not be allowing PCGS coins in their registry. I would be making the same arguement to them. NGC certainly isn't anymore altruistic than CLCT is. Fortunately they seem to have superior financial management.
TDN if they allow some coins in how do you argue for those they won't let it. For instance, PCGS will not grade a coin PF70 without cracking the coin out? Under the current proposal how is that fair to those who collect PF & MS 70 coins?
It simply sounds like another way for them to increase income, maintain the myth about their grading superiority to satisfy some registry egos. I agree with your points as well as Cardinals, but not sure the average collector cares as much about the proposal as you two fellows do. BTW I admire your coins whether they end up with stickers on them or not.
I would like to suggest that since most people favoring the 'stickered' PCGS coins are only looking to register, in most cases, one or two NGC coins; THAT THE 'STICKERED' COIN GRADING BE TIED IN WITH THE FREE CROSSOVERS ALLOWED BY PCGS WHEN A REGISTRY SET REACHES 90% COMPLETION. This way, if a coin that was allowed the free crossover did not cross at the same grade, then the coin would be given the 'stickered' grade and everything would be done in one step and not even cost the submitter, except for the postage. People worried about losing the integrity of their PCGS coins, because of a flood of NGC coins into the Registry, would now know that only a very slight percentage of NGC coins would be accepted into the PCGS Registry, and the NGC coins accepted would most likely be very valuable and rare, and in most likely pedigreed, as in Eliasberg, Norweb, etc.. I think this would be a very big plus for the PCGS Registry, and hopefully satisfy most PCGS Registrants. Following are the PCGS Rules for free crossover when a PCGS Set reaches 90% completion;
Free Grading. We recognize that not every coin in every important collection has been graded by PCGS. In order to encourage participation in the PCGS Set Registry program we are offering the following free grading benefits for sets that reach 90% completion: If the set composition is 1-9 coins you are entitled to 1 free grading. If the set composition is 10-24 coins you are entitled to 2 free gradings. If the set composition is 25-49 coins you are entitled to 3 free gradings. If the set composition is 50-99 coins you are entitled to 4 free gradings. If the set composition is 100+ coins you are entitled to 5 free gradings.
TDN if they allow some coins in how do you argue for those they won't let it. For instance, PCGS will not grade a coin PF70 without cracking the coin out? Under the current proposal how is that fair to those who collect PF & MS 70 coins?
Mike, I don't understand. Are you saying that PCGS must review a 70 coin raw and therefore will automatically downgrade the coin to 69 at best? And that a collector of those coins is being put at a disadvantage by the Registry Grade review process?
Zerbe: For a 1 - 9 coin set, it has to be 100% complete to achieve the 90% completion benchmark
A PM from Lindas Daddy posted at his request [I don't necessarily agree with all the content]
In a lesser way, I understand the pain that TDN and Cardinal have with the CU registry system. They have some great coins in other-brand holders, and are thus penalized for valueing the coin and not wanting to play holder politics. To me, however, this whole issue smacks of holder politics. BJ and co now want to survey the membership to see just how to attentuate their collector-unfriendly brand of politics.
If you feel strongly that CU are behaving badly, then the best message one can send is to pull your beloved mixed sets and play across the street. That is what I did. With the better "best" sets registered across the street, then CU can no longer credibly say that they have the finest. Prior to Legend's newly registered MS Seated Dollar set, who do you think had the best registered set: Arizona or me?
If Cardinal has his set strictly across the street, then can Thaler credibly say that he has the finest registered ED set? Or, Baltimore for Trades if TDN did the same?
Those of us with really hard-to-build classics sets are severely hampered by holder politics because our series tend to have relatively small populations of nicer, better grade specimens. As Cardinal pointed out, you can't just go out and buy a nice 1794 ED any day of the week. Yet, those of us with some standing in the classics community choose to negotiate with CU over an odious issue like holder politics. I liken this to those refuseniks trying to negotiate with Saddam over weapons of mass destruction.
I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP THE INSANITY. We paid a lot of money and expend a lot of dedication to build our sets; they are worthy of admiration. If CU don't want to embrace our sets, then they can do without them.
I stand by my belief that CU are grossly mis-behaving on this matter; I have long since pulled my beloved sets and I have no regrets. I will not deal with CU on this matter. They either behave properly, or I stay away. They won't miss me, and I won't miss them. After all, I am in it for the coins and not for the registry recognition.
I know almost everyone who has a set registered in the Early, Seated and Trade Dollar categories. If we stuck together, then we can make an impact statement by moving our sets strictly across the street. Linda's Daddy
My comments:
I'm not sure what to think about this PM. I do know that I'm tired of holding duplicates in the instances where I have a clearly superior NGC coin that won't cross - especially when PCGS agrees the coin is superior. If that means having to remove my sets when I sell the inferior duplicates, then I guess I'll have to do so. I do know that some early coins are IMPOSSIBLE to find in PCGS holders - when was the last time a PCGS unc 1794 dollar appeared on the market? And that the top end, finest known WOW! coins are migrating to NGC because they will receive the higher grade instead of being lumped in with all the other MS67's.
All collectors have an inate instinct to complete a set. Many collectors have the desire to complete that set in the finest condition they can afford. In many classic series, there simply aren't the PCGS coins to satisfy this instinct and the collectors are forced to purchase NGC coins. Or they purchase WOW! NGC coins to get the finest, knowing that the coins won't cross but are the finest.
Eventually, the classic collector concerned with completing a set and/or owning the finest will not participate here. And that's a shame.
I sent a pm to TDN expressing my opinion in favor of his position. I also made a minor suggestion about modifying the PCGS sticker proposal that he suggested I post here. So, here's what I suggested as a modification:
I very much like the stickering proposal because it allows me to determine at what grade PCGS would cross my NGC coins. Apparently these data currently exist, albeit temporarily, in the PCGS database, but I did not know this fact until I read it in the thread. Anyway, the modification I suggest is that after PCGS determines the sticker grade, the collector be given the option to resubmit the coin and have the coin holdered in a PCGS slab at the sticker grade. This option might have a time limit--say, 45 days after the grade is determined--and might involve some extra cost--for the slabbing process and as an insurance policy for PCGS in case the coin, when cracked, had a previously undected flaw. But with this modification, I, and other collectors, would have an assurance about at what grade a crossover would occur.
Clearly my collection and its value don't compare to TDN's, Cardinal's, and, indeed, to almost everyone who has posted on this thread. But I'd sure hate to lose money by submitting my NGC MS65 Lafayette dollar to PCGS as a "cross at any grade" and having it come back as, say, PCGS MS62. The sticker suggestion allows me to ascertain what grade PCGS assigns to my NGC coin, and I like the suggestion for that reason. My modification allows me to determine if I think the potential loss of money is too extreme to warrent crossing the coin, and I like the modification for that reason.
Am I making some sort of blatant error or missing anything? If not, does this modification seem reasonable?
It seems that we all agree that we dislike holder politics. Every game has its rules, and CU sets the rules for the one called the Set Registry. When someone doesn't like the rules of the game, I see three options: you can remain quiet, keep playing, but remain unhappy; you can choose not to play at all and just go across the street; or you can take opportunities to make constructive suggestions to the leadership to get the rules changed. The U.S. population has been voting politicians into office for centuries, specifically with the intent of getting their ideas reflected in the rules of this country. I see no need to withhold our opinions here -- ESPECIALLY when the Registry Administrator specifically asks for them!
As Mark points, many collectors can benefit from getting a written PCGS grade review of their NGC coins. So, please realize I'm not just chiming in on this thread for my own selfish gain. I love my set, and while I'd like the consistency of them all being graded by PCGS, it certainly does not hold me back from putting up my entire set on my website or having the entire set on display at coin shows. However, there are a lot of WOW! coins out there that exist in NGC holders that DON'T get displayed very much at shows. The public's only chance at seeing these is through online venues, such as dedicated websites and Registry Systems. For now, they can't appear in the PCGS Registry, and that is a shame.
Just go across the street, you say? That Registry set up has its own problems. Here's just a few from my own experience. All of my Early Dollars are registered over there, and they participate in the "Date Set" and the "Variety Set." My set contains multiple Flowing Hair Dollars, so picking the best one for the Date Set, I get credit for an MS64. However, the Varieties Set ignores that coin and only includes my AU58. The Varieties Set properly includes my 1795 Draped Bust (PCGS-MS65) and my 1801 (PCGS-MS64), but neither of those coins show up in the Date Set at all. It's a problem with their software, and nothing I can do has changed that. What about the weighting? Well, according to NGC, EVERY AU is worth the same, whether it just barely made AU50 or if it just missed mint state and was slabbed AU58! The same is true for other grades -- XF40 and XF45 are weighted the same, and there is only one weighting for a VF coin (20, 25, 30, or 35 -- take your pick). So, that Registry isn't perfect either!
As Lindas Daddy suggested, maybe if all of us Early Dollar, Seated Dollar, and Trade Dollar collectors united in boycotting the PCGS Registry, we'd scare PCGS enough to take notice. Do we REALLY think so? I've counted, and all of our Pre-Morgan dollar Registry Sets account for 17 out of more than 5300 sets. I don't think PCGS would really notice the loss.
So again, in my opinion, the best we can do is register our opinions -- vote and be counted!
MY first opinion/vote was no because I thought and still do that this is the first step in allowing ngc coins in the pcgs registry at same grade which would hurt pcgs coins and be a bonanza for ngc coins. Bottomline, if it hurts me financially then I would have a problem. Assuming the goal is to help classic coin collectors complete a set with a pcgs grade, then there are still some questions. I am assuming these coins would not affect pcgs pop reports or would they, if they were counted at both it would overstate pops even more. I assume the pcgs grade is just a memo grade and doesnt affect pop reports and that the pcgs database keeps a separate file of ngc coins with the memo grade and a memo pcgs number. What is being proposed is that ngc coins be in the registry with a memo grade so that there can be participation in the registry and no financial loss to the ngc holder. I assume the 1794 ngc64 would grade 63 or 62 and that Cardinal doesn't want that because it may hurt financially and furthermore he thinks he has a better shot sometime in the future for a pcgs64 keeping it in the ngc holder. I could agree with two caveats 1) the proposed specific details need to be detailed out so that we fully understand and 2) that pcgs categorically says that ngc coins will never be allowed into the pcgs registry at the same grade. As I said before, this would ruin pcgs credibility , make alot of collectors feel incredibly betrayed and I believe financially harm many of us where there is a one half to one point difference between grades as I believe there is in buffalo nickels which I collect.Carl
I reall wish I had the speaking skills put to 1010101101's like Greg can. Lets face it, theres a ton of double talk, but no real focus on the issues, and when the issues are brought to the fore front, greg is asked to take backseat...
thats cool...its were most of us reside and Id rather his ear to yours at the moment David.
That's the point, RegistryCoin, it is enough. And it won't be long until that's where the majority of the classic collectors that care about quality gravitate.
PCGS can choose to be proactive and do something about it before the fact, or do nothing and accept it. The ball is in their court.
No, it's a "I like PCGS better but there's a few problems with your Registry will you consider a few tweaks" kind of thing. My collections are 95% PCGS 5% NGC. The NGC coins are great, or I would not have bought them. I prefer to participate both here and there, but I'm done trying to cross coins and I'm not going to hold duplicates anymore. Want me to just go across the street? OK - done deal. We'll see what PCGS decides on this and then it's a done deal, just for you!
Now, don't take the ball, and say the game is over, yet. Perhaps, your coins are such that pcgs is best served to make an exception, just for you. Don't get all huffy, I am serious. I don't see any value in allowing ngc coins into the pcgs registry. But since your coins are so special, you deserve a special qualification. Perhaps, David and some others "in the know" can review your set and give you a place in the pcgs registry, as they did with the Eliasberg, Shepherd, etc., collections.
But since your coins are so special, you deserve a special qualification.
As much as I like TDN's coins, and the owner even more, I would have to say that there should be no special qualification due to the individual person or coin. This is not a plutocracy.
I desire no special compensation that other collectors cannot receive also. I don't want to be placated and leave Cardinal and Zerbe and many others hanging. Fix it for all or fix it for none - like some have said "it's their loss".
Surely, this is the crux of the matter. Who's, or more importantly, which ngc coins are worthy of mention in the pcgs registry? We have seen "important" collections that have ngc coins (and raw, for that matter) mentioned and ranked in the pcgs registry. Since ngc coins in the pcgs registry are most likely out of the question (we are just pretending here), perhaps it is best to consider a way to get some of the best ncg and ngc/pcgs sets at least mentioned/acknowledged in the pcgs registry.
Oh? I thought it was about consistent grading standards whether or not a coin was worthy of being in the Registry. I thought this was about coin collecting! The statement "which ngc coins are worthy of mention in the pcgs registry?" is insane! They aren't NGC coins, they are coins graded to NGC standards. Grade them to PCGS standards and they are still coins! If PCGS wants the finest sets, they've got to tweak the rules a little. If they don't, fine - done deal.
Grading standards are "consistantly" different, between the two services. The thought of "ngc coins" vs. "pcgs coins" permeates the registries, and all thoughts, comments and complaints about the fairness of the registries. That's what this "arguement" is all about. ps. It's not about "coin collecting." It's obviously about recognition.
We're talking about allowing NGC coins to be listed IF they are graded to PCGS standards as determined by PCGS itself. That eliminates any "NGC coins" talk.
Is Cardinal's 1794 (perhaps 4th finest known) worthy? Zerbe's finest known gold proof? Michael's finest known 1860 half dime? Joe Blows choice XF seated half? Who the hell are we to say - provided they are graded to the same standard as all the other coins listed in the Registry.
Recognition? That's what it's all about? I thought it was about comraderie. Esprit de Corp. Sharing one's collection. Wow, guess I got a lot to learn....
Sure, recognition is what the registry is all about. I'm not saying whether it's recognition of the coin, or the coin's owner. I'm just saying it's obviously about recognition. Personally, I get off on ads that say things like: "ms67, one of 35 with only one better", knowing that the "one better" is mine. I get off on the pop charts, when I see all the undergrades of my "one of two". I know the "recognition" thing. The purpose here is to get the best coins acknowledged in the pcgs registry, or better said, not ignored, right? There is a compromise available to those who look for it, I would think.
The purpose here is to get the best coins acknowledged in the pcgs registry, or better said, not ignored, right? There is a compromise available to those who look for it, I would think.
Recognize all coins graded by reputable first-tier grading services. But there's a Registry that already does that, and it seems to be growing pretty rapidly.
What do you know! You think you know a guy for all these years and then he admits his true fetishes publicly! This argument belongs on the Jerry Springer show! Why don't we all chip in a couple dollars and put TDN and Registrycoin on stage and tape this debate for all collectors to enjoy. They can battle this out. At the first commercial break, Jerry can bring in David Hall and Mark Saltzberg. At the final break, Registrycoin and TDN's spouses can come and speak to the problem as well as their "true loves" - Laura for TDN and myself for Registrycoin (or anyone he choses), who have helped these boys "get off" for years. A final fight can break out between myself and Steve's wife, as well as between Laura and TDN's wife.
The taping of this broadcast will be a free gift if anyone orders the special 5 year Collectors Club membership from PCGS or NGC for $249.95. What do you say? Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Having read thru most of the replies to this thread, I have a couple things to say on the subject(as small as my involvement in the registry is).
First off......some of you guys seem to have WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money, please send me the extra ........
Secondly as for allowing NGC coins in the registry.....Why not? Maybe have a requirement to make at least 50% or so of the coins PCGS and the rest NGC. Couldn't the weights be adjusted, since several people feel that NGC is more liberal with grades? IE.......weight a PCGS PR69DCAM to be equal to an NGC PR70UCAM, or something along those lines.
From what I've seen, at least PCGS is starting to show some interest or "give", if you will, in this area. People can debate all day and there will be no one right answer...........I say let em come up with something and give them the benefit of a doubt.
Mitch: personally, I'd rather see a "spend off" between Laura and Bobby Hughs!
Real simple summary: PCGS has asked us what we think and has received feedback that the majority of respondants favor opening the Registry if the grades are consistent. This is particularly true among classic collectors where it may be years or even a lifetime between PCGS coins being available.
Sure, the details need to be worked out and compromises made. But it's the best solution. The alternative is an erosion of the Set Registry.
From a pcgs marketing standpoint, just state at the top of the registry an acknowledgement that "there are other great coins in other holders", and be done with it.
Well, I have read pretty much everyones view point and now for MHO and my vote (not for Mitch's idea although it was funny)
1st let me say I think as far as TDN and a few others in a catch22... PCGS should review these coins and either convert them to PCGS slabs (since their grades are based on notes) or delete the non exsisting set they are competing against
I am voting Yes with a couple ideas.
1) Send in your coins if you want and as PCGS has started lately, now an email comes alerting your grades are available. At this point the person has a period of time to go to the web page. If they click on "NO" then their coin receives a sticker. If "YES" then the coin is reholdered and crossed to a new PCGS slab with the grade as stated. This could be done for all cross overs. We just need a little feedback, not just stating "Does Not Cross".
2) In the registry set column under "POP" it will state "NGC"
Trying to include NGC coins in the PCGS Registry is just too complex--there would be endless carping over the compromises that would be necessary. For example, the point has already been made that PCGS will not cross over MS70/PR70 coins [because the edge of the coin cannot be examined without removing it from the holder], so presumably every NGC-70 would automatically receive a PCGS-69 sticker. I expect many other such issues would come to light.
The PCGS Registry is for showcasing your collection of PCGS-slabbed coins, nothing more. The combined registry is "across the street". Whether or not this hurts PCGS is immaterial to me.
Besides, it's so much more fun to watch the endless debate over PCGS letting NGC coins in.
Why don't we all chip in a couple dollars and put TDN and Registrycoin on stage and tape this debate for all collectors to enjoy.
That was a big lol for me but I got a another one, How about a Springer show between DH and whoever the NGC bug guy is and all members who want to participate can run out onto the stage and plant big, fat, sloppy juicy ones on whoever they believe in over the other making the other jealous as hell. What a cat fight that would be! lol
I know! sick..sick sick!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
In the 26 days since BJ posted the poll, there have been 138 votes and 150 responses. As TDN mentioned in a separate thread, it would be good to get some thoughts from the Set Registry management.
Comments
Some of the "No" people have commented that if a "Yes" person really wants to get their NGC coin into the PCGS Registry, they should simply cross it at any grade. After all, "the coin is the coin." Right? My question is, though, would the PCGS-Review/Sticker service really be that different from the Crossover as far as observers of the Registry Sets are concerned? Here's an example, Joe "Deep Pockets" Collector has two super high value NGC-slabbed coins that won't cross to PCGS. (And don't say the ONLY reason is because the coins don't merit the grade, as we all know there can be inconsistencies with subjective grading OPINIONS. I've read numerous threads of members complaining that THEIR raw coins came back from PCGS with the WRONG grades -- read "low grades" -- and yet these same people who feel their coins were undergraded say YOUR coins must have been overgraded.) Let's say that Joe sends one coin in for "Cross at Any Grade," and the other one through some future "Registry Review/Sticker" program. Both coins get reviewed by the SAME PCGS grading staff, both come back with PCGS grading labels -- one label inside the plastic holder, one label stickered to the outside -- and both coins get listed in Joe's Registry set. As an outside viewer of Joe's Registry, how do you know which coin is in the PCGS slab and which one just has the sticker? Like the commercial says, "If you can't tell, why should we?"
In this example, how are any collectors or Registry Set participants hurt by the PCGS review sticker? ALL of the coins in the set are still listed at their PCGS grades. It's just that one of the coins is protected by NGC-brand plastic instead of PCGS-brand plastic. Very few Registry Sets ever physically go on display, and not that many sets have images of their coins on the PCGS site. Some sets are closed, such that you can't even see what the set's composition is -- you only get to see their set totals. So, since hardly ANYONE (other than the set's owner) ever sees the plastic surrounding the coin, is it really so bad that some of the plastic is from NGC? Isn't it the important thing for a PCGS Registry that all of the coins are in protective/tamper-resistant holders, all graded by the PCGS experts?
In my opinion, allowing such a grade-review/sticker for Registry purposes would take the emphasis off the plastic, and place it squarely on obtaining the very best COINS ever graded by PCGS. No one needs to be forced to participate with this, but I do think that those who would like to should have the freedom to do so.
-- Cardinal
Early Dollar Website
of crossover coins with any dnc's they have a cert number(all they have to do
is add the info to there data base)if they don't assign a grade to the coin then how
do they know it did not cross??so actually they are already doing this as the grade is in the computer
for a short period and the dnc coin has a cert number and grade, but they delete it from the system.
so you can pay them for something they already do, the only change would be to keep the info in the
system like they would if a coin crossed, but what kind of sticker is tamper proof
but as Cardinal said most sets have no pics or are closed, so really all they would have to do
is give the cert info to the owner of the coin, and make it valid for only that one owner
this would allow the really scarce pieces to be included in the registry( and since the owners would
not except a lower pcgs grade if it were a true crossover)upon sale of said piece there would be no reason
for the next owner to have the cert number.
Tim
That's a very perceptive insight!
The PCGS-review grade IS already assigned during the cross-over process, so PCGS just needs to maintain that data for Registry purposes. As you point out, there really is no need to have a "sticker," since PCGS can simply attach the Registry Grade in their database with the NGC serial number and provide the new PCGS serial number to the Registry submitter.
Seems like an easy way to attract more of the best COINS into the Registry, without the potential negative side effect of actually downgrading the slabbed grade to one with a lesser perceived monetary value, and without the risk (shudder) of an important coin being damaged during the crack-out process.
-- Cardinal
Early Dollar Website
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
Jim Swan
Cameron Kiefer
Logic would suggest that the number of NGC coins submitted for PCGS grade-review would not be enormous, as the service would likely be used primarily for only the very toughest of coins. Those coins that DO exist in great numbers not only are common in NGC holders, but they are common in PCGS holders as well. So, if someone REALLY wanted to participate in the PCGS Registry in those series, they'd just buy the readily available PCGS coins. Take the year 2002 Silver American Eagle for example. The current online Pop reports show 1,523 specimens graded as MS70 and 45,422 specimens graded as MS69 by NGC. The PCGS Pop shows ZERO in MS70 and 3,781 in MS69. Would someone really pay a fee to use a grade review service to get an NGC MS70 coin into the PCGS Registry? I don't think so. A current Internet seller lists the NGC70 at $140. Add a PCGS review fee of, let's say, $10 minimum and the owner gets the chance of listing a (likely) PCGS69 in the Registry for a total investment of $150. Meanwhile, the Internet seller is listing PCGS69s for $29 each. Simple economics will keep all of the common NGC "stuff" out of the Registry.
Where the PCGS grade-review service would likely be used (in my opinion) is with TRULY rare coins selected by knowledgeable collectors. These are people who know their series well and select only the best they can obtain. So, if any of their coins are NGC coins, you can be sure they are top-notch specimens, not the mass-produced, mass-marketed NGC "stuff" being hawked on Shop-AT-Home TV. Take Tradedollarnut's 1885 Eliasberg Proof for example. TDN is an unquestioned expert in that series -- PCGS already voted his circulation strike set into their Hall of Fame in the first year, with EVERY specimen being Pop Top coins! TDN's 1885 is graded PR-66 by NGC. Why buy the NGC-graded coin? Well, according to the PCGS Pop report, the finest graded by PCGS is PR-62. If TDN is building the very finest set of Trade Dollars, should he settle for a lowly 62 when he has the opportunity to acquire a 66? Of course not! Everyone, including PCGS recognizes TDN's coin as the finest known. It deserves to be part of his Registry set, but currently is ineligible due to its brand of plastic.
Every series has its toughest coin. In my series of Early Dollars, the stopper is the 1794 Dollar. I used to have a PCGS-XF40 specimen in my Registry Set. Here it is:
According to the current Pop report, the 1794 Dollar in XF40 is a Pop-9 coin with 10 graded higher (1 XF45, 3 AUs, and 6 mint state). I feel quite certain the the figure of 10 coins includes duplications, reducing the real number out there. Nonetheless, there has not been a single PCGS-graded 1794 Dollar higher than XF-40 on the market for over five years! Consequently, to upgrade my coin, I needed to turn to NGC-graded specimens. This is the one I came up with:
I know I'm biased, but to my eyes, my new 1794 Dollar just somehow seems better than my previous one. Yet, the previous one gave me 40 grading points and an extra 2.63% completion in my Registry Set, and my new one (NGC64, with numerous consenting opinions of experts -- including some PCGS execs) adds ZERO to my set. Just doesn't seem right to me. I'm sure there are many other examples out there of magnificent coins owned by PCGS Registry members that deserve to be included in the Registry on some basis, but are currently excluded due to the color of their slabs. I, for one, would love to see all of those coins in the Registry.
I say we make the PCGS Registry the place with the best COINS, not just the best slabs.
-- Cardinal
Early Dollar Website
keoj
Hmmmmm.
1. It provides people like TDN, with very valuable perhaps one of a kind coins, that happen to be in NGC holders, an opportunity to include them in their set at minimal cost and without devaluing the coin. While there has been a lot of talk of "collecting the coin" versus "collecting the plastic", it is clear that some of the value of many coins IS derived from the plastic. TDN has offerred couple of very real-world examples.
2. It provides the rest of us an opportunity to see these collections. Perhaps there should be a caveat on these coins that they can ONLY be included in an open visible set!!
3. The service should not be limited to NGC. It should apply to any coin in any services tamper-proof slab. What possible reason is there to not include any coin in this?
4. To the argument that PCGS is just doing this to create another money making service, I am sure that is part of their motivation: they are in business to make money. But they make money by offering services that their customers want. If we want it, they'll offer it---sure, they'll make a little money out of it. A number of years ago you could have said the same thing about certifying and slabbing coins----but the coin collecting community was (and still is) willing to pay for the service. I believe this would be a service some people would be willing to pay a relatively small amount for---as other have said, perhaps comparable to a cross-over fee, or a little less, since there is no slab involved.
5. I think there is a real problem with biasing the process unless the grade of the coin is hidden to the graders. While these people are honest professional, I would be concerned that there might be a little inadvertant downgrading especially on borderline coins.
6. (and possible the most important in my thinking) If you don't want to use the service, nobody is forcing you! You can continue to only use )PCGS slabs; not include your NGC coins; or play the game across the street. Nobody is holding a gun to your head saying you MUST send your NGC coins in for a PCGS grade.
7. I would suggest that the sticker NOT be affixed to the slab by PCGS---instead the sticker could specify the grading company and certificate number as well as the PCGS assigned grade and number (which would also be in the PCGS database so there is little opportunity for cheating). I have received many coins with dealer stickers on them. While many of these peal off, some don't---even some from the same dealer. I guess a little extra glue on the sticker stock, or leaving it on the slab a litle longer makes it stick to the slab. If they send a losse sticker, I can chose to affix it or not.
Pete
Mike: you missed the point of my frustration. I am NOT frustrated because you and others that "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry" aren't on my bandwagon. I was frustrated because you, and others, seem to have voted "no" and are arguing against the option, even tho you "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry".
I certainly respect dissenting opinions on the matter. But I must say that I find it troubling when those who "dont care if PCGS does or does not allow other slabbed coins in their registry" still take a stand against it!
TDN if they allow some coins in how do you argue for those they won't let it. For instance, PCGS will not grade a coin PF70 without cracking the coin out? Under the current proposal how is that fair to those who collect PF & MS 70 coins?
It simply sounds like another way for them to increase income, maintain the myth about their grading superiority to satisfy some registry egos. I agree with your points as well as Cardinals, but not sure the average collector cares as much about the proposal as you two fellows do. BTW I admire your coins whether they end up with stickers on them or not.
People worried about losing the integrity of their PCGS coins, because of a flood of NGC coins into the Registry, would now know that only a very slight percentage of NGC coins would be accepted into the PCGS Registry, and the NGC coins accepted would most likely be very valuable and rare, and in most likely pedigreed, as in Eliasberg, Norweb, etc.. I think this would be a very big plus for the PCGS Registry, and hopefully satisfy most PCGS Registrants.
Following are the PCGS Rules for free crossover when a PCGS Set reaches 90% completion;
Free Grading. We recognize that not every coin in every important collection has been graded by PCGS. In order to encourage participation in the PCGS Set Registry program we are offering the following free grading benefits for sets that reach 90% completion:
If the set composition is 1-9 coins you are entitled to 1 free grading.
If the set composition is 10-24 coins you are entitled to 2 free gradings.
If the set composition is 25-49 coins you are entitled to 3 free gradings.
If the set composition is 50-99 coins you are entitled to 4 free gradings.
If the set composition is 100+ coins you are entitled to 5 free gradings.
Mike, I don't understand. Are you saying that PCGS must review a 70 coin raw and therefore will automatically downgrade the coin to 69 at best? And that a collector of those coins is being put at a disadvantage by the Registry Grade review process?
Zerbe: For a 1 - 9 coin set, it has to be 100% complete to achieve the 90% completion benchmark
In a lesser way, I understand the pain that TDN and Cardinal have with the CU registry system. They have some great coins in other-brand holders, and are thus penalized for valueing the coin and not wanting to play holder politics. To me, however, this whole issue smacks of holder politics. BJ and co now want to survey the membership to see just how to attentuate their collector-unfriendly brand of politics.
If you feel strongly that CU are behaving badly, then the best message one can send is to pull your beloved mixed sets and play across the street. That is what I did. With the better "best" sets registered across the street, then CU can no longer credibly say that they have the finest. Prior to Legend's newly registered MS Seated Dollar set, who do you think had the best registered set: Arizona or me?
If Cardinal has his set strictly across the street, then can Thaler credibly say that he has the finest registered ED set? Or, Baltimore for Trades if TDN did the same?
Those of us with really hard-to-build classics sets are severely hampered by holder politics because our series tend to have relatively small populations of nicer, better grade specimens. As Cardinal pointed out, you can't just go out and buy a nice 1794 ED any day of the week. Yet, those of us with some standing in the classics community choose to negotiate with CU over an odious issue like holder politics. I liken this to those refuseniks trying to negotiate with Saddam over weapons of mass destruction.
I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP THE INSANITY. We paid a lot of money and expend a lot of dedication to build our sets; they are worthy of admiration. If CU don't want to embrace our sets, then they can do without them.
I stand by my belief that CU are grossly mis-behaving on this matter; I have long since pulled my beloved sets and I have no regrets. I will not deal with CU on this matter. They either behave properly, or I stay away. They won't miss me, and I won't miss them. After all, I am in it for the coins and not for the registry recognition.
I know almost everyone who has a set registered in the Early, Seated and Trade Dollar categories. If we stuck together, then we can make an impact statement by moving our sets strictly across the street. Linda's Daddy
My comments:
I'm not sure what to think about this PM. I do know that I'm tired of holding duplicates in the instances where I have a clearly superior NGC coin that won't cross - especially when PCGS agrees the coin is superior. If that means having to remove my sets when I sell the inferior duplicates, then I guess I'll have to do so. I do know that some early coins are IMPOSSIBLE to find in PCGS holders - when was the last time a PCGS unc 1794 dollar appeared on the market? And that the top end, finest known WOW! coins are migrating to NGC because they will receive the higher grade instead of being lumped in with all the other MS67's.
All collectors have an inate instinct to complete a set. Many collectors have the desire to complete that set in the finest condition they can afford. In many classic series, there simply aren't the PCGS coins to satisfy this instinct and the collectors are forced to purchase NGC coins. Or they purchase WOW! NGC coins to get the finest, knowing that the coins won't cross but are the finest.
Eventually, the classic collector concerned with completing a set and/or owning the finest will not participate here. And that's a shame.
I very much like the stickering proposal because it allows me to determine at what grade PCGS would cross my NGC coins. Apparently these data currently exist, albeit temporarily, in the PCGS database, but I did not know this fact until I read it in the thread. Anyway, the modification I suggest is that after PCGS determines the sticker grade, the collector be given the option to resubmit the coin and have the coin holdered in a PCGS slab at the sticker grade. This option might have a time limit--say, 45 days after the grade is determined--and might involve some extra cost--for the slabbing process and as an insurance policy for PCGS in case the coin, when cracked, had a previously undected flaw. But with this modification, I, and other collectors, would have an assurance about at what grade a crossover would occur.
Clearly my collection and its value don't compare to TDN's, Cardinal's, and, indeed, to almost everyone who has posted on this thread. But I'd sure hate to lose money by submitting my NGC MS65 Lafayette dollar to PCGS as a "cross at any grade" and having it come back as, say, PCGS MS62. The sticker suggestion allows me to ascertain what grade PCGS assigns to my NGC coin, and I like the suggestion for that reason. My modification allows me to determine if I think the potential loss of money is too extreme to warrent crossing the coin, and I like the modification for that reason.
Am I making some sort of blatant error or missing anything? If not, does this modification seem reasonable?
Thanks!
Mark
As Mark points, many collectors can benefit from getting a written PCGS grade review of their NGC coins. So, please realize I'm not just chiming in on this thread for my own selfish gain. I love my set, and while I'd like the consistency of them all being graded by PCGS, it certainly does not hold me back from putting up my entire set on my website or having the entire set on display at coin shows. However, there are a lot of WOW! coins out there that exist in NGC holders that DON'T get displayed very much at shows. The public's only chance at seeing these is through online venues, such as dedicated websites and Registry Systems. For now, they can't appear in the PCGS Registry, and that is a shame.
Just go across the street, you say? That Registry set up has its own problems. Here's just a few from my own experience. All of my Early Dollars are registered over there, and they participate in the "Date Set" and the "Variety Set." My set contains multiple Flowing Hair Dollars, so picking the best one for the Date Set, I get credit for an MS64. However, the Varieties Set ignores that coin and only includes my AU58. The Varieties Set properly includes my 1795 Draped Bust (PCGS-MS65) and my 1801 (PCGS-MS64), but neither of those coins show up in the Date Set at all. It's a problem with their software, and nothing I can do has changed that. What about the weighting? Well, according to NGC, EVERY AU is worth the same, whether it just barely made AU50 or if it just missed mint state and was slabbed AU58! The same is true for other grades -- XF40 and XF45 are weighted the same, and there is only one weighting for a VF coin (20, 25, 30, or 35 -- take your pick). So, that Registry isn't perfect either!
As Lindas Daddy suggested, maybe if all of us Early Dollar, Seated Dollar, and Trade Dollar collectors united in boycotting the PCGS Registry, we'd scare PCGS enough to take notice. Do we REALLY think so? I've counted, and all of our Pre-Morgan dollar Registry Sets account for 17 out of more than 5300 sets. I don't think PCGS would really notice the loss.
So again, in my opinion, the best we can do is register our opinions -- vote and be counted!
--Cardinal
Early Dollar Website
thats cool...its were most of us reside and Id rather his ear to yours at the moment David.
period.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
PCGS can choose to be proactive and do something about it before the fact, or do nothing and accept it. The ball is in their court.
I assume it isn't a "cake, and eat it too" thing...
Is it an "I like pcgs so much that I just want to help" thing?
Perhaps, your coins are such that pcgs is best served to make an exception, just for you.
Don't get all huffy, I am serious.
I don't see any value in allowing ngc coins into the pcgs registry.
But since your coins are so special, you deserve a special qualification.
Perhaps, David and some others "in the know" can review your set and give you a place in the pcgs registry, as they did with the Eliasberg, Shepherd, etc., collections.
As much as I like TDN's coins, and the owner even more, I would have to say that there should be no special qualification due to the individual person or coin. This is not a plutocracy.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I desire no special compensation that other collectors cannot receive also. I don't want to be placated and leave Cardinal and Zerbe and many others hanging. Fix it for all or fix it for none - like some have said "it's their loss".
We have seen "important" collections that have ngc coins (and raw, for that matter) mentioned and ranked in the pcgs registry.
Since ngc coins in the pcgs registry are most likely out of the question (we are just pretending here), perhaps it is best to consider a way to get some of the best ncg and ngc/pcgs sets at least mentioned/acknowledged in the pcgs registry.
That's what this "arguement" is all about.
ps. It's not about "coin collecting." It's obviously about recognition.
That's pretty cynical... True, perhaps, but also cynical.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Is Cardinal's 1794 (perhaps 4th finest known) worthy? Zerbe's finest known gold proof? Michael's finest known 1860 half dime? Joe Blows choice XF seated half? Who the hell are we to say - provided they are graded to the same standard as all the other coins listed in the Registry.
Recognition? That's what it's all about? I thought it was about comraderie. Esprit de Corp. Sharing one's collection. Wow, guess I got a lot to learn....
I'm just saying it's obviously about recognition.
Personally, I get off on ads that say things like: "ms67, one of 35 with only one better", knowing that the "one better" is mine. I get off on the pop charts, when I see all the undergrades of my "one of two".
I know the "recognition" thing.
The purpose here is to get the best coins acknowledged in the pcgs registry, or better said, not ignored, right?
There is a compromise available to those who look for it, I would think.
There is a compromise available to those who look for it, I would think.
Which is?
Recognize all coins graded by reputable first-tier grading services. But there's a Registry that already does that, and it seems to be growing pretty rapidly.
What do you know! You think you know a guy for all these years and then he admits his true fetishes publicly!
The taping of this broadcast will be a free gift if anyone orders the special 5 year Collectors Club membership from PCGS or NGC for $249.95. What do you say?
First off......some of you guys seem to have WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money, please send me the extra
Secondly as for allowing NGC coins in the registry.....Why not? Maybe have a requirement to make at least 50% or so of the coins PCGS and the rest NGC. Couldn't the weights be adjusted, since several people feel that NGC is more liberal with grades? IE.......weight a PCGS PR69DCAM to be equal to an NGC PR70UCAM, or something along those lines.
From what I've seen, at least PCGS is starting to show some interest or "give", if you will, in this area. People can debate all day and there will be no one right answer...........I say let em come up with something and give them the benefit of a doubt.
It was a pretty somber weekend on the boards. No major bru-ha-ha's.
Jerry's the best we can do?
C'mon Clank!
Real simple summary: PCGS has asked us what we think and has received feedback that the majority of respondants favor opening the Registry if the grades are consistent. This is particularly true among classic collectors where it may be years or even a lifetime between PCGS coins being available.
Sure, the details need to be worked out and compromises made. But it's the best solution. The alternative is an erosion of the Set Registry.
1st let me say I think as far as TDN and a few others in a catch22... PCGS should review these coins and either convert them to PCGS slabs (since their grades are based on notes) or delete the non exsisting set they are competing against
I am voting Yes with a couple ideas.
1) Send in your coins if you want and as PCGS has started lately, now an email comes alerting your grades are available. At this point the person has a period of time to go to the web page. If they click on "NO" then their coin receives a sticker. If "YES" then the coin is reholdered and crossed to a new PCGS slab with the grade as stated. This could be done for all cross overs. We just need a little feedback, not just stating "Does Not Cross".
2) In the registry set column under "POP" it will state "NGC"
Kenny
My Washington Type B/C Set
The PCGS Registry is for showcasing your collection of PCGS-slabbed coins, nothing more. The combined registry is "across the street". Whether or not this hurts PCGS is immaterial to me.
Besides, it's so much more fun to watch the endless debate over PCGS letting NGC coins in.
I vote no.
I vote no. >>
Very funny, one of the best comments so far.
That was a big lol for me but I got a another one, How about a Springer show between DH and whoever the NGC bug guy is and all members who want to participate can run out onto the stage and plant big, fat, sloppy juicy ones on whoever they believe in over the other making the other jealous as hell. What a cat fight that would be! lol
I know! sick..sick sick!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
-- Cardinal