Was it really considered?

tradedollarnut

I have been informed that PCGS will never, under any circumstances, sticker NGC coins so they can be included in the Registry. I have to wonder if the poll was just a duplicious waste of our time.

Since the Registry is irrevocably inconsistent with my collecting goals, I will be removing my sets.

kieferscoins

<< <i>have been informed that PCGS will never, under any circumstances, sticker NGC coins so they can be included in the Registry >>



Who told you this?

Cameron Kiefer

goose3

I thought the entire idea was insane or at least it was insane that people would actually submit and PAY pcgs to grade another grading service.

TDN
your coins are awesome!!!!!! whether in a PCGS slab or not!
who cares what plastic they are in!!!!!!

keithdagen

Like goose said, the idea of paying for the service seemed nuts.

I for one think that PCGS will eventually regret not stepping up and allowing NGC holders in their Registry. Even the idea of limiting the # of NGC slabs in a given collection made more sense than none.

tradedollarnut

I was informed by David himself in a very terse email. From the wording he gave, I feel the concept was never seriously considered - just given lip service. Well, David, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I won't be played for a fool anymore. My sets have been removed.

As the great and evil Greg Marguli once said - it's PCGS's loss!

goose3

<< <i> it's PCGS's loss! >>



that's for sure!!!!!!!

DAM

TDN,

Sometimes you're forced to make decissions based on principal alone. Although I've never had the pleasure of personally viewing your collection, I support your move based on input I've read by many noteable collectors, and dealers, on this and other forums.

It's sad politics must have such a "large chair" at our hobby's table.

Sorry to see them go...

goose3

after reviewing some of the threads on the other board I'm sick of PCGS's attitude. I was really surprised to read some of the "attitude" that Mr. Hall had in his posts. I also considered some of them condescending to all of us.
I know it won't mean a thing to them or anyone else but I am going to delete my complete #3 FE set and my type set.

RegistryCoin

BJ's first three words in that thread were: Let's just pretend...
I guess some never considered it to be a vote. I never thought is was really a serious consideration.
Basically, the idea is worthless when it is realized that ngc and pcgs occupy separate market niches.

TomB

Please do not think that I am slamming your post in any way, RC, because I'm not; I just have a different viewpoint from you on two items and will detail them.

First, I can agree that a thread that starts "Let's just pretend..." should not be taken as a binding referendum, however, when that thread is started by someone with a position of authority, real or perceived, at PCGS, then, it crosses the line of the typical hypothetical thread started by a Board member with no other affiliation to PCGS. In other words, it has some inherent weight of legitimacy imbued into it. Perhaps BJ should not have posted the thread or should have made it painfully clear that there is/was no serious debate on the issue but that PCGS wanted to hear our opinions on it anyway.

Second, I don't understand the premise that PCGS and NGC occupy different market niches. They are both in the market for coins, the same coins. A coin housed in one company's holder precludes its simultaneous residency in the other company's holder. The sticker concept would not change this but would allow for the other company to give its opinion on the coin. I am also assuming that there would be neither grade guarentee nor liability to PCGS for giving an opinion on an NGC housed coin.

I understand when people write that it seems to lack merit to have one company give its opinion on a coin graded by another company, but, no one is forced to take that avenue if they decide not to. Therefore, I view the option of submitting a coin for a PCGS database grade on an NGC coin to be similar to what series or grade range one will collect. It's simply no one else's business to degrade it. This is similar to if I belittled those who submit so many modern coins directly from US Mint Sets and get those MS67 grades back. In truth, I do not do that on the Boards but I also always wonder why people throw their money away on those grading opinions when they often end up paying either a substantial portion of the coin's value, or even more, to have the coin graded than it would cost to actually buy it in the holder. Please note that this is the only time I have mentioned this view on the Boards and I will not attack those who want to buy or grade these coins as it is what makes them happy; I was using it as a one-time example only.

I am with TDN in that I think the idea of a PCGS database on certain coins makes sense for certain collections, especially in light of the fact that PCGS already recognizes some coins in certain grades when they were in famous collections and were raw but will not recognize those same coins for the Registry now that they are slabbed by NGC. That makes no sense.

EVillageProwler

I think TDN did the right thing in removing his sets. And, I agree with TomB that the mere fact that it was BJ who posted that "let's pretend" poll that it gave it some sort of legitimacy.

EVP

DAM

I am with TDN in that I think the idea of a PCGS database on certain coins makes sense for certain collections, especially in light of the fact that PCGS already recognizes some coins in certain grades when they were in famous collections and were raw but will not recognize those same coins for the Registry now that they are slabbed by NGC. That makes no sense

I have previously, and will again now... second that! Double standards are utilized best by those making the rules.

I'd still like to know where the "estimated grades" come from. Are they grades provided by third party grading services after the auction, or grades given by the auction house selling the coin(s)?

braddick

This is a loss to PCGS. I'm somewhat dismayed they allowed it to get to this point.

keithdagen

With 145 reponses to the poll (and climbing), this vote had some of the greatest participation of any issue polled on the boards. 150 responses to the post as well. It's a shame that the issue was shot down when it was obvious that many had an opinion, and 79 individual and unique boards members desired the service.

A year ago, we got the 20th Century Type sets changed with only 40 or so votes in a poll.

gmarguli

If PCGS wants to kick and scream all the way to when their registry is a second though, then that is there choice.

I wonder how PCGS will react in 1-2 years when people no longer think having a PCGS #1 Registry Set is something great, but rather having a NGC #1 Registry Set is. After all, one set will have the truer #1 set and the other will have PCGS only coins.

David Halls inability to see the market will be its downfall. David, just look at what happened to ACG and their inability to see the market. They could have been where PCGS is today with slabbed coins. One day in the not to distant future, you'll be saying, I could have been the NGC Registry, but now I'm ACG....

keithdagen

One day in the not to distant future, you'll be saying, I could have been the NGC Registry, but now I'm ACG....

Ouch!!!!!!!!

RegistryCoin

I think acg has their niche because of loose grading. I think ngc has theirs because of periodic grading standard, or, philosophy changes. And I think pcgs occupies the top-tier niche due to their tight grading, inconsistant though it may be perceived, it is the tightest. Ngc will trade places with pcgs when their grading becomes tighter than that of pcgs, which is exactly the reason for all the complaints of late to pcgs, tighter grading. Until ngc tightens a great deal and pcgs totally gives up consistancy, things will remain as is. (imho)

keithdagen

I think acg has their niche because of loose grading. I think ngc has theirs because of periodic grading standard, or, philosophy changes. And I think pcgs occupies the top-tier niche due to their tight grading, inconsistant though it may be perceived, it is the tightest. Ngc will trade places with pcgs when their grading becomes tighter than that of pcgs, which is exactly the reason for all the complaints of late to pcgs, tighter grading. Until ngc tightens a great deal and pcgs totally gives up consistancy, things will remain as is. (imho)

Interesting -- is this a recent epiphany?

I remember some rumblings on the boards when NGC opened up its Registry because you owned a Roosie in NGC MS-69 and nobody could come close to your set using those weightings. That was back before NGC opened up the weighting so no one knew what it took to beat your set.

This happened about 18 months ago if I remember right, and at that time, you were an active participant in the NGC Registry as well.

RegistryCoin

You are correct. Those rumblings, if I remember correctly, were concerning a discussion of weighting, specifically, pcgs vs. ngc weights, and those of pop.1 coins. It was determined that that single ms69 (a one coin reg. set) would dominate the registry set probably forever, given the standards set for an 8. The discussion was whether on not it was fair to give this unique coin such a dominate value with regards to the registry.

My activity in the ngc registry was a tool for our determination of the ngc registry's comparative scale for pcgs and ngc coins, in other words, how the two grading services' coins/sets would stack up against each other, more than anything. I think my set's inclusion there, though brief, was enlightening. Thanks for remembering.

wondercoin

The way I see this, it is all very simple and I will use my Wash quarter collection as an example:

1. My (83) pc. Regular issue Silver Wash quarter collection (1932-1964) currently consists of roughly 78 PCGS coins and 5 NGC coins. I believe it is one of the nicest slabbed MS Silver Wash quarter collections out there. There are (3) "PCGS" collections I am aware of in the "universe, including my set, which are of spectacular quality and content - the other 2 sets I have assisted those 2 collectors with their collections and I know for a fact that at least one of these collections also contains a few NGC important coins (perhaps both collections).

2. I would never agree to exhibit my collection if I was compelled to shed the 5 NGC coins. First, those coins are an integral part of my set. Second, I would be required to exhibit a worse set, if I got rid of those 5 coins. That would not happen.

3. Permitting the NGC coins to receive PCGS grades for Registry purposes solves the problem of sets like mine (and another top 3 quarter set) not being able to complete without such ability to do so. Isn't this really a "no brainer"? No one is forced to do this - if someone wants their NGC coins "graded" for Registry purposes then they should have that right. Without this, PCGS loses the ability to exhibit myriad sets out there just like 2/3 or 3/3 of the finest "PCGS" Wash quarter collections out there. Is my set not a "PCGS" set because it also has 5 NGC coins out of 83? Is there any compelling reason one must have a "pure" collection of PCGS to exhibit it? I don't see it.

TDN was a "good sport" to segregate his 1885 NGC coin. But, many collectors out there would have no part of having a portion of their collection ignored. Hey, so long as a great collection is 90% PCGS (or im my case closer to 95% PCGS), why should PCGS care that 5% of my coins are NGC? By allowing me to register that 5%, it simply allows me to have a COMPLETE registry set, if I chose to register and/or exhibit such a collection. Wondercoin

tradedollarnut

But, many collectors out there would have no part of having a portion of their collection ignored.

I was watching. Hundreds more people viewed that lowly, overgraded NGC 1885 than viewed the PCGS set. It was hardly ignored.

For those that viewed the set, I hope they got an eyeful of the very lowend PCGS MS64 trade dollar while the spectacular Vermeule coin was safely tucked away due to its holder!


Is there any compelling reason one must have a "pure" collection of PCGS to exhibit it? I don't see it.

Mitch - your phone is ringing! Guess who!

wondercoin

"It was hardly ignored."

TDN: By "ignored", I meant not being able to share the spotlight with the other PCGS coins showcased in the exhibit. Your 1885 Trade Dollar was far from ignored! On the other hand, my 1961(p) quarter in NGC-MS67 might be ignored as it would never make it in the protective glass your 1885 coin was in

I have disconnected my phones - emails please. Wondercoin

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

TDN - I can see why you're upset.After all you can ask David Hall why the Stickney/Eliasberg specimen 1804 dollar was graded Proof 65 when it was clearly an AU.And how about the Waters Specimen that prompted PCGS to fly 4 graders with the slabbing machine to New Hampshire to grade an obvious high end 66 or liner 67.When all was done the coin gradedProof 68.And most recently the 1933 twenty dollar Saint which everyone including myself graded 64 except all the graders at PCGS including Mr. Hall graded 65.
What about the 1913 Liberty Nickel ? Jay Parino could never get it crossed as a 66........until Dwight Manley bought itEven though PCGS graded your Trade Dollar 65 should have done the rightn thing and put you 1885 Trade Dollar in a 66 holder...........without sticker service!

Dam and EVP - When BJ says lets pretend......that is precisely what she means.I can tell you she is 100% a no B.S. woman

Stewart

tradedollarnut

Stewart: you forgot the [ahem] PF58 Adams 1804 and the recently upgraded PF64 Dexter 1804.

David has decided that the 1885 will be graded technically, as opposed to all the other classic rarities in PCGS and NGC holders which are ranked. Who am I to argue - but I won't allow my coin to be utilized for political games. And since it's an integral part of my collection, that's why I've removed the sets.

A very wise and famous numismatist recently told me "by rights, they [the owners] should downgrade the Adams 1804 to a PF53 holder [because it would be easier to sell], but you don't downgrade a classic rarity!"

Fairlaneman

Usually I do not respond to statements about High End Classic Rare Coins because truthfully they are out of my league. From what I am reading here about the grading structure that is used with them and how they are graded I'm really glad they are out of my league. Maybe now the understanding of why some people get really ticked off is sinking in.

TDN sorry to see your sets leave and hope in the long run everything works out just fine.

Ken

lincolnSence

To all - why complain about it. It makes PERFECT sence to keep it a PCGS only set. Go register your sets at NGC if you have both (I did). Trying to get PCGS to make this change would be like trying to get General Motors to put a rear view mirror from another company on one of their cars. What are you people thinking????

Its a branding issue. You would be destroying their business.

tradedollarnut

Go register your sets at NGC if you have both (I did).

Done.

The purpose of this thread was not to complain that the Registry Grade concept was not instituted, but rather to point out the fact that it had been rejected. If I complained, it was because, due to the tone of the email, I felt the result was predetermined and that the result of the poll was doomed to be ignored [unless, of course, that result had matched the decision already made - in which case it would have been utilized to justify the predetermined decision].

At no point did I ever allow myself to truly expect a different outcome.

LincolnCentMan

...Go register your sets at NGC...

Although I'm a small fish, I removed my set from PCGS a few months ago and put it into the NGC registry. I dont collect because of any registry. But I want to be able to list the coins that I have IN MY SET into my registry listing. NGC let's me do that. I only have three or four NGC coins, but that goes back to what Mitch was pointing out. They ARE a part of my set. It benefits me nothing to list my set in either registry... other than a little fun and spirited competition. NGC provides what I want AS A COLLECTOR, so that's why my set is listed at NGC and not PCGS. I have a feeling, as time goes on, participation in NGC's registry will surpass PCGS's.

David

Steve

See BJ's announcement on PCGS policy just posted. Steve

tradedollarnut

Hmmm - my mistake? Perhaps I misinterpreted the statement made to me to be all encompassing when it was not ..........

Russ

<< <i>Perhaps I misinterpreted the statement made to me to be all encompassing when it was not .......... >>



It's also a very real possibility, considering the current chaotic situation at PCGS, that this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Russ, NCNE

billiardmaster

Trade,
I've been trying to stay out of this. As you know my communication skills are lacking. I think(wish) you would reconsider. The PCGS set registry
has to be limited to PCGS coins. If not, it would no longer be the PCGS set registry. You can't just allow NGC and nobody else. How long
till someone has what "they" think is a good ACG coin? There must be a solution we can all live with? No, I don't have it yet. So calm down
and stick around. We can come up with a solution with a little time. By the way, the Proof 68 Trade Dollar brought what?
Rusty

tradedollarnut

See my new thread.

PF68 sells next week.

EVillageProwler

TDN, READ MY THOUGHTS.