Goodbye PCGS Part Deux
Singapore
Posts: 578
This is a sequel to TDNs post, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Over the last month, based on one issue after another with PCGS, I've decided not to send anything in to be slabbed anymore and to crack out what I've got.
It just seams ludicrous to spend any money to have coins slabbed with grades that are abritrary, an/or inconsistent week to week and month to month, and/or determined by people who clearly are not expert on the coins they are grading.
I currently own two examples of several different coins. In each case, the lower graded coin is objectively, subjectively and obviously finer than the higher graded piece and that opinion has been substiantiated by the dealers who've seen them and the market that priced them. Thats not good.
In the last few months I bought a coin raw and had it slabbed and it came back as, in my opinion, a very undergraded XF 45. I resubmitted via a dealer and the grade held. I cracked it out and resubmitted and it came back as an AU 53. Thats not good. Hall can talk all he wants about the truth lying somewhere in the middle, but if a coin has 8 points of play in it then the number on all the holders of all the coins doesn't have much meaning.
I have about half a dozen times in the last 60 days been offered or have seen coins in PCGS holders that were slightly or dramatically mislabeled in the wrong holders as the wrong coins. I personally own 6 coins that for some reason have never appeared on the pop report though they are in the PCGS system. One can deduce therefore the accuracy of the pop reports based on my small sample size. Thats not good.
And finally, and as I've written here before, the current, inconsistent PCGS grades today bare no relationship to the historical use of the terms XF and AU. So what we have now is a new and meaningless standard inconsistently applied. Who the heII needs that?
Over the last month, based on one issue after another with PCGS, I've decided not to send anything in to be slabbed anymore and to crack out what I've got.
It just seams ludicrous to spend any money to have coins slabbed with grades that are abritrary, an/or inconsistent week to week and month to month, and/or determined by people who clearly are not expert on the coins they are grading.
I currently own two examples of several different coins. In each case, the lower graded coin is objectively, subjectively and obviously finer than the higher graded piece and that opinion has been substiantiated by the dealers who've seen them and the market that priced them. Thats not good.
In the last few months I bought a coin raw and had it slabbed and it came back as, in my opinion, a very undergraded XF 45. I resubmitted via a dealer and the grade held. I cracked it out and resubmitted and it came back as an AU 53. Thats not good. Hall can talk all he wants about the truth lying somewhere in the middle, but if a coin has 8 points of play in it then the number on all the holders of all the coins doesn't have much meaning.
I have about half a dozen times in the last 60 days been offered or have seen coins in PCGS holders that were slightly or dramatically mislabeled in the wrong holders as the wrong coins. I personally own 6 coins that for some reason have never appeared on the pop report though they are in the PCGS system. One can deduce therefore the accuracy of the pop reports based on my small sample size. Thats not good.
And finally, and as I've written here before, the current, inconsistent PCGS grades today bare no relationship to the historical use of the terms XF and AU. So what we have now is a new and meaningless standard inconsistently applied. Who the heII needs that?
Singapore
0
Comments
Wait!
I've never sent a coin to PCGS!
What a freaking bandwagonner I am!
What is your specialty area of collecting, just curious?
dragon
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
In short, I sense there is pressure on their graders to spend as little time as possible on each coin to keep up with the large number of submissions coming in.
My Website
"Everything I have is for sale except for my wife and my dog....and I'm not sure about one of them."
<< <i>I've decided not to send anything in to be slabbed anymore. >>
Excellent news! If enough do this, maybe turnaround times will improve.
Russ, NCNE
It's the changing standards that is causing inconsistency in the marketplace, not the fact that the graders can't grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've decided not to send anything in to be slabbed anymore. >>
Excellent news! If enough do this, maybe turnaround times will improve.
Russ, NCNE >>
I was thinking the same thing, but it will not be a concern of mine(PCGS turnaround times),for awhile.
Overall in the F-AU range PCGS is by far the best, followed by NCG and ANACS in my opinion. Even stating that, I have still seen hundreds of slabbed coins in the F-AU range by all three services that were overgraded and cleaned, some quite harshly.
The MS grading inconsistencies are of no concern as I do not collect unc. coins for their price and the grading entanglements that are blaringly obvious.
Tyler
"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD GOD Almighty."
My last 10 years have been peacful and low stress as will your next ten years if you stick to your decision.
".....and to crack out what I've got."
Not a good idea. Sleep on it. You can always turn a slabbed coin into a raw coin. It's not quite so easy in the other direction.
It's like burning your car title. It accomplishes nothing.
adrian
If my computer / scanning / imaging skills were better I'd post about 100 examples of pairs of coins with the better piece in the lower holder - plus a few bonus images of me using the pop report as insulation material for the bottom of my car.