Feedback for David Hall
Singapore
Posts: 578
in Q & A Forum
David -
I wanted to Email you this feedback privately but don't know your Email address - hence I'll send it here and assume you'll receive it. This is not a question for the Q/A forum.
This is intended to be constructive feedback which I hope you will receive as such.
First, let me say that I am in fact one of the biggest supporters of PCGS grading of colonials for the basic reason that I like an independent 3rd party view of the grade. Also, I own a pretty high percentage of all of the top slabbed colonials showing in your population report (and many raw coins) and have seen, compared, reviewed and researched thousands of colonials since 1971. So I think I am at least qualified to offer an opinion.
As much as I am and want to be a supporter of PCGS in this area, I think there are major problems with PCGS grading of colonials in three areas (note I've cited specific examples below which are indicative of the problems and are not isolated cases):
1) Mis-attribution:
I was recently offered a Myddleton Token in Copper in PCGS 66. The coin I received was actually a Myddleton Copper Company of Upper Canada Mule in a mis-labelled holder. The coin still shows on your pop report as a Myyddleton Copper.
2 weeks ago I ordered a 1783 Washington Draped Bust Original in PCGS MS64 from Heritage. The coin arrived and was in fact a restrike (its really quite easy to tell which are originals and which are restrikes). Heritage was asking $4200 which is a high but possibly justifiable price for a choice original, but absurd for a restrike.
About 2 months ago a NJ copper was being offered on Ebay as a 'Camel' head. It wasn't, it was a Deer Head.
I could list many, many more.
My point is not to list a handful of easy errors out of thousands and thousands of coins you grade - I believe the number of misattributed colonials is higher than it should be and calls in to question PCGS' expertise / accuracy in this area.
2) Not consistently / appropriately taking into account the vagaries of strike and method of manufacture when grading these coins:
I've posted on this topic before, but I think this is really an issue in Colonials. Unless the person grading them is knowledgeable enough to know that a Vermontensium Ryder 6 has different striking characteristics than a Vermontensium Ryder 7 (different varieties, same redbook type and PCGS coin number) its pretty hard to grade them. There are lots of similar examples in other colonials, particularly state coins.
3) Moving too far from traditional grading standards applied to these coins:
You have answered me directly on this question before by saying that in your opinion traditional standards were too strict. But it is not good for the 'hobby', or the business or for PCGS credibility when (this is one of many examples) the same NY Excelsior sells at Bowers Lindesmith & LaRiviere Auction 11/99 Lot 145 raw as a "VF-30, cleaned", then reappears at Superior the following year as a PCGS XF45 and then reappears at Goldberg's Benson II Auction 2/02 Lot 12 as a PCGS AU55 and is called 'Possibly the Finest Known' by the cataloger and favorably compared to the generally acknowledged finest known coin from the Garrett collection (because that one was only called AU50 in 1980). I've actually done a lot of research on NY Excelsiors and can tell you that the PCGS AU55 coin is in fact in the bottom 50% of surviving examples and the Garrett coin is so far superior to the PCGS AU55 example as to be ridiculous.
Thats not something that inspires confidence in PCGS (unless you are looking to auction mediocre material to novice buyers).
I would love to see PCGS bring on a specialist in colonials and re-start the whole process. Change the holder, call it 'EAC' grading or something and give an incentive for all currently holdered coins to be resubmitted.
I think if the perception of PCGS in this area doesn't change you'll lose business to NGC (who may not be any better and in fact may be worse) or the coins just won't be submitted anymore. A quick look at Bowers recent Baltimore sale showed strong colonial prices being paid for mostly raw coins.
I did notice that the very rare Club Rays / Concave Ends Fugio Cent was a notable exception in that auction, as it was slabbed by PCGS as a VF-20 and it brought strong money. Of course, it was mis-attributed on the holder as a very commmon States United, 4 Cinqs variety - fortunately the buyer recognized it for what it was - a R7 coin with a handful known.
I wanted to Email you this feedback privately but don't know your Email address - hence I'll send it here and assume you'll receive it. This is not a question for the Q/A forum.
This is intended to be constructive feedback which I hope you will receive as such.
First, let me say that I am in fact one of the biggest supporters of PCGS grading of colonials for the basic reason that I like an independent 3rd party view of the grade. Also, I own a pretty high percentage of all of the top slabbed colonials showing in your population report (and many raw coins) and have seen, compared, reviewed and researched thousands of colonials since 1971. So I think I am at least qualified to offer an opinion.
As much as I am and want to be a supporter of PCGS in this area, I think there are major problems with PCGS grading of colonials in three areas (note I've cited specific examples below which are indicative of the problems and are not isolated cases):
1) Mis-attribution:
I was recently offered a Myddleton Token in Copper in PCGS 66. The coin I received was actually a Myddleton Copper Company of Upper Canada Mule in a mis-labelled holder. The coin still shows on your pop report as a Myyddleton Copper.
2 weeks ago I ordered a 1783 Washington Draped Bust Original in PCGS MS64 from Heritage. The coin arrived and was in fact a restrike (its really quite easy to tell which are originals and which are restrikes). Heritage was asking $4200 which is a high but possibly justifiable price for a choice original, but absurd for a restrike.
About 2 months ago a NJ copper was being offered on Ebay as a 'Camel' head. It wasn't, it was a Deer Head.
I could list many, many more.
My point is not to list a handful of easy errors out of thousands and thousands of coins you grade - I believe the number of misattributed colonials is higher than it should be and calls in to question PCGS' expertise / accuracy in this area.
2) Not consistently / appropriately taking into account the vagaries of strike and method of manufacture when grading these coins:
I've posted on this topic before, but I think this is really an issue in Colonials. Unless the person grading them is knowledgeable enough to know that a Vermontensium Ryder 6 has different striking characteristics than a Vermontensium Ryder 7 (different varieties, same redbook type and PCGS coin number) its pretty hard to grade them. There are lots of similar examples in other colonials, particularly state coins.
3) Moving too far from traditional grading standards applied to these coins:
You have answered me directly on this question before by saying that in your opinion traditional standards were too strict. But it is not good for the 'hobby', or the business or for PCGS credibility when (this is one of many examples) the same NY Excelsior sells at Bowers Lindesmith & LaRiviere Auction 11/99 Lot 145 raw as a "VF-30, cleaned", then reappears at Superior the following year as a PCGS XF45 and then reappears at Goldberg's Benson II Auction 2/02 Lot 12 as a PCGS AU55 and is called 'Possibly the Finest Known' by the cataloger and favorably compared to the generally acknowledged finest known coin from the Garrett collection (because that one was only called AU50 in 1980). I've actually done a lot of research on NY Excelsiors and can tell you that the PCGS AU55 coin is in fact in the bottom 50% of surviving examples and the Garrett coin is so far superior to the PCGS AU55 example as to be ridiculous.
Thats not something that inspires confidence in PCGS (unless you are looking to auction mediocre material to novice buyers).
I would love to see PCGS bring on a specialist in colonials and re-start the whole process. Change the holder, call it 'EAC' grading or something and give an incentive for all currently holdered coins to be resubmitted.
I think if the perception of PCGS in this area doesn't change you'll lose business to NGC (who may not be any better and in fact may be worse) or the coins just won't be submitted anymore. A quick look at Bowers recent Baltimore sale showed strong colonial prices being paid for mostly raw coins.
I did notice that the very rare Club Rays / Concave Ends Fugio Cent was a notable exception in that auction, as it was slabbed by PCGS as a VF-20 and it brought strong money. Of course, it was mis-attributed on the holder as a very commmon States United, 4 Cinqs variety - fortunately the buyer recognized it for what it was - a R7 coin with a handful known.
Singapore
0
Comments
Please let me know any time you see anything that you think we've done wrong.
Thanks.
David