Possible Future PCGS Pop Report Improvements - I Hope

redcents

<FONT face=Verdana>I beleive people would pay a premium (or pay for a premium service over & above the current cost of the online pop report) to have the ability to see pops at ANY given point in time since day 1 (OR AT LEAST FOR THE END OF EACH MOTH, e.g.) - i.e. a snapshot of the pops for any time since PCGS started grading. This would help people see changes over time. An additional printable graphical interface would expand this idea even further - much like stock price charts now.

I beleive people would also pay a premium if PCGS kept a searchable database of coins in other holders that didn't cross. e.g. For all NGC, ANACS, ICG, etc. if they had it organized in such a way that people about to buy - say, an NGC Lincoln 1959 Proof 69 Ultra-Cam with a specific holder #, could go to the database & see if it was attempted to be crossed before (& how many times).
I don't suggest PCGS further the proliferation of other holdered coins but people would be more likely to buy an EXISTING coin in another holder (and subsequently send it in for a crossover attempt) if it hadn't yet been attempted to be crossed over - thus more revenue for PCGS. This would also lead to further widespread acknoledgement of the inferiority of those other grades and thus those other grading services thereby strenghtening PCGS's position even more.

To further the above idea, if PCGS also kept a record of what grades they beleived ALL coins were that didn't cross I beleive this would be another value added item that people would pay a premium for.

Another thing I think they should do is to add to their pop reports the errors & varieties that they certify just the same way as NGC & especially ANACS.

I also think they should report the pops FOR ALL GRADES. Currently nothing under VG is reported & all VG-VF grades are lumped together. How hard could it be to provide this detail?

In general, I beleive there is a lot of valuable data that they are letting slip by and not organiizing such in a way that it can both be more useful to collectors/dealers/buyers/sellers, etc. AND more profitable to them.

I have other ideas, but I'm going to add them later.

Thanks,

Roger </FONT>

Steve

Roger, David has already stated that PCGS has not kept record of previous crossovers. I think if people KNEW a coin had not crossed to PCGS and bought it in another holder they would be reluctant to try and cross it again. Further, such revelation by PCGS might be considered by the other grading services as improper conduct by PCGS. (ie) Would YOU buy a coin in an NGC holder that PCGS had previously said "no" to? JMHO. Steve

redcents

"David has already stated that PCGS has not kept record of previous crossovers. I think if people KNEW a coin had not crossed to PCGS and bought it in another holder they would be reluctant to try and cross it again"

Is somewhere in there a very subtle (or not so very) implication that PCGS has PURPOSELY (self-servingly?) not kept records (or at least not made publicly available) so as to simply NOT reduce the number of potential submissions? If so, I can't speculate as to the accuracy of such an assertion, but it certainly might have seemed a reasonable business decision to further the goal of maximizing revenue. Although if true, I still think they'd be better off if that was not their policy.

A good point but simply the other side of the "coin" (no pun intended). I can see how that might prevent some revenue in the short run, but after a while the spread in value of PCGS graded coins relative to others will increase and, IMO, create a greater demand for their product as people will become less inclined to buy some of the others graded by non-PCGS services to a greater degree than they do now.

I beleive it would have a net positive impact on CLCT's financials and further set it apart (and further in front of) its' competition. Of coure, many have pontificated: "buy the coin & not the holder" or "just 'cause it didn't cross one time doesn't mean it won't cross another". As for its' competition having a problem with it - THEY SHOULD & they should be VERY scared at the prospect. In fact, there's some things PCGS could do RIGHT NOW that will push it so far into the lead as to make its' competitions' heads spin and yes, thus benefit all that are long its' product.

But as far as it being somehow an unfair business practice or the such, I think it's just an allowable dissemination of valuable information into the marketplace - IMHO.

Cocoinut

To produce a pop report at any given point in time would probably be too much of a strain on PCGS's computer system, at least with today's technology. It's a good idea to keep in mind for implementation at some future date, as processing speeds increase and memory costs decrease. I wonder if they even have the dates that every coin was graded since day 1. I think it would be interesting to see the date a coin was graded when you do a serial number lookup, in addition to the date, mint, denomination, and grade.

Jim

Steve

Roger, I think the worst thing that PCGS could do would be to deliberately attempt to knock out a company like NGC by publishing NGC slabs that didn't cross to PCGS. YOU would wind up paying lots more for grading services from a monopolistic PCGS and in the end, grading reputation and acceptance of PCGS would go down bigtime. I really don't see where you are coming from. Maybe I missed something. Steve

redcents

Steve,

I'm not saying it is essential for this to occur. I'm just saying, as far as I've thought it thru (which may be not be far enough yet) I think it would turn out closer to my scenario than yours. No one has a crystal ball & this hypothetical is surely something we can agree to disagreee on. I appreciate you thinking it thru as much you have. Ideas can't come to fruition (or be prevented from such) UNLESS MUCH thought goes into assessing the probablilities of ALL the possible outcomes and ALL possible outcomes are considered.

IrishMike

I don't see how this would have any impact on CLCT's financial condition. Two things are at work, law of diminishing returns, i.e. they don't have the staff to grade the volume of coins that are coming in now. How many clients are eager to resubmit coins when it takes over 55 working days to get them back. Also their financial problems are not due to lack of sales. So I fail to see how your idea would affect the bottom line.

redcents

If people paid MORE (i.e. a premium) or an ADDITIONAL fee over & above the current price for the online pop report would that not be additional revenue? The more info they can provide the greater their product line and thus the more people interested in their products (info). I'm not talking about grading here AT ALL. They have some valuable info being wasted right now that I think there's a market for. This should be a dedicated team/division within their co. that stays on top of this stuff to make sure it gets out in the most useful form as possible to the consuming public.

sinin1

what I would like is the population report by year - as well as series


that would make my life easier when I am looking at proof and mint sets on potential values



I think I will ask homerunhall in Q&A whether that would be possible

redcents

I think someone should consolidate ALL the ideas & get them presented to PCGS. We'd all benefit if they took the suggestions seriously - IMHO

redcents

An example of what I've been saying: link

bushmaster8

Roger --of all these ideas, I like the printable graphic interface the best