PNG weighs in as to accuracy of grading services
sliderider
Posts: 1,834
sliderider
Posts: 1,834
sliderider
Posts: 1,834
Comments
Tom
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I know this organization doesn't want to reward ACG with anything and thus the poor rating, but, on paper, if the cost are cheap (not equating cost of holdering with value!) then the results are slightly skewed by stating a poor rating.
peacockcoins
<< <i>Whose benchmarks? >>
TDN,
The benchmarks are not all that relevent other than being used as a tool to measure the variances. The benchmark is not used to as truth, but used as a comparison tool. It could be the average grade assigned the coin. It could be hired professional grader who sets a benchmark grade prior to the test. It could be the advertised turnaround time. It could be 30 days. You create benchmarks for consoladation purposes only. I don't want to have to look at every grade to come to a conclusion. You'll notice I didn't ask for a conclusion from PNG, I simply asked for verified unbiased test results. We as collectors and dealers can then arrive at our own conclusions.
of the criteria. That would suggest that there is room for improvement across
the board.
09/07/2006
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'm not sure how ACG ranks "poor" in terms of cost, though, unless you phrase it as "value" (cost relative to the quality of the service) and not just number of dollars.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>Will this information become part of the evidence supporting the defendants in the ACG lawsuit? Interesting results. I thought ANACS would have had better results. Now if the spread sheet could be posted to the ebay website... >>
On the flip side, they could argue that this is a part of a widespread conspiracy to ruin their business. That seems to be the primary basis for the lawsuit.
<< <i>Why no catagory for turn around times
I think that one's easy to answer. PCGS with their lagging turnaround times would probably receive a low rating while PCI with their standard Five Day Service would rate as Outstanding. That would tend to skew the overall ratings.
On the other hand, why punish a Service (in this case, PCGS) because they're popular and busy?
peacockcoins
Michael
<< <i>Interesting --- NGC actually beat PCGS. Michael >>
Well, no surprise. They are the Official Grading Service of the PNG. The worst PNG could allow is a tie. Its just better this way.
I agree that it's a shame only one out of three people took the time. I'm a member of ICTA and took the survey. Took less then 5 minutes to do.
PNG-ITCA Survey
After reviewing the PNG-ITCA Survey in Coin World so many questions come to mind.
I wonder how many of your readers know the FACTS about some of the leading members of this Industry? Let’s just start with those that are PNG/ITCA/PCGS members and or owners. On July 20,1989 in an FTC Press Release “FTC FILES CHARGES AGAINST COIN CERTIFICATION CO. AND COIN WHOLESALER; COMPANIES TO PAY CONSUMER REDRESS”. The coin certification company that they are referring to is NCI, Numismatic Certification Institute, owned by Steve Ivy and James Halperin. NCI’s affiliate, Heritage Capital Corporation, was also charged. “Under the settlement, the companies and two individuals agreed to a permanent injunction, and Heritage and NCI agreed to contribute $1.2 million into a consumer redress plan...” FTC File No. 882-3208, Civil Action No. 89-1383 CIV-NESBITT), www.ftc.gov, Barron’s, 6/19/89, pp.16-32. NCI is still listed on the CDN price sheet.
On February 9,1990 the FTC issued the following Press Release, ”SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED AT REQUEST OF FTC RECOVERS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CONSUMERS IN RARE COIN COMPANY BANKRUPTCY.”.The release states, ”Today’s additional settlements bring total recovery in excess of $4 million.” “In February 1987, the FTC brought suit against Standard Financial Management Corp., charging, among other things, that the company falsely represented that its coins were of a specific grade, when in many cases the coins were of a significantly inferior grade...
Shortly after the FTC suit, the Special Counsel initiated bankruptcy proceedings brought various actions against several principals and suppliers of Standard Financial Management Corp. He has succeeded in obtaining settlements from supplier Kevin Lipton and former Standard Financial owner James Halperin for $1.4 million and $1.3 million, respectively.” FTC File No. X870002, www.ftc.gov.
On August 17,1990 the FTC issued a press release regarding PCGS. “FTC CHARGES COIN CERTIFICATION CO. MISREPRESENTS OBJECTIVITY OF ITS COIN GRADING SERVICES; COMPANY AGREES TO SETTLEMENT” The FTC charged that “PCGS misled consumers by falsely claiming that it provides consistent, objective grading of coins and that investment in PCGS-certified rare coins eliminates all the risk associated with the grading of coins.” PCGS/David Hall was charged and placed on probation for 2 years. Civil Action No. 90-1982, www.ftc.gov, New York Times, 8/17/90 p.D2, The Wall Street Journal, 8/17/90, pp.C1,C12.
These are the people who are behind this Survey. They are all PNG,ITCA and PCGS members today. Together they were “fined in excess of $4 million.” They will tell us that they disqualified themselves due to ownership and/or partial ownership. Of the estimated 221 PNG members, only four have dealt with Accugrade in the past two years. In February 2001 PNG sent a letter to members who were dealing in ACG coins threatening expulsion. Of the estimated 430 survey forms mailed, 141 were reported filled out and returned, @32 percent. Virtually 68 percent refused to be party to this sham survey.
The number of PNG and ITCA members who did not participate speaks louder than the 141 who did. 141 monopolist PNG-ITCA members, who are predominantly PCGS dealers, responded out of an estimated 5,000 dealers nationwide (as listed in CDN ‘02 Dealer Directory) to presumably speak for “The Coin Industry.” These 141 find ACG “unacceptable”...this represents @2.8 percent of the Coin Industry. 98 percent of PNG members have never used or dealt in ACG. This survey shows how out of touch PNG-ITCA is with the Coin Industry.
The fact that PNG has pressured their dealers into NOT dealing in ACG coins, as evidenced in a letter dated 2/28/01 sent out by Robert Bruggerman, Executive Director, then surveys them in regards to USING ASA Accugrade... mystifies me!
They find ACG to be “unacceptable” in almost all of their “categories”:
Detecting counterfeits—we have graded four counterfeits out of 300,000 coins in the last three years. I believe that gives Accugrade a 99.9999 percent accuracy rate, we have resolved three and one is pending, how is this unacceptable?
Customer service, cost, turnaround time, quality of holder—We take great exception to being found generally “unacceptable” in these areas, this furthers my position that these dealers have never even used our service...in 18 years of business we have never had a major complaint, lawsuit, or Government charge. We pride ourselves in out Customer Service Dept., our cost is one of the lowest in the industry. We have never missed a designated turnaround time and the quality of our Holders surpasses all the other services and I challenge them on this matter. Our holders are American-made by a New England craftsman of the highest quality Dupont acrylic and are the safest on the market, no PVC inserts!
As to Grading guarantees, General marketability and Availability of pricing information—We know these are our weak areas and that is for the following reasons...we are a small company who has been set upon by a Big Corporation and counterfeits have been submitted to our service, in the past, knowingly in the hopes to discredit us. We stand behind the authenticity and the consistency of our grading. Regarding marketability, ACG coins have done very well on e-Bay but CDN still refuses to list them even though CDN lists NCI which is out of business and was sited by the FTC. We were led to believe that when ACG coins reached 80,000 units CDN would list ACG, today we are at 300,000 units, when asked again recently by a California PCGS dealer when ACG will be listed, Sean Downings replied “we’re waiting for them to go away.” When a California entrepreneur/collector came up with a pricing Web site and publication listing ACG prices along with other certified coins, his Web site somehow crashed and he was soon out of business.
PCGS can’t allow pricing information for any of the small grading services because that would destroy their Franchise. In a free-market system competition should be encouraged and choices allowed to the public. We are not afforded this in the Coin Industry, which certainly raises issues of ANTITRUST and RACKETEERING!
I will leave you with this thought...The S.S. Central America...coins sold exclusively by Heritage, David Hall, Bowers and Merena and others, mostly PNG members/PCGS dealers. Over 5,000 coins that had been buried at sea for over 120 years encrusted with coral were treated with all kinds of chemicals to remove the encrustations, were miraculously restored to PCGS MS-65 at $15,000.00 a coin. The PCGS holders do not say SEA SALVAGED nor SALT WATER nor CORAL ENCRUSTED, no they have been graded by PCGS as MINT STATE. Have these people changed from 1989, you decide for yourself at www.ftc.gov.
ASA Accugrade, Inc.
<< <i>Interesting --- NGC actually beat PCGS. >>
And, last year the bread was buttered on the other side.
Russ, NCNE
Jerry
The number of PNG and ITCA members who did not participate speaks louder than the 141 who did. 141 monopolist PNG-ITCA members, who are predominantly PCGS dealers, responded out of an estimated 5,000 dealers nationwide (as listed in CDN ‘02 Dealer Directory) to presumably speak for “The Coin Industry.” These 141 find ACG “unacceptable”...this represents @2.8 percent of the Coin Industry. 98 percent of PNG members have never used or dealt in ACG. This survey shows how out of touch PNG-ITCA is with the Coin Industry.
I like how ACG here implies that the Coin Industry as a whole actually believe that ACG is above an "unacceptable" rating. Aren't they suing a bunch of people right now claiming that their image throughout the industry has been tarnished and that has ruined their business, to paraphrase things? Don't they admit later in this statement that marketability is one of their core weaknesses? If this survey doesn't speak for the coin industry as a whole, then why would they have a problem with their marketability???
I will leave you with this thought...The S.S. Central America...coins sold exclusively by Heritage, David Hall, Bowers and Merena and others, mostly PNG members/PCGS dealers. Over 5,000 coins that had been buried at sea for over 120 years encrusted with coral were treated with all kinds of chemicals to remove the encrustations, were miraculously restored to PCGS MS-65 at $15,000.00 a coin. The PCGS holders do not say SEA SALVAGED nor SALT WATER nor CORAL ENCRUSTED, no they have been graded by PCGS as MINT STATE. Have these people changed from 1989, you decide for yourself at www.ftc.gov.
This entire paragraph, to the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), is completely non-factual. The SS Central America coins are in fact being sold by Shop At Home, I believe, and not by Heritage, David Hall, Bowers and Merena, or any PNG members or PCGS dealers that I know of. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong. The restoration of the coins was not miraculous, but scientific. The coins were conserved by NCS and encapsulated by NGC, NOT PCGS, if my memory serves correctly.
Wow, if these people want to be launching lawsuits based on what others have said about them, I would think they would want to be extra careful to get their facts straight when making statements about others.
Not really. The only difference was price. I sure that was a dealer complaint more than anything else.
Free Trial
<< <i>The only thing that really surprised me was that ANACS and ICG were lumped together in the same tier. I was always under the impression that ANACS was regarded just as highly as PCGS and NGC, but that must be changing. There must be a larger acceptance of ICG, also, ever since they managed to get listed in the grey sheets and traded on TT. >>
ANACS had a few more 'Superiors' over ICG........
ANACS doesn't cater to dealers, only collectors. Ask collectors and ANACS wins over ICG hands down.
Free Trial
Pick 20 coins and send them to each service 5 times each. Let's see who is the most consistant. That's where the"best" can be determined. Not who grades the harshest or who grades the loosest but who grades the most consistant. I can live with any grading standard al long as it can be determined with some fair amount of accuracy. My guess is no one in the business wants the results of a test like that to be public.
<< <i>Wonder how long it will be before ACG sues PNG for the results? >>
Doubt you will see it. They have made some recent blunders in their attempts to stifle criticism, and one of those is they didn't count on a unified front to fight their latest lawsuit. I don't think they have the resources to go after the PNG now.
I don't recall seeing these in PCGS holders. I think the only ones I saw for sale were in NCS and NGC holders that stated shipwreak effect on the holder.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
I guess it's a good gauge of the perception in the marketplace.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>I found this response to the PNG survey on the ACG website. >>
The page you quoted was posted on January 25, 2003 in response to the original PNG survey.
Cool Things
Bust Coin Forum
<< <i>I guess it's a good gauge of the perception in the marketplace. >>
Perhaps more accurately a good gauge of the preception of the minority of PNG dealers who answered the survey. It is an opinion only, with no scientific or statistically accurate method of proof as to the accuracy of it results.
If you sent out a survey as to whether Elivis is alive to 100 people and 33 answered and gave their opinion that he was indeed alive, it would not make him alive, even though the 33 persons that rendered their opinion believed it to be so. Or putting it another way, if you polled European sea captains with 10 years of sailing experience in the year 1491, how many do you think would have given the opinion that the earth was flat and how many would have said a sphere?
While I don't necessarily disagree with the results of this survey, if the majority of the dealers don't deal with a particular brand of coins graded by a particular TPGS, then their opinion would not be based on their first hand knowledge of that TPGS but on someone else's opinion that they have adopted without any factual basis.
Again, so everyone is clear, I am not claiming the the survey is incorrect, just that its results are not empirical proof of anything other than the opinion of those who answered it. I think Fatman is quite correct in his post above that a survey that was based on blind submissions of the same coins to the various grading services would be much more useful to detemine the relative "rating" of the various TPGS - but as I recall, didn't Coin World do something like that about a year ago?
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
K S
<< <i>Pick 20 coins and send them to each service 5 times each. Let's see who is the most consistant. That's where the"best" can be determined. Not who grades the harshest or who grades the loosest but who grades the most consistant. I can live with any grading standard al long as it can be determined with some fair amount of accuracy. My guess is no one in the business wants the results of a test like that to be public. >>
Nice idea in theory, but maybe not so nice in practice. First off it would cost a fortune to pay for any reasonably fast turnaround times from PCGS. Secondly it might be that the graders might recognize the same batch of 20 coins after the 3rd submission and wise up
The fact still remains that PCGS slabbed coins generally [but not always] bring higher prices when it comes time to sell. Check out the prices realized for these four 1894 Morgans in ms62.
prices on 1894 ms62
Dorkkarl - Please explain. Where's the bias?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You're kidding, right?
There are so many things wrong with this "survey" that only a biased person could not possibly see the bias.
Joe.
<< <i>There are so many things wrong with this "survey" >>
Please tell us what's wrong and why it's bias?
if you seriously can't see the bias, then it doesn't matter for you anyhow.
K S
Marc
I'm not. There are ways in which the survey is biased and others in which it is not biased. That's why I wanted you to get into the specifics.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
conversely, do you really think a poll of png members that rates ngc tops is purely unbiased & objective???
K S
Yes. It's not like PCGS was a distant second.
Edited to say that, of course, it depends on what you mean by "purely unbiased and objective". My primary contention is that the poll responses were honest.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>do you really think a poll of png members that rates ngc tops is purely unbiased & objective >>
OK, PNG members, fess up and tell us common collectors and dealers that the survey was rigged. That the only reason for the poll was to show that NGC is the best and this backs up the decision to switch from PCGS to NGC as the official grader of the PNG.