What if TPG's put an end to crossovers, regrades, & prez reviews? *POLL*

ms70

Let's say the submission rules changed and the ONLY way to submit a coin was raw. Would this give you a better feeling about
the grades that get assigned to coins and more faith in Third Pary Graders?

Comments?

RYK

It would not change thinds one bit. As long as you can crack out and resubmit, the problem of inconsistency still remains.

sliderider

It wouldn't change the way I feel about the third party services, but do you really want to risk cracking an expensive coin out of even a PCGS holder and having it come back a point or two lower because you no longer have a grade guarantee?? You also wouldn't see so many coins on the high end, because IO don't think so many people would be willing to risk the constant resubs for a higher grade without the safety net of submitting in the original slab. It would be a case of people being happy with the 64 or 65 they got instead of going for a 66 or 67 and getting back a 63 instead.

RBinTex

There HAS to be some politics when you send a coin in for crossover. I think PCGS frowns upon upgrading it if in another's slab. Maybe it's a policy or maybe just a mental bias - I really don't know.

ziggy29

<< <i>It wouldn't change the way I feel about the third party services, but do you really want to risk cracking an expensive coin out of even a PCGS holder and having it come back a point or two lower because you no longer have a grade guarantee?? >>

That's part of why someone might feel better about it, though; if people were forced to crack out -- and not just cross over or regrade -- then they have a LOT more to lose than the grading fees.

Let's say you have an 1897-O Morgan graded MS-63 by PCGS (or NGC. Or ANACS. It doesn't matter much to make the point.) Ignoring the accuracy of the PCGS price guide for the moment, if you use that as a guide you now have (in theory) a $5,750 coin.

You think it might go 64 and become a "$16,000 coin." If you don't have to crack it out, there's little reason not to pay a few bucks on the (possibly small) chance you'll get the $10,250 upgrade. But if you have to risk a downgrade to a $2,000 coin, do you do it?

Yes, even if coins had to be submitted raw, you can keep cracking out...but how many times do you want to crack out a coin like this, risking damage to the coin each time, possibly putting a bad scratch in the coin that would make it an MS-60 or even BB it to the point where you'd be lucky to get $500 for it?

So I think this *could* reduce the number of coins getting upgrades, and perhaps fewer overgraded coins would result. I'm not sure yet that it would, but I can follow the logic that says it might.

ms70

<< <i>It would be a case of people being happy with the 64 or 65 they got instead of going for a 66 or 67 and getting back a 63 instead. >>



This could be a good thing in a way. It would let some of the dust settle from the crack & resubmit fury.

Elcontador

Never will happen. This is a business. The more submissions for the grading services, the more gross revenue. If a business is run properly, the more gross revenue, the more profit.

coingame2000

It would never happen because crossovers, regrades (in the holder), etc. generate far too much income for the services.

Mike

roadrunner

It would level the playing field in many ways. Therefore it would never happen. And as Coingame2000 said, they'd lose too much revenue in the process.

roadrunner

Baley

wouldn't make no never mind to yours truly. homie don't play dat game.

ms70

I'm not asking if it "would" happen- I'm asking if it actually "did" happen. What would you think?