<< <i>The problem goes BACK and is not about coins that are in a given, present window of two weeks. I, for example, had 3 seperate submissions that all left here Mid-March and were back here Mid-April. One was a crossover, no problems there, but the other two sumissions were.
Those grades, I would sure appreciate Mr. Hall looking into. The coins were all sent in raw (cracked out 66s) . The troubling part is the grades came back 62, 65, 64 ,65, BB'd, 65, 66, 66. These were some of my best 66s, "shot 67s". The results speak for themselves.
I can do nothing with these and would very much appreciate being included in this Presidential Review. I had no idea that everyone else was experiencing similar problems. Something definitely is amiss somewhere with results such as this. I am wondering if perhaps the way I filled in the forms may have had something to do with the results.
Thank you. I applaud you for even thinking about taking on such a monumental task. We're talking about a LOT of submissions, Mr. Hall. >>
I almost think that is where the underlying problem is with the complaints as of late. There appeared to be a period(at least to me) that the standards got really loose thus putting coins in holders that didn't deserve it. Maybe collectors also got lax and accepted that these were the new standards and accepted those coins. Now they won't even cross over in the same holders. The early part to middle of last year I was seeing all kinds of suspect stuff with high grades in slabs that large dealers had on the market. It really made me wonder if there wasn't some kind of *You rub my back & I'll rub yours* thing going on to have so many on the market at once and now I see none of them available. Even the '47 in my walker set with a 66 grade is not even close as far as I am concerned. How PCGS came up with that grade with a major hit on the rim & wing area on the reverse is beyond me. Sooner or later it will be dropped from the set and replaced with one that deserves the grade.
Kudos to David for speaking out and showing PCGS is listening, but I almost think it is the other way around. Standards are back to normal and everyone doesn't like it. That's my 2 cents.
Is this potentially damaging to the idea that PCGS imploys consistent grading standards??? Think about it -- lets say that David Hall finds that a rather large number of coins are undergraded by a point or two, what then? Well, it might cause submissions to drop off further because PCGS is being too tight, it might also cause many in the community to question why there's been a recent shift in the standards. Granted we all suppose it happens, but for David Hall to come out on a public forum and confirm it, might not be such a great idea.
It might drive prices of recently graded PCGS coins up a notch for dealers, because they'll be telling us that the coins are undergraded, but there's no date stamp on a slab, so how will buyer know when the coin was actually graded.
If David Hall comes back and says out of 200 coins submitted, only 10 were undergraded, we can assume that theres been no change in consistency, but who is really going to believe that after reading what some of the other submitter's have posted. This might cause a slight delay in submissions until they loosen, or might cause more coins to find homes in NGC slabs.
Overall, while I note that David Hall is stepping up to the plate and is taking some heat --- I'm not sure how this will affect everyones' thoughts about PCGS grading.
Good Move. Please don't forget the Cameo, Deep Cameo concerns. Like most collectors, I'd rather have the Cameo/Deep Cameo than the point bump for eye appeal.
<< <i>This offer from David pretty much confirms my suspicions that most of the complaints lately have been with modern (later 20th century) coins. I really haven't seen much difference in the way they grade 19th and early 20th century coins. >>
Eric, I believe that there has been some tightening in Walkers and Mercs as well. Perhaps not as much as in the moderns but definitely there. I'm glad HRH is doing this and I hope that the problem that some of us believe exists is corrected.
<< <i>Good Move. Please don't forget the Cameo, Deep Cameo concerns. Like most collectors, I'd rather have the Cameo/Deep Cameo than the point bump for eye appeal. >>
How would you feel about a mid fifties proof that got the DCam that it deserved but also got a 65 when you can place it alonside the same coin in a DCam 67 from a couple of years ago and it puts the 67 to shame? Eye appeal plus the physical qualities are there. Experienced people I have shown this to just shake their heads. When I place it's earlier slabbed version alongside, well, at that point everyone says wow, you really got
The coin I speak of came out of the grading room two weeks ago and I still don't know how to proceed regarding this generous offer or if I even can do anything short of cracking it out and resubmitting/paying the fees again and hoping for the proper grade.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
I think that DH or even an independent person/group should systematically crack out some coins and resubmit them to compare past vs. current grading trends. While it shouldn't be the same coins over and over (the graders could "learn" those coins), it should be representative of different series and grades. Maybe this is done, I don't know.
It could serve as an internal "quality control" over the years to maintain stable grading standards.
<< <i>Does anybody think he is going to say they have tightened up? >>
I think he will give each coin a very serious look and if he believes a mistake was made, PCGS will make it right. Unlike some, I don't think this is some kind of conspiracy to "protect pop tops." I think that it's a change in the dynamics of the grading team, and that the only way for David to know that is to have the chance to review a sizable grouping of recently graded material.
Now, it is important that as many people as possible take advantage of this opportunity. The larger the sampling, the more effective this will be. If only a handful of people step up, this'll be useless. I would hope that those who've been complaining will be willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins.
<< <i>willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins. >>
If your sending them now it is too late. Mine arrived the 12th, and will not likely be graded in time. >>
I have a small group of Walkers which I believed should grade 65, 65 and 66. I'm watching to see what the grades are. If they are too far off I will call in and ask for the review.
Wouldn't it make sense for David Hall to look at coins graded just before 5-17 rather than after 5-17? Don't you think the graders know that their post 5-17 graded coins are going to be carefully reviewed by their boss? Wouldn't this have an influence on how they assign grades from now until 6-1? Just some food for thought.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
How would you feel about a mid fifties proof that got the DCam that it deserved but also got a 65 when you can place it alonside the same coin in a DCam 67 from a couple of years ago and it puts the 67 to shame?
Send it in to David. Ask him if you can include your reference coins for comparison.
I think that many of the members are missing the main point of David Hall's thread. He is going to look at coins that have not even been graded yet. This will not solve anything for those of us who have what we consider undergraded coins from the past several months. the best that we can hope for, is that David sees some undergraded coins in this process and that will lead to a modification of the Presidential review for those who have undergraded(in our opinion) coins recently graded. JMHO
Let me ask....for those that have questions what this pertains to (ie....can I send "xxxx coin in", etc, or have problems with the offer....have you contacted David Hall to clarify?
I will say that I contacted him, for the first time, via the email address he posted in HaletJ's thread, and got a very quick reply (quick to me means same day/next day depending on timezone and when sent). He wasn't loquacious but he certainly was helpful.
Now, I am just waiting for the actual review to get done/posted since he assigned it to someone and it will be 2 months total in another 5 days.... But, I feel that David was asked for help, gave his quick input and assigned the task, as any leader should, and has done his part until needed again....he was very approachable.
So, if you just want to guess the negatives or complain, I recommend that you contact him and voice things.
The key point is there are coins that you and others "consider" to be undergraded. They may not necessarily have been undergraded. This is exercise...work actually...will allow me to take a close look at a specific area and report what I see to everyone.
I have at least five invoices which will qualify and which are all coins later than 1934. If any of those are what I think is way below what I expect then I will send them in for the promised review. As Russ has said, the sample of coins he looks at should be large enough for David to get an idea of what is up. Once again I want to thank David for taking the time to give a review and to see for himself if we just have too high expectations or if there is really something up.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
For those who wish to see the difference in grading results from the end of 2003 to the end of 2004, I will list the invoice #'s of my last 10 submissions of modern coins that were primarily Lincoln cents (for the sake of a common comparison) from those 2 years. You can compare the differences in results and draw your own conclusion. Keep in mind that I was being stricter in selecting my submission coins later in 2004 (to no avail) as I began getting worse results. If there is someone with my level of submissions and results that can show a different trend, I would be interested to see them. I have noticed similar trends in other modern coins and wheat cents, but I will be selective in this case for comparison purposes. My results in other series might be questioned, but anyone who knows me, knows that I am unsurpassed in my knowledge (and results) of grading Lincolns. Have fun! A zip code may be required in some of the cases (26566). 2003: 3000865 3000866 3000867 3000868 3000870 3000873 3000875 3145656 3145657 3145658
"Wouldn't it make sense for David Hall to look at coins graded just before 5-17 rather than after 5-17? Don't you think the graders know that their post 5-17 graded coins are going to be carefully reviewed by their boss? Wouldn't this have an influence on how they assign grades from now until 6-1? Just some food for thought."
Great idea & a wise AND generous thing to do BUT it would be fairer if the coins were graded in a date range BEFORE this whole thing started - such as 5/1-15, e.g.
Then even the appearance of a possibility of any "skew" would be eliminated.
p.s. I still stand ready to help you expand the registry sets and can't wait for the Roosevelt Dime 1950-Date Proof w/varieties set to be added.
Hi I've been following all this about tightening and everyones opinion. I have a question. I know that in laboratories the regularly submit known samples anonymously to insure accuracy. Is that ever done with PCGS? I also think that HRH is being a very stand up guy with his offer. He didn’t have to do anything.
I hate to turn this into a modern vs classics debate , but how often do you hear collectors of 19th century coins bashing the grading services? If my coin does not cross or get the grade I expect (which is more often than not), I still like the coin for what it is and move along.
<< <i>I hate to turn this into a modern vs classics debate , but how often do you hear collectors of 19th century coins bashing the grading services? >>
How often are collectors of 19th century coins submitting coins compared to collectors of moderns? The ratio is probably 100 to 1. Most collectors of classics buy them already holdered. The majority of moderns people who frequent these forums hunt the coins raw.
hate to turn this into a modern vs classics debate , but how often do you hear collectors of 19th century coins bashing the grading services? If my coin does not cross or get the grade I expect (which is more often than not), I still like the coin for what it is and move along.
Actually Robert, you must have missed the Legend article on her website a few months ago about the PCGS registry set collector who had the NGC coin that wouldn't cross to PCGS on three attempts, only to cross for the next owner. I didn't pay attention to the series, but it was likely some branch mint gold dweeb. The collector and Laura were bashing the service just like a modern collector.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Actually Robert, you must have missed the Legend article on her website a few months ago about the PCGS registry set collector who had the NGC coin that wouldn't cross to PCGS on three attempts, only to cross for the next owner. I didn't pay attention to the series, but it was likely some branch mint gold dweeb. The collector and Laura were bashing the service just like a modern collector.
Of course I read and reread the article. It was the article that got her banned for a while. She did not divulge the series, but she does not do much with us branch mint gold dweebs.
That occurrence was more of a registry set phenomenon. I would guess that the popularity of registry sets is something that disproportionately infects collectors of modern certified coins (including bullion).
How often are collectors of 19th century coins submitting coins compared to collectors of moderns? The ratio is probably 100 to 1. Most collectors of classics buy them already holdered. The majority of moderns people who frequent these forums hunt the coins raw.
I agree with this statement in its entirety. Classics collectors do plenty of crossover activity (back and forth, crack-out and in-holder). Perhaps, I am an exception. If I do not get the crossover or regrade that I expect, I toss the coin back into the safety deposit box and really do not think twice about it.
I expect the vast majority of holdered classic coins were submitted (or resubmitted) by dealers, who are coincidentally subject to losing their dealer certificate should they criticize PCGS. My guess is the issue of undergrading isn't modern vs classic so much as it is a condition rarity issue, and that of course applies to all series, particularly Morgans. But hey, if it fits better as modern vs classic, I stand corrected. My barb was intended in jest, and I hope you understood it as such. I have no dog in this fight, as I don't have any coins that are affected.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
This is a great move. The gripes were really beginning to swell--and from people who apparently have had long and substantial success and experience with PCGS submissions. I think this did call for a decisive response, and this is it!
I'll be very interested in hearing what you disover about this.
<< <i>Wouldn't it make sense for David Hall to look at coins graded just before 5-17 rather than after 5-17? Don't you think the graders know that their post 5-17 graded coins are going to be carefully reviewed by their boss? Wouldn't this have an influence on how they assign grades from now until 6-1? Just some food for thought. >>
You make a very interesting point!
Leo
And I should add, this is not the case. Anyone can submit questionable coins that have been recently graded by PCGS between 5/17 and 6/1. So if anyone wants a review, they better hurry and get them in. Personally, I wouldn't mail any coins beyond 5/23.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Rather than taking a defensive posture against recent customer "complaints" (feedback), Mr. Hall appears to be willing to look an objective look at the specific items and concerns his customers have. At the same time he appears to also be taking an internal look for any possible straying from established standards and procedures.
I guess this is where the word "Professional" is to the fore-front of both his company's name and in this offering, his personal actions. ---- A recommendation I have (if it's not already procedure), is that Mr. Hall himself would perform occasional random spot checks of coins being sent back to customers (the first time). This would include a sampling of both graded coins and non-graded "body-bagged" coins.
This, IMO, would be a "pro-active" approach to quality assurance rather than a "reactive" damage control measure to resolve customer "complaints" under the "Presidential Review" resubmission program.
---edited for spelling....Nobody's Perfect!!
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
After reading this entire thread, I'm still left with the question as to exactly what coins qualify for this offer. I have about 10-12 slabs that I set aside, which were graded earlier this year (Feb & Mar), thinking that I would resubmit at another time when the grading wasn't so tight. I considered sending them in for a regrade, but judging from the recent comments on the forum and at the PANS show, I thought it would be better to wait. Am I now able to submit these to HRH between the dates of 5/17 - 6/1 for a review, or is the review only for coins that have been ( or will be?) ORIGINALLY submitted between 5/17 - 6/1 ? If the later is true, I don't see the purpose behind this massive undertaking (other than positive publicity) - the "problems" were with coins submitted in the last quarter of '04 and first quarter of '05 - otherwise, how in the world could HRH review coins that are yet to be graded? I suppose a call to customer service would clear things up, but as it stands, the ground rules are a bit confusing. I agree that it is commendable for Mr. Hall to "step up" and answer the concerns of the many forum members and submitters, but is this really what is being done? Russ, it seems that you may have been somewhat involved in getting this ball rolling - maybe you can explain the parameters of the program a bit clearer.....
Don't you know that it's worth every treasure on Earth to be young at heart? And as rich as you are, it's much better by far, to be young at heart!
<< <i>Russ, it seems that you may have been somewhat involved in getting this ball rolling >>
Actually, I had no idea David was planning to do this. I simply had a discussion with him about my coins and he kindly agreed to take a look at them. I was feeling pretty special until I saw this thread this morning.
I believe a time frame coins were certified needs to be set! Will coins certified in the last month or in the last year be excepted for a free pres. review? If it's the latter, then a comparison of any changes noted in grading within certain time frames, for example, for every 3 months could be noted for accuracy.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
David, Since this is a one of a kind offer, but also a very short window of time, may we ask PCGS to keep our coins graded this week in house and send them directly out to you for your review if we get notification of the grades and we disagree with them? I have a batch of moderns due back any day now (rcvd. 4/14), but the time it takes to ship them back to me and then back to PCGS would prevent them from making it by June 1st. With this offer, as I understand it, the coins to be reviewed by you would have to be graded exactly on 5/17, 5/18 or 5/19 to have a prayer of getting back to you in time. Thank you for the generous offer, but please let us know if you will entertain the above scenario.
I think that you and I are on the same page. I look forward to hearing what you find.
I have a submission of Morgans and Washingtons in the system now, but I do not look for them to be done before early June. I had another a month or so ago where the 5 Morgan toners went 65,64,64,64 & 64. However, the Washingtons went 63,63,63 and 64, by far the lowest grades I have received in that series, which is my primary.
<< <i>David, Since this is a one of a kind offer, but also a very short window of time, may we ask PCGS to keep our coins graded this week in house and send them directly out to you for your review if we get notification of the grades and we disagree with them? I have a batch of moderns due back any day now (rcvd. 4/14), but the time it takes to ship them back to me and then back to PCGS would prevent them from making it by June 1st. With this offer, as I understand it, the coins to be reviewed by you would have to be graded exactly on 5/17, 5/18 or 5/19 to have a prayer of getting back to you in time. Thank you for the generous offer, but please let us know if you will entertain the above scenario. >>
He said coins graded between those dates. Call cust svc and track when your coins exit grading. If your coins exit grading during that time, I am sure David would honor his stand up agreement. I have a similar issue in that I have coins that had just exited grading prior to the offer but have not finalized. I would caution against summarily sending your coins in, I have not experienced a remarkable tightening in issues other than Mem. Lincoln's and Jefferson's. I have had nearly 6 step Jefferson's being rejected of FS designation but have also had what I consider "normal" PCGS specs being adhered to on other submission in the same time frame. I am sure HRH would be able to "track" a coins progress and those whom have graded a submission vs. another and see where the issue comes from.
I am working on my examples - but still have a question for David
David - would you accept or perhaps welcome, examples from the past that illustrate what we are perceiving as a change, just for reference? For example a FS Jefferson run from a couple of years or a year ago, compared to examples that are being rejected now? My perception is that "any" even a slight weakness in a step, even though the step is intact, is being rejected. Also I see that any mark, even if it does not bridge a step is being rejected. This is contrary to the "accepted" standards. It hurts when you spend thousands on submissions to be rejected and left with coins that are not worth the grading fee when you perceive that the coin meats the accepted standard in the industry.
Comments
<< <i>The problem goes BACK and is not about coins that are in a given, present window of two weeks. I, for example, had 3 seperate submissions that all left here Mid-March and were back here Mid-April. One was a crossover, no problems there, but the other two sumissions were.
Those grades, I would sure appreciate Mr. Hall looking into. The coins were all sent in raw (cracked out 66s) . The troubling part is the grades came back 62, 65, 64 ,65, BB'd, 65, 66, 66. These were some of my best 66s, "shot 67s". The results speak for themselves.
I can do nothing with these and would very much appreciate being included in this Presidential Review. I had no idea that everyone else was experiencing similar problems. Something definitely is amiss somewhere with results such as this. I am wondering if perhaps the way I filled in the forms may have had something to do with the results.
Thank you. I applaud you for even thinking about taking on such a monumental task. We're talking about a LOT of submissions, Mr. Hall.
I almost think that is where the underlying problem is with the complaints as of late. There appeared to be a period(at least to me) that the standards got really loose thus putting coins in holders that didn't deserve it. Maybe collectors also got lax and accepted that these were the new standards and accepted those coins. Now they won't even cross over in the same holders. The early part to middle of last year I was seeing all kinds of suspect stuff with high grades in slabs that large dealers had on the market. It really made me wonder if there wasn't some kind of *You rub my back & I'll rub yours* thing going on to have so many on the market at once and now I see none of them available. Even the '47 in my walker set with a 66 grade is not even close as far as I am concerned. How PCGS came up with that grade with a major hit on the rim & wing area on the reverse is beyond me. Sooner or later it will be dropped from the set and replaced with one that deserves the grade.
Kudos to David for speaking out and showing PCGS is listening, but I almost think it is the other way around. Standards are back to normal and everyone doesn't like it. That's my 2 cents.
It might drive prices of recently graded PCGS coins up a notch for dealers, because they'll be telling us that the coins are undergraded, but there's no date stamp on a slab, so how will buyer know when the coin was actually graded.
If David Hall comes back and says out of 200 coins submitted, only 10 were undergraded, we can assume that theres been no change in consistency, but who is really going to believe that after reading what some of the other submitter's have posted. This might cause a slight delay in submissions until they loosen, or might cause more coins to find homes in NGC slabs.
Overall, while I note that David Hall is stepping up to the plate and is taking some heat --- I'm not sure how this will affect everyones' thoughts about PCGS grading.
TPN
than the point bump for eye appeal.
Free Trial
<< <i>This offer from David pretty much confirms my suspicions that most of the complaints lately have been with modern (later 20th century) coins. I really haven't seen much difference in the way they grade 19th and early 20th century coins. >>
Eric, I believe that there has been some tightening in Walkers and Mercs
as well. Perhaps not as much as in the moderns but definitely there. I'm
glad HRH is doing this and I hope that the problem that some of us
believe exists is corrected.
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
<< <i>Good Move. Please don't forget the Cameo, Deep Cameo concerns. Like most collectors, I'd rather have the Cameo/Deep Cameo
than the point bump for eye appeal. >>
How would you feel about a mid fifties proof that got the DCam that it deserved but also got a 65 when you can place it alonside the same coin in a DCam 67 from a couple of years ago and it puts the 67 to shame? Eye appeal plus the physical qualities are there. Experienced people I have shown this to just shake their heads. When I place it's earlier slabbed version alongside, well, at that point everyone says wow, you really got
The coin I speak of came out of the grading room two weeks ago and I still don't know how to proceed regarding this generous offer or if I even can do anything short of cracking it out and resubmitting/paying the fees again and hoping for the proper grade.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
It could serve as an internal "quality control" over the years to maintain stable grading standards.
<< <i>Russ you are up dude!
Tbig >>
Mine are already on the way.
<< <i>Does anybody think he is going to say they have tightened up? >>
I think he will give each coin a very serious look and if he believes a mistake was made, PCGS will make it right. Unlike some, I don't think this is some kind of conspiracy to "protect pop tops." I think that it's a change in the dynamics of the grading team, and that the only way for David to know that is to have the chance to review a sizable grouping of recently graded material.
Now, it is important that as many people as possible take advantage of this opportunity. The larger the sampling, the more effective this will be. If only a handful of people step up, this'll be useless. I would hope that those who've been complaining will be willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins. >>
If your sending them now it is too late. Mine arrived the 12th, and will not likely be graded in time.
<< <i><< willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins. >>
If your sending them now it is too late. Mine arrived the 12th, and will not likely be graded in time. >>
My graded coins (the ones I complained about) are already on the way to David.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>willing to put their assertions to the test by sending in their coins. >>
If your sending them now it is too late. Mine arrived the 12th, and will not likely be graded in time. >>
I have a small group of Walkers which I believed should grade 65, 65 and 66.
I'm watching to see what the grades are. If they are too far off I will call in
and ask for the review.
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
Kudos for Dave
Going back to the first post...
<< <i>they have to be graded between 5-17 and 6-1-05. >>
How will your coins you are sending in slabs qualify? I would like to take part of my last SMS batch and get them reviewed!
I have someI am waiting to send in, including some UCAMs that based on russ's pictures maight not even get cam.
A witty saying proves nothing- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does the truth become error because nobody will see it. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
<< <i>Russ,
Going back to the first post...
<< they have to be graded between 5-17 and 6-1-05. >>
How will your coins you are sending in slabs qualify? >>
Because this was agreed to with David last week.
<< <i>Russ, what happened when you had the 2 SMS Kennedy batches sent back to the grading room before they were shipped? >>
Nothing was changed.
Russ, NCNE
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>Bottom line in this entire thread. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! >>
He's agreed to be buried in extra work for FREE and it's all about the money?
Russ, NCNE
Darkmane
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Apr 2005
Tuesday May 17, 2005 10:10 PM (NEW!)
too generous! i just dont hope you give in to a bunch of whiners =P
Send it in to David. Ask him if you can include your reference coins for comparison.
Free Trial
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I will say that I contacted him, for the first time, via the email address he posted in HaletJ's thread, and got a very quick reply (quick to me means same day/next day depending on timezone and when sent). He wasn't loquacious but he certainly was helpful.
Now, I am just waiting for the actual review to get done/posted since he assigned it to someone and it will be 2 months total in another 5 days....
But, I feel that David was asked for help, gave his quick input and assigned the task, as any leader should, and has done his part until needed again....he was very approachable.
So, if you just want to guess the negatives or complain, I recommend that you contact him and voice things.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
The key point is there are coins that you and others "consider" to be undergraded. They may not necessarily have been undergraded. This is exercise...work actually...will allow me to take a close look at a specific area and report what I see to everyone.
David
If there is someone with my level of submissions and results that can show a different trend, I would be interested to see them. I have noticed similar trends in other modern coins and wheat cents, but I will be selective in this case for comparison purposes.
My results in other series might be questioned, but anyone who knows me, knows that I am unsurpassed in my knowledge (and results) of grading Lincolns. Have fun!
A zip code may be required in some of the cases (26566).
2003:
3000865
3000866
3000867
3000868
3000870
3000873
3000875
3145656
3145657
3145658
2004:
3193058
3193059
3193061
3193062
3193063
3193064
3193066
3193068
3193069
3243777
Thanks!!
BTC
Thanks for stepping up to the plate !
Proof
Great idea & a wise AND generous thing to do BUT it would be fairer if the coins were graded in a date range BEFORE this whole thing started - such as 5/1-15, e.g.
Then even the appearance of a possibility of any "skew" would be eliminated.
p.s. I still stand ready to help you expand the registry sets and can't wait for the Roosevelt Dime 1950-Date Proof w/varieties set to be added.
I have a question.
I know that in laboratories the regularly submit known samples anonymously to insure accuracy. Is that ever done with PCGS?
I also think that HRH is being a very stand up guy with his offer. He didn’t have to do anything.
<< <i>I hate to turn this into a modern vs classics debate , but how often do you hear collectors of 19th century coins bashing the grading services? >>
How often are collectors of 19th century coins submitting coins compared to collectors of moderns? The ratio is probably 100 to 1. Most collectors of classics buy them already holdered. The majority of moderns people who frequent these forums hunt the coins raw.
Russ, NCNE
I think test coins are sometimes sent through, yes.
Free Trial
Actually Robert, you must have missed the Legend article on her website a few months ago about the PCGS registry set collector who had the NGC coin that wouldn't cross to PCGS on three attempts, only to cross for the next owner. I didn't pay attention to the series, but it was likely some branch mint gold dweeb.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Of course I read and reread the article. It was the article that got her banned for a while. She did not divulge the series, but she does not do much with us branch mint gold dweebs.
That occurrence was more of a registry set phenomenon. I would guess that the popularity of registry sets is something that disproportionately infects collectors of modern certified coins (including bullion).
How often are collectors of 19th century coins submitting coins compared to collectors of moderns? The ratio is probably 100 to 1. Most collectors of classics buy them already holdered. The majority of moderns people who frequent these forums hunt the coins raw.
I agree with this statement in its entirety. Classics collectors do plenty of crossover activity (back and forth, crack-out and in-holder). Perhaps, I am an exception. If I do not get the crossover or regrade that I expect, I toss the coin back into the safety deposit box and really do not think twice about it.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I'll be very interested in hearing what you disover about this.
Thanks!
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>He is going to look at coins that have not even been graded yet >>
It was looking good till I saw the date. It needs to be coins already graded going back a month or so.
Now the time to send things in IMO
<< <i>Wouldn't it make sense for David Hall to look at coins graded just before 5-17 rather than after 5-17? Don't you think the graders know that their post 5-17 graded coins are going to be carefully reviewed by their boss? Wouldn't this have an influence on how they assign grades from now until 6-1? Just some food for thought. >>
You make a very interesting point!
Leo
And I should add, this is not the case. Anyone can submit questionable coins that have been recently graded by PCGS between 5/17 and 6/1. So if anyone wants a review, they better hurry and get them in.
Personally, I wouldn't mail any coins beyond 5/23.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Rather than taking a defensive posture against recent customer "complaints" (feedback), Mr. Hall appears to be willing to look an objective look at the specific items and concerns his customers have. At the same time he appears to also be taking an internal look for any possible straying from established standards and procedures.
I guess this is where the word "Professional" is to the fore-front of both his company's name and in this offering, his personal actions.
----
A recommendation I have (if it's not already procedure), is that Mr. Hall himself would perform occasional random spot checks of coins being sent back to customers (the first time). This would include a sampling of both graded coins and non-graded "body-bagged" coins.
This, IMO, would be a "pro-active" approach to quality assurance rather than a "reactive" damage control measure to resolve customer "complaints" under the "Presidential Review" resubmission program.
---edited for spelling....Nobody's Perfect!!
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards
<< <i>
PCGS vs. NGC
This is the numismatic version of the Yankees vs. Red Sox complete with rival fans on both sides!
I have always thought it was more like Coke vs. Pepsi.
CoinPeople.com || CoinWiki.com || NumisLinks.com
If the later is true, I don't see the purpose behind this massive undertaking (other than positive publicity) - the "problems" were with coins submitted in the last quarter of '04 and first quarter of '05 - otherwise, how in the world could HRH review coins that are yet to be graded? I suppose a call to customer service would clear things up, but as it stands, the ground rules are a bit confusing. I agree that it is commendable for Mr. Hall to "step up" and answer the concerns of the many forum members and submitters, but is this really what is being done?
Russ, it seems that you may have been somewhat involved in getting this ball rolling - maybe you can explain the parameters of the program a bit clearer.....
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
<< <i>Russ, it seems that you may have been somewhat involved in getting this ball rolling >>
Actually, I had no idea David was planning to do this. I simply had a discussion with him about my coins and he kindly agreed to take a look at them. I was feeling pretty special until I saw this thread this morning.
Russ, NCNE
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Since this is a one of a kind offer, but also a very short window of time, may we ask PCGS to keep our coins graded this week in house and send them directly out to you for your review if we get notification of the grades and we disagree with them? I have a batch of moderns due back any day now (rcvd. 4/14), but the time it takes to ship them back to me and then back to PCGS would prevent them from making it by June 1st. With this offer, as I understand it, the coins to be reviewed by you would have to be graded exactly on 5/17, 5/18 or 5/19 to have a prayer of getting back to you in time. Thank you for the generous offer, but please let us know if you will entertain the above scenario.
I think that you and I are on the same page. I look forward to hearing what you find.
I have a submission of Morgans and Washingtons in the system now, but I do not look for them to be done before early June. I had another a month or so ago where the 5 Morgan toners went 65,64,64,64 & 64.
However, the Washingtons went 63,63,63 and 64, by far the lowest grades I have received in that series, which is my primary.
<< <i>David,
Since this is a one of a kind offer, but also a very short window of time, may we ask PCGS to keep our coins graded this week in house and send them directly out to you for your review if we get notification of the grades and we disagree with them? I have a batch of moderns due back any day now (rcvd. 4/14), but the time it takes to ship them back to me and then back to PCGS would prevent them from making it by June 1st. With this offer, as I understand it, the coins to be reviewed by you would have to be graded exactly on 5/17, 5/18 or 5/19 to have a prayer of getting back to you in time. Thank you for the generous offer, but please let us know if you will entertain the above scenario. >>
He said coins graded between those dates. Call cust svc and track when your coins exit grading. If your coins exit grading during that time, I am sure David would honor his stand up agreement. I have a similar issue in that I have coins that had just exited grading prior to the offer but have not finalized. I would caution against summarily sending your coins in, I have not experienced a remarkable tightening in issues other than Mem. Lincoln's and Jefferson's. I have had nearly 6 step Jefferson's being rejected of FS designation but have also had what I consider "normal" PCGS specs being adhered to on other submission in the same time frame. I am sure HRH would be able to "track" a coins progress and those whom have graded a submission vs. another and see where the issue comes from.
I am working on my examples - but still have a question for David
David - would you accept or perhaps welcome, examples from the past that illustrate what we are perceiving as a change, just for reference? For example a FS Jefferson run from a couple of years or a year ago, compared to examples that are being rejected now? My perception is that "any" even a slight weakness in a step, even though the step is intact, is being rejected. Also I see that any mark, even if it does not bridge a step is being rejected. This is contrary to the "accepted" standards. It hurts when you spend thousands on submissions to be rejected and left with coins that are not worth the grading fee when you perceive that the coin meats the accepted standard in the industry.