"but am not motivated to end up with a pile of low grade SF 68 coins to sell for $250 per set of 10. dr"
Not to mention the day job doesn't pay too bad either
Seth; I really do not know what PCGS has on the horizon for a new holder, if anything. As Doug mentioned, I also respect the ANACS brand and with the additions of Miles overseeing bulk and James running the show- they certainly look to improve.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Seth; I really do not know what PCGS has on the horizon for a new holder, if anything. As Doug mentioned, I also respect the ANACS brand and with the additions of Miles overseeing bulk and James running the show- they certainly look to improve. Wondercoin >>
It sure puts the market pressure on PCGS to step up to the plate. I don't have any normal issue coins in at ANACS, but I do have a few errors coming back in their old holder as well as the new holder. I think they do a really good job authenticating and describing varieties. I don't particularly want to send them SHQ's or the type of coins found in registry sets, but I'd like to see the ANACS holder raise the bar for PCGS to step up to.
It's about the coin, so anything a grading company can do to improve their holder for the sake of coin preservation or viewing is a BIG PLUS!
Michael I hope to repeat the SF69 performance this year in 2006 with the addition of some SF70!
John I have now emailed and left a message for Laura at PCGS as well. If they do not perform and ignore us that is a good indication of how much they value the emerging modern collector market coveted by ANAC's and others. Maybe Mark or Mitch someone with an established dialogue can talk to David Hall or Ron Guth about this so we can get a timeline for the corrections to the pop report so we can manage our own expectations. If the pop report is going to be permanently foul then PCGS will have severely stunk up the MS state quarter market and I do not find that very satisfying with all the time and money I have invested in my set. If PCGS could not or would not apply the resources to properly differentiate the holders MS vs SF in 2005 then they should have just left it as it was. If PCGS cannot correct 2005 mistakes then 2006 will probably be just as bad and that may cause me to re-think my approach for 2006.
Don "rolling coins" If PCGS does not expand the registry to include MS coins more people may be joining you in not registering their set and that would not be benificial to PCGS. I know you are waiting for a pure MS set and that may be a long time coming but those of us that are willing to compromise will become discouraged if there is no place at all for the lower grade MS coins in the registry.
I will try and stay off this thread since it is now impacting my day job but I will continue to watch all the comments and progress and of course will contribute if someone asks me a direct question. Thanks to all, dr
For those interested - I just got off the phone with Laura at PCGS and both Laura and Carol are working diligently to correct the first roughly 200 errors in the pop report. A few final issues need to get run past Ron Guth first and then the corrections should all be made. Glad to see it progressing so smoothly.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins.
What is the point of getting or buying a coin certified by PCGS? When I buy a PCGS coin, yes I’m buying the coin first, but I’m also buying the plastic (or better said, I’m buying the guarantee that comes with the plastic). I’ve heard / read too many war stories of someone buying a raw coin and then later finding out that the coin was altered, cleaned, a counterfeit, whizzed, or artificially toned. A lot of people don’t have a neighborhood coin store, and the closest store could be several hundred miles away. Today with mail order and the internet, it is easier and not uncommon to be on the east coast and buy a coin on the west coast then going to the nearest coin store. The reason, I thought PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be (I understand that grading the condition of the coin is not an exact science. But if I bought a coin certified by PCGS sight unseen and it was purporting to be a 1998-S Kennedy SMS in MS69 on the label, and when I received the coin in the mail it had the label mentioned but it was a PR69DCAM – I would be pissed. If the seller refused to take the coin back, not only would I stop doing all business with that person but I would expect PCGS to honor its guarantee and make me whole).
There is a premium associated with a PCGS certified coin weather you are buying the coin already slabed, or getting the coin certified for yourself. PCGS was / is paid a fee for a service. This service is to have a third party, neutral and unbiased evaluate the coin, classify the coin, grade the coin and guarantee the coin to be unmolested and original as stated on the label by a professional.
“PCGS just made a mistake”. Yes, nobody is perfect (except for my mother-in-law, just ask her). PCGS is trying to correct the situation of the 2005 satin finish with the assistance of several members (great job to all those involved). PCGS is the one who gave a separate number for 2005 satin finish coins from the business strike issues. Ultimately PCGS needs to make sure that this matter is cleaned up before it snowballs into a much bigger problem with the 2006 coins just around the corner. PCGS needs to preserve the integrity of their guarantee and make sure that coins marked MS-?? with no Satin Finish designation are indeed Business Strikes.
Worst case scenario for PCGS, how many 2005 coins have been graded without the Satin Finish designation? Around 3200 coins? If PCGS advertised and recalled all pennies thru dollar 2005 coins that they have certified without the Satin Finish designation and verified them would this not solve the mistake? Wouldn’t it be better for PCGS to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee?
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics." Also, to say “PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS” (or any other circulation strike set) is a bit of a stretch. The right thing would be to correct the problem as many members have been trying to help PCGS do (My hat is off to them, great job!). There is no doubt that this must be a logistic nightmare for PCGS to straighten out but unless people want a PCGS holder to have the same meaning as a SGS holder it must be corrected. It all comes down to quality control. The only other solution would be for PCGS to do away with the Satin Finish designation and number and treat them the same (this would be unacceptable to most collectors too).
Yes Tim, well said. This post is an infomation item regarding the pop clean up. I sent various rogue coin numbers to Carol to assist in the clean up and she emailed me back stating. "Doug, I need a scan of a coin that is from the orders you mentioned in your message to Laura (which she forwarded to me) or from the examples below. If you can provide that, it would be greatly appreciated. Carol"
I am very thankful someone is now on this issue but why do we need a scan to deal with this following example I emailed her. "The KS-P and WV-P that appear on the October pop report (I have a hard copy) are all mistakes and fortunately no D mint grades are shown on the October pop report so I have no reason to believe there are errors with these D mints for KS and WV. The October pop report shows 9 KS-P in MS67 and none higher or lower and this serves as the bench-mark for the error. The October WV-P pop report shows 23 WV-P in MS67, 5 in MS68 and 2 in MS69 with none higher or lower so that serves as the bench mark for the error on the WV-P mints. All cert numbers for all WV-P and KS-P on the October hard copy of the pop report are incorrect and can easily be fixed if PCGS is able to determine what serial numbers were issued on these MS KS-P and WV-P coins that are included in the October pop report. Dr"
I hope this clean up effort will not turn out to be piecemeal and only for coins we can get a scan of, and only for coins with inconsitent coin numbers and labels or it is not worth the effort. Take a look at the bison nickel a few clicks up and this may not be a mechanical error since the cert number matches the label and no doubt we will find a similar problem in the state quarters as this progresses. That whole batch where this bison nickel came from should be defaulted in the data base as SF. I hope PCGS understands that they are liable for these rogue coins and the quicker they get this fixed the better for all. If PCGS accidentally puts an SF designation in the data base for an MS coin that is a risk I am willing to take. Let the owner of the coin send it back for recertification. In my opinion it is undebatable that any coins ultimately residing in an MS holder that were submitted to PCGS prior to the release of MS coins by the mint are a problem that PCGS should fix whether or not anyone can get scans of these coins. Lets give Ron a chance to get with Carol and Laura to figure this out and hopefully our input will prevail. Roger if you are out there please send her another scan of the coin you had fixed earier that came from that large batch... I know in your email you state you sent a scan already but apparently they only fixed your one coin and now we have a chance to fix the whole batch. Hopefully you still have a copy of that scan or PCGS can find it from your previous fix effort. I did forward a copy of your email to Carol where you laid it all out, now just need another scan if you have one. If we need to get scans from all these coins now out in the public this effort will not work. dr
How many people are going to want to turn in their coins to have the "SF" added. It is a much more valuable coin without the designation. If it's an error (mechanical) and the coins are not turned in, future buyers are going to get burned when it shows up on the PCGS web site as a "SF" coin. This will cuase hard feelings towards PCGS. If I were PCGS, I would send a letter to all the owners of these coins, notifying them of the mechanical error and ask them to return the coins so that they could be re-slabbed. Its like the hot dog producer who has to recall a million packs of hot dogs because the meat was tainted. It stinks, but you have to do it to protect the integrity of your business.
Hey Doug, I will get a new set of pics on that quarter shortly. I'm really kicking myself in the butt because I didn't save the original emails that were sent back and forth. If I had this probably would be a lot easier to take care of.
By the way Tim, that was a very well stated comment. It's easy to see there was a lot of thought behind it. And I agree totally with it. I was very angry when the 05 sf coins were included in the registry. Given time to calm down about this, it's very unrealistic of me to think that any grading service is perfect. And therefore mistakes are bound to happen. PCGS will show there "true" colors in the way they handle the mistakes made. And that will ultimately let us know the true value of their service.
Here is the coin that I originally had problems with when I entered it into the registry.
Andy A large majority of the errors are database errors. NO coin has to be turned in. The coins are in a Sf holder but tagged with a business strike number. If we can get the 2 large submission fixed then another look at the pop report can be done to see what remains suspicious.
Thank you for that great scan Roger. Now everyone can see why Brian and others that had this problem may not have caught it because as you can see only the eight digit cert number appears on these SF labels and the preceeding coin number that identifies it as an MS or SF coin does not even appear on these SF labels. In my opinion, clearly it will be ok to simply change the data base for coins in this SF holder. The problem issues for Ron and the gurus at PCGS to think thru is how to handle the slabbed coins that got out that are SF (WV-P and KS-P for example in MS holders prior to the mint releasing them) in holders that do not say SF and display the correct coin number for a non-SF coin. My idea to consider is to simply change the designation in the data base for these coins and yes that is like admitting your mistake and setting yourself up for a claim but isn't that what the PCGS guarantee is for? Also, word will get out quickly to check the PCGS web-site coin look-up for 2005 MS coins to be sure the designation is not incorrect on the holder. Also what about the submitters of these batches that are clearly from mint sets that looked the other way and sold for higher prices due to the incorrect designation? If I were running PCGS these folks that failed us would have to take responsibility or lose priviledges. There is no perfect solution now, would have been if PCGS had properly handled the concurrent emails from all us when these errors were occuring. Nothing but praise for all those joining in this effort and the staff at PCGS that remains pleasant even when we collectors are a bit grumpy. PS The first 2006 state quarter NV has just arrived on the door-steps of collectors like myself across the country. The hunt for MS coins in 2006 has begun!dr
Also what about the submitters of these batches that are clearly from mint sets that looked the other way and sold for higher prices due to the incorrect designation? If I were running PCGS these folks that failed us would have to take responsibility or lose priviledges.
There is no excuse for people that did this. You know, as a collector, I put a lot of trust in dealers, vest pocket dealers, wannabe dealers, or common everyday collectors that sell a little to offset the cost of their collecting, whatever. I don't personally mind it when I get bit by some of these guys that are shady, it's a learning experience. And it's my firm beleif that knowlege is king. The old addage "buyer beware" comes to mind here. But to intentionally take advantage of people that just don't know any better, takes a lot of gall, and this type of seller gives everyone of us all a bad name. They should be identified, and not be able to have their coins graded, anywhere, or be sold thru public venues, be it ebay or other auction sites. But being able to enforce that is another story.
There is no perfect solution now, would have been if PCGS had properly handled the concurrent emails from all us when these errors were occuring. Nothing but praise for all those joining in this effort and the staff at PCGS that remains pleasant even when we collectors are a bit grumpy.
Agree!!!
pow012000 if you happen to read this thread, would you please pm/email me? 7557rb@comcast.net.
PCGS authorized dealers not only have their own ethical obligation to return the obvious mechanical errors, but, best I understand from the agreement I signed, a possible obligation to PCGS as well to try to remove these coins from the marketplace - and certainly to not make matters worse peddling them unsuspectingly to unknowledgeable collectors (especially through auction channels where the consignor does not have to "face' the end user buyer). In this case, PCGS may find many of the outrageous sales of SF coins hiding in non-SF holders for 4 figure prices were collector base driven - leaving them not a great deal of recourse. They can only hope in a way some of these sales were PCGS dealer driven as they would have a great deal of recourse I believe. My gut tells me though many will likely not be.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Not to defend the dealers here but ---- I have seen no coins sold on E-Bay that were sold as business strikes and were SF. Again the problem was in the PCGS data entry for the large batch we have identified. A coin in a SF holder and having the non-variety number.
With that, if there were private sales of high pop SF coins as business strikes that is a far different matter.
Not to defend the dealers here but ---- I have seen no coins sold on E-Bay that were sold as business strikes and were SF. Again the problem was in the PCGS data entry for the large batch we have identified. A coin in a SF holder and having the non-variety number
Its a given that most dealers/sellers are not out to scam people. They just facilitate a collector's desire to own a particular coin. A lot of times there is no real selling involved. The coin(s) sells itself so to speak, either with its looks or what it actually "is". Correcting the pop report just makes it that much harder for those that do. Especially with the internet being a major sales tool these days, where all you have to go by is a stock photo and the tpg's reputation and grade warranty.
A few basic policy questions for PCGS so we may speed the clean-up. 1) Based upon this above scan provided by Roger of a WV-P graded MS69 in a SF colorific holder with an incorrect designation in the data base, will that entire batch of PCGS graded coins be defaulted to SF? If not why? 2) Based upon the scan of the Bison P nickel provided a few pages back by P8NT and knowing there was also a Bison P nickel graded MS69 in this batch (highly suspect, serious hunters report MS66 is the best found so what about that MS69 anyhow?), will this batch be investigated and the entire batch be defaulted to satin finish? If not why?
In my opinion when we find one bad coin the entire batch should be defaulted to satin finish whether or not we can get scans of the rest of the coins in the batch. Example 1) above is the easiest for everyone to say yes on and should be done quickly as soon as we find them. Example 2) Is a lot tougher because it involves a submitter that did not self police as ethical submitters do and there is potential liability to the submitter and to PCGS. I am curious to see how PCGS handles this second example. If PCGS does not immediately reclassify all the coins in these problem batches then as we find a problem coin we should do this about the batch it came from:
A) Make a list of the entire serial number sequence of each rogue batch with a description of each coin both for PCGS and our records. Provide a list to PCGS to be sure these suspected serial numbers are flagged to prevent further re-holdering without a quality reveiw to prevent coins from being assigned new incorrect serial numbers.
I hope this sounds constructive as it is meant to be.
Just researched that Bison nickel example 2) above and the state quarters in that batch all came up as SF. Just researched example 1) above using Rogers list of serial numbers and that is a huge batch that should clear up most MN-P, OR-P, KS-P, and WV-P errors. It will be good to see that batch that originated in SF holders corrected quickly in the data base. dr
Looks like there was a little tweeking to the pop report already. No more Ks-p in ms68. Looks like the Ca-d has changed also, but not sure if that was a correction or just a couple of more grades given, (thank you John) so if anyone out there knows more about it, please let us know. It would really be interesting to know if more is getting done on pcgs' end.
Dan, I couldn't say if the Rooseys have had problems or not, I am not much into them. But it wouldn't surprise me to find that all the current circulating coins have been affected.
Another positive note, I have been trying to get in touch with the person that I purchased the WV-p sf quarter from. No response from emails sent so I went and bid 1 of his auctions at ebay, got his phone # and we have set Tuesday morning as a date for a phone call to discuss his submission(s). It should be an interesting conversation, and I will try to keep you posted as to the outcome.
I now have P & D copies of Oregon thanks to Seth of CoinFame. If this is what PCGS calls satin Finish it is my opinion they do not know what they are doing grading these coins. These are from a bag and I can easily go to many of the previous years of State quarters and find satin "soft" P mint business strikes and oregon D with flashy "hard" surfaces. This a joke in my opinion and I feel sorry for those of you that got stuck with this grading. Just as I figured.
I tend to go along with D. Rall, if i remember he had said satin finish coins tend to have the smooth fine grain surfaces rather than the more grainy surfaces of a business strike. There is a minute chance the P mint is from an aged die and was handled poorly but most likely not. As for the D mint that I was sent, not even close. you can find coins like that all day long for Denver in prior years as well as this year.
<< <i>I now have P & D copies of Oregon thanks to Seth of CoinFame. If this is what PCGS calls satin Finish it is my opinion they do not know what they are doing grading these coins. These are from a bag and I can easily go to many of the previous years of State quarters and find satin "soft" P mint business strikes and oregon D with flashy "hard" surfaces. This a joke in my opinion and I feel sorry for those of you that got stuck with this grading. Just as I figured.
I tend to go along with D. Rall, if i remember he had said satin finish coins tend to have the smooth fine grain surfaces rather than the more grainy surfaces of a business strike. There is a minute chance the P mint is from an aged die and was handled poorly but most likely not. As for the D mint that I was sent, not even close. you can find coins like that all day long for Denver in prior years as well as this year. >>
Mark: The "P" mint coin I sent you is what they graded SF and the "D" mint they graded correctly as business strike but I wanted to send both as different examples of finish. (You're right, the D mint is the standard coin.) I agree that the "P" mint coin is obviously from a bag and not a mint set. The surface is definitely more grainy than the satin finish, showing that they were not struck the same, but also a VERY Satiny Business Strike. At the time I did not think they could see what I was seeing as evidenced by the fact that they were incorrectly graded, so I didn't give them the benefit of the doubt on correcting the coins. As satiny as the "P's" look, I figured they would think I was trying to pull one over on them. Based on what Doug said about them fixing his order of P-OR, it sounds like I should have challenged it back then as they might have fixed them. In my case, the only loss was on my part, so I'm ok writing it off and knowing how to resolve it next time.
Thank you for your report on the coins Mark, it really helps!
<< <i>Seth: I look forward to seeing what you sent to me. Did you send a pair of OR coins as well? Nice progress with the pop report. Let's all keep it going. Wondercoin >>
I sent both you and Mark a P and a D. The P is an example of the Satiny version that they gave SF to and the D is an example of the normal coin that they graded correctly. All business aside, the P mint is a neat looking coin.
For what it is worth I got a mix of both OR-P and OR-D MS coins back in the SF holders and some of the coins within the same batch were correctly designated as MS. As you can see from the Rogue nickel batch identified above and from Seth's example above these mixed graded batches appear to be problematic and in my opinion PCGS should not allow any mixed batches to be submitted and then they will not have to outsmart themselves picking and choosing amoungst them. If one coin in any size batch is SF then the entire batch should be defaulted to SF in my opinion. I do not consider the SF labeled coins to be Rogue batches and I do not blame those batches on the graders when there is nothing apparent looking at the coin to suggest an error in the data base. Having said that I believe that not all graders are cut out for the moderns. You really need to keep up in looking at lots of new release coins to be an expert as they are concurrently released, each new release has nuiances to consider and especially last year when the SF designation was new when these mistakes occured. Since my OR SNAFU PCGS has not incorrectly designated any coins and I have sent them a few hundred coins after that first mistake. I admit that I horribly flunked a grading test offered by David Hall a few years back at a luncheon I attended in Las Vegas. I am not experienced at grading silver dollars and I undergraded almost every coin. I do not care if a grader is an expert at the silver dollars and other nostalgic non-concurrent release series. Unless they are dedicated to the moderns and keep up with what the mint is doing they have no business grading moderns, especially as we go into the future now with the presidential dollars, lincoln cent variations and the like all forthcoming from the US mint, the worlds foremost modern coin dealer that also set the standards for production and has a monopoly on minting US coins. I do not have a problem with grades assigned by PCGS and if anything they tend to conservatively grade coins and I like that. However, it is the designations that are soo easy to differentiate SF vs MS if you know what you are doing are an embarassment to see in wrongly designated holders, not to mention the financial liability. How do you think the person that bought the Bison P nickel off Teletrade will feel when they find out they paid $1,200 for an SF coin worth around $100 or so? dr
"How do you think the person that bought the Bison P nickel off Teletrade will feel when they find out they paid $1,200 for an SF coin worth around $100 or so? dr"
Again, one of my reasons in the first place to feel comfortable with PCGS' either/or. Many collectors will be spared getting "duped" as the average collector is quite content with the $100 coin as opposed to the $1,200 or $3,000 version, especially when either coin is optional. But, the variety set at least gives the non-SF coins the recognition they deserve I believe.
"If one coin in any size batch is SF then the entire batch should be defaulted to SF in my opinion"
A position I have supported from day 1 (we are 100% in agreement here) - but, yet an unpopular position with many collectors who have a vision that PCGS should grade each and every coin perfectly every time.
But - we've "been there, done that". Let not debate these issues again.
"Unless they are dedicated to the moderns and keep up with what the mint is doing they have no business grading moderns"
Doug - Do you have any evidence that PCGS is any less "dedicated" to moderns than NGC or ANACS? If not, should all (3) companies stop grading moderns then? Bottom line - take a page out of MONSTERMAN'S book - buy super "PQ" coins now while grading is exceedingly tough - you will be greatly rewarded later. After all, you are in this for the "long run" as a number of us are.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>but, yet an unpopular position with many collectors who have a vision that PCGS should grade each and every coin perfectly every time. >>
Wondercoin
Is that not what PCGS is paid for? If they can't get it right, then they need to compensate the victim for his/her loss and preserve the integrity of their own guarantee. What do the letters PCGS stand for? I thought the letters stood for Professional Coin Grading Service, pardon me for expecting the coin to be graded by a professional. People are not just talking about PCGS getting the grade right, more basic they want PCGS to get the authenticity and status of the coin right (circulated / proof / mattie / satin).
<< <i>But - we've "been there, done that". Let not debate these issues again. >>
Wondercoin
You have to be joking, when was the issue debated? I have read several arguments in this thread against allowing SF coins in sets purporting to be circulation strikes and no intelligent argument to allow them besides "convenience and economics." As a matter of fact, my last post to this thread went unanswered, the only conclusion that I could draw from this was the author of this thread was unwilling or unable to debate, or lacked the intestinal fortitude to debate in a public forum. I will enclose my last post here:
have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins.
What is the point of getting or buying a coin certified by PCGS? When I buy a PCGS coin, yes I’m buying the coin first, but I’m also buying the plastic (or better said, I’m buying the guarantee that comes with the plastic). I’ve heard / read too many war stories of someone buying a raw coin and then later finding out that the coin was altered, cleaned, a counterfeit, whizzed, or artificially toned. A lot of people don’t have a neighborhood coin store, and the closest store could be several hundred miles away. Today with mail order and the internet, it is easier and not uncommon to be on the east coast and buy a coin on the west coast then going to the nearest coin store. The reason, I thought PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be (I understand that grading the condition of the coin is not an exact science. But if I bought a coin certified by PCGS sight unseen and it was purporting to be a 1998-S Kennedy SMS in MS69 on the label, and when I received the coin in the mail it had the label mentioned but it was a PR69DCAM – I would be pissed. If the seller refused to take the coin back, not only would I stop doing all business with that person but I would expect PCGS to honor its guarantee and make me whole).
There is a premium associated with a PCGS certified coin weather you are buying the coin already slabed, or getting the coin certified for yourself. PCGS was / is paid a fee for a service. This service is to have a third party, neutral and unbiased evaluate the coin, classify the coin, grade the coin and guarantee the coin to be unmolested and original as stated on the label by a professional.
“PCGS just made a mistake”. Yes, nobody is perfect (except for my mother-in-law, just ask her). PCGS is trying to correct the situation of the 2005 satin finish with the assistance of several members (great job to all those involved). PCGS is the one who gave a separate number for 2005 satin finish coins from the business strike issues. Ultimately PCGS needs to make sure that this matter is cleaned up before it snowballs into a much bigger problem with the 2006 coins just around the corner. PCGS needs to preserve the integrity of their guarantee and make sure that coins marked MS-?? with no Satin Finish designation are indeed Business Strikes.
Worst case scenario for PCGS, how many 2005 coins have been graded without the Satin Finish designation? Around 3200 coins? If PCGS advertised and recalled all pennies thru dollar 2005 coins that they have certified without the Satin Finish designation and verified them would this not solve the mistake? Wouldn’t it be better for PCGS to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee?
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics." Also, to say “PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS” (or any other circulation strike set) is a bit of a stretch. The right thing would be to correct the problem as many members have been trying to help PCGS do (My hat is off to them, great job!). There is no doubt that this must be a logistic nightmare for PCGS to straighten out but unless people want a PCGS holder to have the same meaning as a SGS holder it must be corrected. It all comes down to quality control. The only other solution would be for PCGS to do away with the Satin Finish designation and number and treat them the same (this would be unacceptable to most collectors too).
Back to what I thought was highest priority item correcting the pop report. Collectors have identified 2 submissions that are in error. Does anyone know where PCGS is on this matter. Do they have enough information to correct the data base or does someone else need to do something? Whose court is the ball in?
Will someone representing the company reply? Wondercoin, where do you think the matter stands? I am as curious as the next guy to get any updates.
Mitch you said "Again, one of my reasons in the first place to feel comfortable with PCGS' either/or. Many collectors will be spared getting "duped" as the average collector is quite content with the $100 coin as opposed to the $1,200 or $3,000 version, especially when either coin is optional."
This either / or policy has been here since the start of the SF program and how did that help this collector from getting duped?
Mitch you said "Tim: Your objections to DOUG RALL's position (which I entirely agree with here) are noted."
I just read Tims well written response and I thought it was you he was in disagreement with? I believe his response wass directed at you Mitch? dr
"Doug - Do you have any evidence that PCGS is any less "dedicated" to moderns than NGC or ANACS? If not, should all (3) companies stop grading moderns then? Bottom line - take a page out of MONSTERMAN'S book - buy super "PQ" coins now while grading is exceedingly tough - you will be greatly rewarded later. After all, you are in this for the "long run" as a number of us are."
Mitch I have not used the other services for a few years when I sent some varieties into ANAC'S so I cannot provide you any feedback about the other companies. I picked PCGS several years ago due to their consistently tough grading while other companies were throwing moderns into high grade slabs PCGS has always taken it seriously and has protected the value of my coins by not allowing over-graded coins to proliferate. Varieties are a tricky business. PCGS can do this if they are dedicated after all they are the best in the world in my opinion. dr
"If one coin in any size batch is SF then the entire batch should be defaulted to SF in my opinion"
Doug: This is the comment of yours I concurred with. Tim chose to select my concurring comment to take issue with. Make no mistake about it - if PCGS were to follow YOUR suggestion and default every coin to SF - you would have objectors (like Tim?) pointing out that PCGS was a "professional" grading company, but yet they put non-SF coins in SF holders. But, of course, you and I both know that would be the proper thing to do to protect the integrity of the coins under the circumstances. So, in short, I continue to concur with your comment and, in fact, supported that approach from Day 1.
Wondercoin
P.S. Because the vast majority of collectors are not compelled to buy non-SF for their regular set, I firmly believe a coin like that nickel ONLY sold for $1200. If every set needed it - I believe the "mechanical error(?)" coin would have sold for at least 2x that price.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Tim "have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins." Tim if this was directed at me when I said it is not the graders fault I meant that the large batches of coins in the SF holder (see scan from Roger above) are not the graders fault because there is nothing apparent by looking at the finished product that the coin has been entered improperly in the data base and I assumed it was more of a staff job at PCGS and not the graders job to enter these into the data base. The company still gets the blame but I did not blame the grader because I do not know who is responsible to enter the finsihed product into the data base. dr
Thanks for clarifying this Mitch I miss-understood what you were saying. I do stand behind my recommendation of no mixed batches and I am glad we are in agreement about this. dr
<< <i>I just read Tims well written response and I thought it was you he was in disagreement with? I believe his response wass directed at you Mitch? dr >>
That's the way I took it as well. Very well written Tim. It's refreshing to see someone new that is capable of independent thought's. Thanks for adding to this thread my new freind
I'd like to see the State Quarter Pop report fixed And a home for the true Circulation Strike coins in the current Circulation Strike sets. They do carry a PCGS Circulation Strike coin Number don't they
<< <i>Tim "have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins." Tim if this was directed at me when I said it is not the graders fault I meant that the large batches of coins in the SF holder (see scan from Roger above) are not the graders fault because there is nothing apparent by looking at the finished product that the coin has been entered improperly in the data base and I assumed it was more of a staff job at PCGS and not the graders job to enter these into the data base. The company still gets the blame but I did not blame the grader because I do not know who is responsible to enter the finsihed product into the data base. dr >>
"Thanks for clarifying this Mitch I miss-understood what you were saying. I do stand behind my recommendation of no mixed batches and I am glad we are in agreement about this. dr"
No problem Doug - hopefully Michael will be fine with my (clarified) post shortly as well.
Wondercoin
P.S. Tesoro - I am sure they are doing what has to be done, based upon my last conversation with Laura.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I just sent Carol an email with Roger's coin pictured above and list of serial numbers associated with this "POW" batch we found. I also sent her information from John and Brian concerning the "BRC" batch we found but unfortuantely I do not have a scan of a coin in the BRC batch that Carol requested. Brian has already publically stated in this thread that all his mint set batches were in the SF bulk holders like the POW batch shown by Rogers scan and I can personally vouch that all the SF coins I bought from Brian this year were in bulk SF labels so hopefully PCGS will allow this correction to proceed on the BRC batch too even without a scan of a BRC batch coin. I hope to see an update to the pop report at least by this next Monday, the normal pop report update day. If I get a response from Carol I will let everyone know and Carol if you read this you can just post information on this thread if you like. When these large bulk SF label batches we have already identified are corrected I think that will take care of virtually all of the SF vs MS data base errors. The sooner these large batches are corrected the sooner the speculation on the extent of the errors and PCGS liability will stop. From all the facts presented so far it appears to me that the state quarter series is very clean and only irritating data base errors exist that have set us all off and those can now easily be fixed so please PCGS proceed with godspeed on this! Until the data base problem is fixed now people will continue to speculate that there are a significant number of SF state quarters in MS holders and I do not believe this is true and you can prove it by correcting these batches. dr
I think you read my post correctly the first time. I started the post with two viewpoints that had been mentioned, and then I stated my case why I felt they had no merit. I can write this in a little different format if that would help.
" it is not the Graders fault": Who's fault is it? What is the process for grading a coin at PCGS and when are Grader(s) involved? It is my understanding that the following is what happens: 1. After coin recieved at PCGS, it is given to a Grader to determine if it is authentic, possible alteration, variety if any and grade. 2. The coin is then given to a second Grader for the same determinations. 3. If both Graders concur in their opinions of the coin, a label is prepared with the crucial information "date, denomination, grade, variety if any, coin number and the unique certification number". 4. After the coin has been sealed into it's PCGS holder, it is sent to the Grading Verification Stage. This is where another Grader will check the coin for accuracy and consistency (both coin and holder). 5. Mechanical Verification is the final quality control checkpoint where the paperwork is matched up and the coin and holder are examined for defects or improper information on the PCGS label.
So, let me see if I got this right? The coin is evaluated by two Graders before it is put into a holder and then the coin and holder is inspected by a third Grader and a Quality Control Examiner checking both the coin and label (to make sure it matches up). How many more steps would you have to have before you could say that it was the "Grader's fault".
“PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins I thought my arquments before were clear, a mistake was done, and it is up to PCGS to clean it up. It has been eluded to on this thread that PCGS has no liability for "mechanical errors". What is a "mechanical error"? Is a "mechanical error" when the label and the coin doesn't match up with each other (again I would use the example of the 1998(s) uncirculated silver Kennedy half that I used in my earlier post)? Again, I would have to mention that the reason PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be. If anything, I believe PCGS has more liability now because this problem has been brought to their attention and have they taken any reasonable steps to preserve the integrity of their guarantee? Most corpartation and companys when they have a problem with their product, they document the problem along with what steps were taken to correct the issue, including a recall.
At no time in my post did I suggest that PCGS treat all 2005 satin finish coins the same as non - satin finish. I suggested that it might be in PCGS interest to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee by advertising a recall of all coins that they had graded non - satin finish and then verify that they are indeed non - satin finish (if a coin is not labeled satin finish and it was then PCGS would have to make the owner whole, that is what I meant by them bitting the bullet).
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics" but I'm afraid this solution has just compounded the problem. I hope this post clears up my point of view, and again, this is just my humble opinion.
Tim
EDIT to add: On the subject of "is it the Grader's fault", I'm not talking about the data that was mis-entered which could have been a clerical error for it is my understanding that those coins are in a Satin Finish holder (they just have the wrong coin number entered into the data base) but the coins are graded and labeled properly. PCGS just need to complete the house keeping that several members have been trying to help them do. Just a note, during the Grading Verification Stage, I thought the Grader was supposed to verify the crucial information on the label, "date, denomination, grade, variety if any, coin number and the unique certification number". Sounds like someone dropped the ball, especially when the coin number wasn't even on the label which the Grader was to verify. I just don't think we need to let PCGS or it's Graders off of the hook so easily, there should be accountability. Again, I realize that mistakes do happen, but does a company admit to a mistake and fix it or should a company try and cover it up by allowing an either / or solution (This is the question that should be answered)? Tim
One thing is for certain, if no mixed batches are allowed, then there shouldn't be this same type of data entry problem in the future. I can see the club level submitters not happy if this is decided as the way to go. They would have to have 2 submissions vs. 1 if they are having both types of coins graded. But, there has to be some give and take in this, as in most things in life. I don't see it a problem for the bigger submitters and dealers, they do a lot more submissions to begin with.
Now for an update. I purchased my WV-P sf quarter from a man named David Doan (ebay id: pow012000). Had a nice conversation with him on the phone today. It seems that the problem with the bad data entries on his coins has been known for a while. In fact he discussed this with a "former" pcgs employee, and it never was taken care of by them, or anybody else after this person left. I am not sure of the time frame involved, when this person was aware of the problem, and when they left pcgs' employment or if the info was even passed on to somebody else for the actual corrections. I do know that I meantioned my coin to him towards the end of 7/05.
David assured me today that he was going to contact pcgs and try to get the data from his submissions straightened out. He thought there was about 100 coins involved, which is pretty close to the 120 I think I found. And that his submissions were not just shq's, so I'm sure other coins have been affected by the bad data entries. He also admitted that he doesn't pay close attention to his email, he's more into corresponding with folks the old fashioned way, talking on the phone . Nice guy to talk with, and I enjoyed meeting him on a more personal level (corresponding with folks on the computer is fine, but it's so sterile, you have no idea as to whom your really communicating with). I wouldn't hesitate to buy from him again.
Oh yeah, almost forgot, his main interests are IHC, which are way
Tim. I like the way you articulated your comments this time. You were very factual and concise so little room for miss-understanding. If PCGS puts the coin number back on the bulk SF labels then I can see where a grader should catch the error given the process you have identified above.
Everyone. I think the issues both pro and con have been fully articulated and discussed and now I am looking for action by PCGS on these data base errors to start. Myself and others have watched the state quarters very carefully especially the rare high grade MS examples and I know what the pop report should be within a few coins of each and once these data base errors are corrected it appears virtually all the problems will go away but I will not be able to tell for sure without the corrections being done first and then further consulting with the coin hunters and dealers that trade in these we should be able to put this to rest in time for a new 2006 coin hunting season. dr
I recieved this response from Carol at PCGS. "Good Morning,We are currently working with Ron Guth on this issue. When he has a resolution, we will post it on the forum.Thank you,Carol" ... we will all be thanking you Carol when you get this done!
<< <i>Tim. I like the way you articulated your comments this time. You were very factual and concise so little room for miss-understanding. If PCGS puts the coin number back on the bulk SF labels then I can see where a grader should catch the error given the process you have identified above.
Everyone. I think the issues both pro and con have been fully articulated and discussed and now I am looking for action by PCGS on these data base errors to start. Myself and others have watched the state quarters very carefully especially the rare high grade MS examples and I know what the pop report should be within a few coins of each and once these data base errors are corrected it appears virtually all the problems will go away but I will not be able to tell for sure without the corrections being done first and then further consulting with the coin hunters and dealers that trade in these we should be able to put this to rest in time for a new 2006 coin hunting season. dr >>
Well said, and AMEN..........I have quietly waited the out come. The hard work by several will benefit many. Thanks all who have helped clean things up. Thanks Doug, mas3387 and ALL, who have tired to fix the problem. I've kept my mouth shut (rare case) and waited for the out come.
Again, one of my reasons in the first place to feel comfortable with PCGS' either/or. Many collectors will be spared getting "duped" as the average collector is quite content with the $100 coin as opposed to the $1,200 or $3,000 version, especially when either coin is optional. But, the variety set at least gives the non-SF coins the recognition they deserve I believe.
After reading the above post, I have to ask myself if you know what BASIC UNCIRCULATED SET MEANS. That we should need a VARIETY set to place business strike coins in is INSANE. Put your large bulk submitted SF coins in the VARIETY SET along with the business strikes. But there can only be one reason you would want to push the SF into the BASIC SETS, and its not to protect anyone. If PCGS cleans up the mess with the mislabled coins, no protection will be needed. So why lobby for the SF coins to be either/or in the basic sets?? Knowing that the business strike CAN NEVER compete with the cheap high grade SF coins leaves one with only one reason coming to mind. Sounds like a conflict of interest going on here. A dealer has a large amount of SF coins to peddle, and increasing the customer base to include said coins into all the basic sets, to hexx with tradition, sorta like cornering the market in my opinion. It's a shame someone can get that powerfull, and at the same time try to make everyone think its to PROTECT them from "unscrupulous dealers" I commend all of the people involved in helping to clean up the coin mess. Esp. you Mitch for taking the lead on this, but don't foul up our basic sets, for some of us it's all we care about. The variety sets will be popular I'm sure. Cant we continue with our basic sets as they have been for generations??
Again, one of my reasons in the first place to feel comfortable with PCGS' either/or. Many collectors will be spared getting "duped" as the average collector is quite content with the $100 coin as opposed to the $1,200 or $3,000 version, especially when either coin is optional. But, the variety set at least gives the non-SF coins the recognition they deserve I believe.
<< <i>After reading the above post, I have to ask myself if you know what BASIC UNCIRCULATED SET MEANS. That we should need a VARIETY set to place business strike coins in is INSANE. Put your large bulk submitted SF coins in the VARIETY SET along with the business strikes. But there can only be one reason you would want to push the SF into the BASIC SETS, and its not to protect anyone. If PCGS cleans up the mess with the mislabled coins, no protection will be needed. So why lobby for the SF coins to be either/or in the basic sets?? Knowing that the business strike CAN NEVER compete with the cheap high grade SF coins leaves one with only one reason coming to mind. >>
Comments
Not to mention the day job doesn't pay too bad either
Seth; I really do not know what PCGS has on the horizon for a new holder, if anything. As Doug mentioned, I also respect the ANACS brand and with the additions of Miles overseeing bulk and James running the show- they certainly look to improve.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Seth; I really do not know what PCGS has on the horizon for a new holder, if anything. As Doug mentioned, I also respect the ANACS brand and with the additions of Miles overseeing bulk and James running the show- they certainly look to improve. Wondercoin >>
It sure puts the market pressure on PCGS to step up to the plate. I don't have any normal issue coins in at ANACS, but I do have a few errors coming back in their old holder as well as the new holder. I think they do a really good job authenticating and describing varieties. I don't particularly want to send them SHQ's or the type of coins found in registry sets, but I'd like to see the ANACS holder raise the bar for PCGS to step up to.
It's about the coin, so anything a grading company can do to improve their holder for the sake of coin preservation or viewing is a BIG PLUS!
John I have now emailed and left a message for Laura at PCGS as well. If they do not perform and ignore us that is a good indication of how much they value the emerging modern collector market coveted by ANAC's and others. Maybe Mark or Mitch someone with an established dialogue can talk to David Hall or Ron Guth about this so we can get a timeline for the corrections to the pop report so we can manage our own expectations. If the pop report is going to be permanently foul then PCGS will have severely stunk up the MS state quarter market and I do not find that very satisfying with all the time and money I have invested in my set. If PCGS could not or would not apply the resources to properly differentiate the holders MS vs SF in 2005 then they should have just left it as it was. If PCGS cannot correct 2005 mistakes then 2006 will probably be just as bad and that may cause me to re-think my approach for 2006.
Don "rolling coins" If PCGS does not expand the registry to include MS coins more people may be joining you in not registering their set and that would not be benificial to PCGS. I know you are waiting for a pure MS set and that may be a long time coming but those of us that are willing to compromise will become discouraged if there is no place at all for the lower grade MS coins in the registry.
I will try and stay off this thread since it is now impacting my day job but I will continue to watch all the comments and progress and of course will contribute if someone asks me a direct question. Thanks to all, dr
Wondercoin
Send to Carol@Collectors.com.
Thanks,
Carol
What is the point of getting or buying a coin certified by PCGS? When I buy a PCGS coin, yes I’m buying the coin first, but I’m also buying the plastic (or better said, I’m buying the guarantee that comes with the plastic). I’ve heard / read too many war stories of someone buying a raw coin and then later finding out that the coin was altered, cleaned, a counterfeit, whizzed, or artificially toned. A lot of people don’t have a neighborhood coin store, and the closest store could be several hundred miles away. Today with mail order and the internet, it is easier and not uncommon to be on the east coast and buy a coin on the west coast then going to the nearest coin store. The reason, I thought PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be (I understand that grading the condition of the coin is not an exact science. But if I bought a coin certified by PCGS sight unseen and it was purporting to be a 1998-S Kennedy SMS in MS69 on the label, and when I received the coin in the mail it had the label mentioned but it was a PR69DCAM – I would be pissed. If the seller refused to take the coin back, not only would I stop doing all business with that person but I would expect PCGS to honor its guarantee and make me whole).
There is a premium associated with a PCGS certified coin weather you are buying the coin already slabed, or getting the coin certified for yourself. PCGS was / is paid a fee for a service. This service is to have a third party, neutral and unbiased evaluate the coin, classify the coin, grade the coin and guarantee the coin to be unmolested and original as stated on the label by a professional.
“PCGS just made a mistake”. Yes, nobody is perfect (except for my mother-in-law, just ask her). PCGS is trying to correct the situation of the 2005 satin finish with the assistance of several members (great job to all those involved). PCGS is the one who gave a separate number for 2005 satin finish coins from the business strike issues. Ultimately PCGS needs to make sure that this matter is cleaned up before it snowballs into a much bigger problem with the 2006 coins just around the corner. PCGS needs to preserve the integrity of their guarantee and make sure that coins marked MS-?? with no Satin Finish designation are indeed Business Strikes.
Worst case scenario for PCGS, how many 2005 coins have been graded without the Satin Finish designation? Around 3200 coins? If PCGS advertised and recalled all pennies thru dollar 2005 coins that they have certified without the Satin Finish designation and verified them would this not solve the mistake? Wouldn’t it be better for PCGS to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee?
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics." Also, to say “PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS” (or any other circulation strike set) is a bit of a stretch. The right thing would be to correct the problem as many members have been trying to help PCGS do (My hat is off to them, great job!). There is no doubt that this must be a logistic nightmare for PCGS to straighten out but unless people want a PCGS holder to have the same meaning as a SGS holder it must be corrected. It all comes down to quality control. The only other solution would be for PCGS to do away with the Satin Finish designation and number and treat them the same (this would be unacceptable to most collectors too).
Tim
I am very thankful someone is now on this issue but why do we need a scan to deal with this following example I emailed her. "The KS-P and WV-P that appear on the October pop report (I have a hard copy) are all mistakes and fortunately no D mint grades are shown on the October pop report so I have no reason to believe there are errors with these D mints for KS and WV. The October pop report shows 9 KS-P in MS67 and none higher or lower and this serves as the bench-mark for the error. The October WV-P pop report shows 23 WV-P in MS67, 5 in MS68 and 2 in MS69 with none higher or lower so that serves as the bench mark for the error on the WV-P mints. All cert numbers for all WV-P and KS-P on the October hard copy of the pop report are incorrect and can easily be fixed if PCGS is able to determine what serial numbers were issued on these MS KS-P and WV-P coins that are included in the October pop report. Dr"
I hope this clean up effort will not turn out to be piecemeal and only for coins we can get a scan of, and only for coins with inconsitent coin numbers and labels or it is not worth the effort. Take a look at the bison nickel a few clicks up and this may not be a mechanical error since the cert number matches the label and no doubt we will find a similar problem in the state quarters as this progresses. That whole batch where this bison nickel came from should be defaulted in the data base as SF. I hope PCGS understands that they are liable for these rogue coins and the quicker they get this fixed the better for all. If PCGS accidentally puts an SF designation in the data base for an MS coin that is a risk I am willing to take. Let the owner of the coin send it back for recertification. In my opinion it is undebatable that any coins ultimately residing in an MS holder that were submitted to PCGS prior to the release of MS coins by the mint are a problem that PCGS should fix whether or not anyone can get scans of these coins. Lets give Ron a chance to get with Carol and Laura to figure this out and hopefully our input will prevail. Roger if you are out there please send her another scan of the coin you had fixed earier that came from that large batch... I know in your email you state you sent a scan already but apparently they only fixed your one coin and now we have a chance to fix the whole batch. Hopefully you still have a copy of that scan or PCGS can find it from your previous fix effort. I did forward a copy of your email to Carol where you laid it all out, now just need another scan if you have one. If we need to get scans from all these coins now out in the public this effort will not work. dr
Andy
By the way Tim, that was a very well stated comment. It's easy to see there was a lot of thought behind it. And I agree totally with it. I was very angry when the 05 sf coins were included in the registry. Given time to calm down about this, it's very unrealistic of me to think that any grading service is perfect. And therefore mistakes are bound to happen. PCGS will show there "true" colors in the way they handle
the mistakes made. And that will ultimately let us know the true value of their service.
Edited to add the pics.
A large majority of the errors are database errors. NO coin has to be turned in. The coins are in a Sf holder but tagged with a business strike number. If we can get the 2 large submission fixed then another look at the pop report can be done to see what remains suspicious.
There is no excuse for people that did this. You know, as a collector, I put a lot of trust in dealers, vest pocket dealers, wannabe dealers, or common everyday collectors that sell a little to offset the cost of their collecting, whatever. I don't personally mind it when I get bit by some of these guys that are shady, it's a learning experience. And it's my firm beleif that knowlege is king. The old addage "buyer beware" comes to mind here. But to intentionally take advantage of people that just don't know any better, takes a lot of gall, and this type of seller gives everyone of us all a bad name. They should be identified, and not be able to have their coins graded, anywhere, or be sold thru public venues, be it ebay or other auction sites. But being able to enforce that is another story.
There is no perfect solution now, would have been if PCGS had properly handled the concurrent emails from all us when these errors were occuring. Nothing but praise for all those joining in this effort and the staff at PCGS that remains pleasant even when we collectors are a bit grumpy.
Agree!!!
pow012000 if you happen to read this thread, would you please pm/email me? 7557rb@comcast.net.
PCGS authorized dealers not only have their own ethical obligation to return the obvious mechanical errors, but, best I understand from the agreement I signed, a possible obligation to PCGS as well to try to remove these coins from the marketplace - and certainly to not make matters worse peddling them unsuspectingly to unknowledgeable collectors (especially through auction channels where the consignor does not have to "face' the end user buyer). In this case, PCGS may find many of the outrageous sales of SF coins hiding in non-SF holders for 4 figure prices were collector base driven - leaving them not a great deal of recourse. They can only hope in a way some of these sales were PCGS dealer driven as they would have a great deal of recourse I believe. My gut tells me though many will likely not be.
Wondercoin
With that, if there were private sales of high pop SF coins as business strikes that is a far different matter.
Its a given that most dealers/sellers are not out to scam people. They just facilitate a collector's desire to own a particular coin. A lot of times there is no real selling involved. The coin(s) sells itself so to speak, either with its looks or what it actually "is". Correcting the pop report just makes it that much harder for those that do. Especially with the internet being a major sales tool these days, where all you have to go by is a stock photo and the tpg's reputation and grade warranty.
In my opinion when we find one bad coin the entire batch should be defaulted to satin finish whether or not we can get scans of the rest of the coins in the batch. Example 1) above is the easiest for everyone to say yes on and should be done quickly as soon as we find them. Example 2) Is a lot tougher because it involves a submitter that did not self police as ethical submitters do and there is potential liability to the submitter and to PCGS. I am curious to see how PCGS handles this second example. If PCGS does not immediately reclassify all the coins in these problem batches then as we find a problem coin we should do this about the batch it came from:
A) Make a list of the entire serial number sequence of each rogue batch with a description of each coin both for PCGS and our records.
I hope this sounds constructive as it is meant to be.
Looks like there was a little tweeking to the pop report already. No more Ks-p in ms68. Looks like the Ca-d has changed also, but not sure if that was a correction or just a couple of more grades given, (thank you John) so if anyone out there knows more about it, please let us know. It would really be interesting to know if more is getting done on pcgs' end.
Dan, I couldn't say if the Rooseys have had problems or not, I am not much into them. But it wouldn't surprise me to find that all the current circulating coins have been affected.
Another positive note, I have been trying to get in touch with the person that I purchased the WV-p sf quarter from. No response from emails sent so I went and bid 1 of his auctions at ebay, got his phone # and we have set Tuesday morning as a date for a phone call to discuss his submission(s). It should be an interesting conversation, and I will try to keep you posted as to the outcome.
I tend to go along with D. Rall, if i remember he had said satin finish coins tend to have the smooth fine grain surfaces rather than the more grainy surfaces of a business strike. There is a minute chance the P mint is from an aged die and was handled poorly but most likely not. As for the D mint that I was sent, not even close. you can find coins like that all day long for Denver in prior years as well as this year.
<< <i>I now have P & D copies of Oregon thanks to Seth of CoinFame. If this is what PCGS calls satin Finish it is my opinion they do not know what they are doing grading these coins. These are from a bag and I can easily go to many of the previous years of State quarters and find satin "soft" P mint business strikes and oregon D with flashy "hard" surfaces. This a joke in my opinion and I feel sorry for those of you that got stuck with this grading. Just as I figured.
I tend to go along with D. Rall, if i remember he had said satin finish coins tend to have the smooth fine grain surfaces rather than the more grainy surfaces of a business strike. There is a minute chance the P mint is from an aged die and was handled poorly but most likely not. As for the D mint that I was sent, not even close. you can find coins like that all day long for Denver in prior years as well as this year. >>
Mark: The "P" mint coin I sent you is what they graded SF and the "D" mint they graded correctly as business strike but I wanted to send both as different examples of finish. (You're right, the D mint is the standard coin.) I agree that the "P" mint coin is obviously from a bag and not a mint set. The surface is definitely more grainy than the satin finish, showing that they were not struck the same, but also a VERY Satiny Business Strike. At the time I did not think they could see what I was seeing as evidenced by the fact that they were incorrectly graded, so I didn't give them the benefit of the doubt on correcting the coins. As satiny as the "P's" look, I figured they would think I was trying to pull one over on them. Based on what Doug said about them fixing his order of P-OR, it sounds like I should have challenged it back then as they might have fixed them. In my case, the only loss was on my part, so I'm ok writing it off and knowing how to resolve it next time.
Thank you for your report on the coins Mark, it really helps!
Nice progress with the pop report. Let's all keep it going.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Seth: I look forward to seeing what you sent to me. Did you send a pair of OR coins as well? Nice progress with the pop report. Let's all keep it going. Wondercoin >>
I sent both you and Mark a P and a D. The P is an example of the Satiny version that they gave SF to and the D is an example of the normal coin that they graded correctly. All business aside, the P mint is a neat looking coin.
Wondercoin.
Again, one of my reasons in the first place to feel comfortable with PCGS' either/or. Many collectors will be spared getting "duped" as the average collector is quite content with the $100 coin as opposed to the $1,200 or $3,000 version, especially when either coin is optional. But, the variety set at least gives the non-SF coins the recognition they deserve I believe.
"If one coin in any size batch is SF then the entire batch should be defaulted to SF in my opinion"
A position I have supported from day 1 (we are 100% in agreement here) - but, yet an unpopular position with many collectors who have a vision that PCGS should grade each and every coin perfectly every time.
But - we've "been there, done that". Let not debate these issues again.
"Unless they are dedicated to the moderns and keep up with what the mint is doing they have no business grading moderns"
Doug - Do you have any evidence that PCGS is any less "dedicated" to moderns than NGC or ANACS? If not, should all (3) companies stop grading moderns then? Bottom line - take a page out of MONSTERMAN'S book - buy super "PQ" coins now while grading is exceedingly tough - you will be greatly rewarded later. After all, you are in this for the "long run" as a number of us are.
Wondercoin
<< <i>but, yet an unpopular position with many collectors who have a vision that PCGS should grade each and every coin perfectly every time. >>
Wondercoin
Is that not what PCGS is paid for? If they can't get it right, then they need to compensate the victim for his/her loss and preserve the integrity of their own guarantee. What do the letters PCGS stand for? I thought the letters stood for Professional Coin Grading Service, pardon me for expecting the coin to be graded by a professional. People are not just talking about PCGS getting the grade right, more basic they want PCGS to get the authenticity and status of the coin right (circulated / proof / mattie / satin).
<< <i>But - we've "been there, done that". Let not debate these issues again. >>
Wondercoin
You have to be joking, when was the issue debated? I have read several arguments in this thread against allowing SF coins in sets purporting to be circulation strikes and no intelligent argument to allow them besides "convenience and economics." As a matter of fact, my last post to this thread went unanswered, the only conclusion that I could draw from this was the author of this thread was unwilling or unable to debate, or lacked the intestinal fortitude to debate in a public forum. I will enclose my last post here:
have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins.
What is the point of getting or buying a coin certified by PCGS? When I buy a PCGS coin, yes I’m buying the coin first, but I’m also buying the plastic (or better said, I’m buying the guarantee that comes with the plastic). I’ve heard / read too many war stories of someone buying a raw coin and then later finding out that the coin was altered, cleaned, a counterfeit, whizzed, or artificially toned. A lot of people don’t have a neighborhood coin store, and the closest store could be several hundred miles away. Today with mail order and the internet, it is easier and not uncommon to be on the east coast and buy a coin on the west coast then going to the nearest coin store. The reason, I thought PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be (I understand that grading the condition of the coin is not an exact science. But if I bought a coin certified by PCGS sight unseen and it was purporting to be a 1998-S Kennedy SMS in MS69 on the label, and when I received the coin in the mail it had the label mentioned but it was a PR69DCAM – I would be pissed. If the seller refused to take the coin back, not only would I stop doing all business with that person but I would expect PCGS to honor its guarantee and make me whole).
There is a premium associated with a PCGS certified coin weather you are buying the coin already slabed, or getting the coin certified for yourself. PCGS was / is paid a fee for a service. This service is to have a third party, neutral and unbiased evaluate the coin, classify the coin, grade the coin and guarantee the coin to be unmolested and original as stated on the label by a professional.
“PCGS just made a mistake”. Yes, nobody is perfect (except for my mother-in-law, just ask her). PCGS is trying to correct the situation of the 2005 satin finish with the assistance of several members (great job to all those involved). PCGS is the one who gave a separate number for 2005 satin finish coins from the business strike issues. Ultimately PCGS needs to make sure that this matter is cleaned up before it snowballs into a much bigger problem with the 2006 coins just around the corner. PCGS needs to preserve the integrity of their guarantee and make sure that coins marked MS-?? with no Satin Finish designation are indeed Business Strikes.
Worst case scenario for PCGS, how many 2005 coins have been graded without the Satin Finish designation? Around 3200 coins? If PCGS advertised and recalled all pennies thru dollar 2005 coins that they have certified without the Satin Finish designation and verified them would this not solve the mistake? Wouldn’t it be better for PCGS to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee?
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics." Also, to say “PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS” (or any other circulation strike set) is a bit of a stretch. The right thing would be to correct the problem as many members have been trying to help PCGS do (My hat is off to them, great job!). There is no doubt that this must be a logistic nightmare for PCGS to straighten out but unless people want a PCGS holder to have the same meaning as a SGS holder it must be corrected. It all comes down to quality control. The only other solution would be for PCGS to do away with the Satin Finish designation and number and treat them the same (this would be unacceptable to most collectors too).
Tim
Wondercoin
Will someone representing the company reply? Wondercoin, where do you think the matter stands? I am as curious as the next guy to get any updates.
This either / or policy has been here since the start of the SF program and how did that help this collector from getting duped?
Mitch you said "Tim: Your objections to DOUG RALL's position (which I entirely agree with here) are noted."
I just read Tims well written response and I thought it was you he was in disagreement with? I believe his response wass directed at you Mitch? dr
Mitch I have not used the other services for a few years when I sent some varieties into ANAC'S so I cannot provide you any feedback about the other companies. I picked PCGS several years ago due to their consistently tough grading while other companies were throwing moderns into high grade slabs PCGS has always taken it seriously and has protected the value of my coins by not allowing over-graded coins to proliferate. Varieties are a tricky business. PCGS can do this if they are dedicated after all they are the best in the world in my opinion. dr
Doug: This is the comment of yours I concurred with. Tim chose to select my concurring comment to take issue with. Make no mistake about it - if PCGS were to follow YOUR suggestion and default every coin to SF - you would have objectors (like Tim?) pointing out that PCGS was a "professional" grading company, but yet they put non-SF coins in SF holders. But, of course, you and I both know that would be the proper thing to do to protect the integrity of the coins under the circumstances. So, in short, I continue to concur with your comment and, in fact, supported that approach from Day 1.
Wondercoin
P.S. Because the vast majority of collectors are not compelled to buy non-SF for their regular set, I firmly believe a coin like that nickel ONLY sold for $1200. If every set needed it - I believe the "mechanical error(?)" coin would have sold for at least 2x that price.
<< <i>I just read Tims well written response and I thought it was you he was in disagreement with? I believe his response wass directed at you Mitch? dr >>
That's the way I took it as well. Very well written Tim. It's refreshing to see someone new that is capable of independent thought's. Thanks for adding to this thread my new freind
I'd like to see the State Quarter Pop report fixed
And a home for the true Circulation Strike coins in the current Circulation Strike sets. They do carry a PCGS Circulation Strike coin Number don't they
<< <i>Tim "have read in this thread that “It’s not the graders fault” and that “PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins." Tim if this was directed at me when I said it is not the graders fault I meant that the large batches of coins in the SF holder (see scan from Roger above) are not the graders fault because there is nothing apparent by looking at the finished product that the coin has been entered improperly in the data base and I assumed it was more of a staff job at PCGS and not the graders job to enter these into the data base. The company still gets the blame but I did not blame the grader because I do not know who is responsible to enter the finsihed product into the data base. dr >>
No problem Doug - hopefully Michael will be fine with my (clarified) post shortly as well.
Wondercoin
P.S. Tesoro - I am sure they are doing what has to be done, based upon my last conversation with Laura.
I think you read my post correctly the first time. I started the post with two viewpoints that had been mentioned, and then I stated my case why I felt they had no merit. I can write this in a little different format if that would help.
" it is not the Graders fault": Who's fault is it? What is the process for grading a coin at PCGS and when are Grader(s) involved? It is my understanding that the following is what happens:
1. After coin recieved at PCGS, it is given to a Grader to determine if it is authentic, possible alteration, variety if any and grade.
2. The coin is then given to a second Grader for the same determinations.
3. If both Graders concur in their opinions of the coin, a label is prepared with the crucial information "date, denomination, grade, variety if any, coin number and the unique certification number".
4. After the coin has been sealed into it's PCGS holder, it is sent to the Grading Verification Stage. This is where another Grader will check the coin for accuracy and consistency (both coin and holder).
5. Mechanical Verification is the final quality control checkpoint where the paperwork is matched up and the coin and holder are examined for defects or improper information on the PCGS label.
So, let me see if I got this right? The coin is evaluated by two Graders before it is put into a holder and then the coin and holder is inspected by a third Grader and a Quality Control Examiner checking both the coin and label (to make sure it matches up). How many more steps would you have to have before you could say that it was the "Grader's fault".
“PCGS just made a mistake” on mislabeling the satin finish 2005 coins I thought my arquments before were clear, a mistake was done, and it is up to PCGS to clean it up. It has been eluded to on this thread that PCGS has no liability for "mechanical errors". What is a "mechanical error"? Is a "mechanical error" when the label and the coin doesn't match up with each other (again I would use the example of the 1998(s) uncirculated silver Kennedy half that I used in my earlier post)? Again, I would have to mention that the reason PCGS got started was so a person could buy a coin sight unseen and have an assurance that the coin was guaranteed to being genuine, properly graded and was exactly what the label was purporting it to be. If anything, I believe PCGS has more liability now because this problem has been brought to their attention and have they taken any reasonable steps to preserve the integrity of their guarantee? Most corpartation and companys when they have a problem with their product, they document the problem along with what steps were taken to correct the issue, including a recall.
At no time in my post did I suggest that PCGS treat all 2005 satin finish coins the same as non - satin finish. I suggested that it might be in PCGS interest to bit the bullet now, and again preserve the integrity of their guarantee by advertising a recall of all coins that they had graded non - satin finish and then verify that they are indeed non - satin finish (if a coin is not labeled satin finish and it was then PCGS would have to make the owner whole, that is what I meant by them bitting the bullet).
I hope that PCGS’s solution of either / or is not just about "convenience and economics" but I'm afraid this solution has just compounded the problem. I hope this post clears up my point of view, and again, this is just my humble opinion.
Tim
EDIT to add: On the subject of "is it the Grader's fault", I'm not talking about the data that was mis-entered which could have been a clerical error for it is my understanding that those coins are in a Satin Finish holder (they just have the wrong coin number entered into the data base) but the coins are graded and labeled properly. PCGS just need to complete the house keeping that several members have been trying to help them do. Just a note, during the Grading Verification Stage, I thought the Grader was supposed to verify the crucial information on the label, "date, denomination, grade, variety if any, coin number and the unique certification number". Sounds like someone dropped the ball, especially when the coin number wasn't even on the label which the Grader was to verify. I just don't think we need to let PCGS or it's Graders off of the hook so easily, there should be accountability. Again, I realize that mistakes do happen, but does a company admit to a mistake and fix it or should a company try and cover it up by allowing an either / or solution (This is the question that should be answered)? Tim
I can see the club level submitters not happy if this is decided as the way to go. They would have to have 2 submissions vs. 1 if they are having both types of coins graded. But, there has to be some give and take in this, as in most things in life. I don't see it a problem for the bigger submitters and dealers, they do a lot more submissions to begin with.
Now for an update. I purchased my WV-P sf quarter from a man named David Doan (ebay id: pow012000). Had a nice conversation with him on the phone today. It seems that the problem with the bad data entries on his coins has been known for a while. In fact he discussed this with a "former" pcgs employee, and it never was taken care of by them, or anybody else after this person left. I am not sure of the time frame involved, when this person was aware of the problem, and when they left pcgs' employment or if the info was even passed on to somebody else for the actual corrections. I do know that I meantioned my coin to him towards the end of 7/05.
David assured me today that he was going to contact pcgs and try to get the data from his submissions straightened out. He thought there was about 100 coins involved, which is pretty close to the 120 I think I found. And that his submissions were not just shq's, so I'm sure other coins have been affected by the bad data entries. He also admitted that he doesn't pay close attention to his email, he's more into corresponding with folks the old fashioned way, talking on the phone . Nice guy to talk with, and I enjoyed meeting him on a more personal level (corresponding with folks on the computer is fine, but it's so sterile, you have no idea as to whom your really communicating with). I wouldn't hesitate to buy from him again.
Oh yeah, almost forgot, his main interests are IHC, which are way
Everyone. I think the issues both pro and con have been fully articulated and discussed and now I am looking for action by PCGS on these data base errors to start. Myself and others have watched the state quarters very carefully especially the rare high grade MS examples and I know what the pop report should be within a few coins of each and once these data base errors are corrected it appears virtually all the problems will go away but I will not be able to tell for sure without the corrections being done first and then further consulting with the coin hunters and dealers that trade in these we should be able to put this to rest in time for a new 2006 coin hunting season. dr
Thanks for the update
Great Job
<< <i>Tim. I like the way you articulated your comments this time. You were very factual and concise so little room for miss-understanding. If PCGS puts the coin number back on the bulk SF labels then I can see where a grader should catch the error given the process you have identified above.
Everyone. I think the issues both pro and con have been fully articulated and discussed and now I am looking for action by PCGS on these data base errors to start. Myself and others have watched the state quarters very carefully especially the rare high grade MS examples and I know what the pop report should be within a few coins of each and once these data base errors are corrected it appears virtually all the problems will go away but I will not be able to tell for sure without the corrections being done first and then further consulting with the coin hunters and dealers that trade in these we should be able to put this to rest in time for a new 2006 coin hunting season. dr >>
Well said, and AMEN..........I have quietly waited the out come. The hard work by several will benefit many. Thanks all who have helped clean things up. Thanks Doug, mas3387 and ALL, who have tired to fix the problem. I've kept my mouth shut (rare case) and waited for the out come.
After reading the above post, I have to ask myself if you know what BASIC UNCIRCULATED SET MEANS. That we should need a VARIETY set to place business strike coins in is INSANE. Put your large bulk submitted SF coins in the VARIETY SET along with the business strikes. But there can only be one reason you would want to push the SF into the BASIC SETS, and its not to protect anyone. If PCGS cleans up the mess with the mislabled coins, no protection will be needed. So why lobby for the SF coins to be either/or in the basic sets?? Knowing that the business strike CAN NEVER compete with the cheap high grade SF coins leaves one with only one reason coming to mind.
Sounds like a conflict of interest going on here. A dealer has a large amount of SF coins to peddle, and increasing the customer base to include said coins into all the basic sets, to hexx with tradition, sorta like cornering the market in my opinion.
It's a shame someone can get that powerfull, and at the same time try to make everyone think its to PROTECT them from "unscrupulous dealers"
I commend all of the people involved in helping to clean up the coin mess. Esp. you Mitch for taking the lead on this, but don't foul up our basic sets, for some of us it's all we care about. The variety sets will be popular I'm sure. Cant we continue with our basic sets as they have been for generations??
<< <i>After reading the above post, I have to ask myself if you know what BASIC UNCIRCULATED SET MEANS. That we should need a VARIETY set to place business strike coins in is INSANE. Put your large bulk submitted SF coins in the VARIETY SET along with the business strikes. But there can only be one reason you would want to push the SF into the BASIC SETS, and its not to protect anyone. If PCGS cleans up the mess with the mislabled coins, no protection will be needed. So why lobby for the SF coins to be either/or in the basic sets?? Knowing that the business strike CAN NEVER compete with the cheap high grade SF coins leaves one with only one reason coming to mind. >>
Could be another unanswered post