Thoughts for improving PCGS VAM program - what are yours?

RobJoyce1921dVAMguy

(edited to fix html text problem!)

I strongly believe the PCGS VAM population statistics really need to be accessible in the silver dollar population reports, either integrated into the Morgan / Peace pop reports or (better for everyone VAM and non-vammers) as a separate report. The data is there but having to look them up one coin at a time by first looking up a coin number is just not reasonable. Setting up a pop report would be a huge improvement.

In addition to the pop reports, I really like the PCGS VAM sets that are available out there but think the VAM registry sets could be improved.

First, the VAM super-set should include every VAM. Today, the sets double some tough coins in with some easy coins: Examples:

1891 VAM-2 Double Ear and 1891 VAM-2A double ear / moustache
Where the moustache is a super tough coin and the double ear is common

1900-O VAM 7, VAM 7A, VAM 8, VAM 8A, VAM 10-12 O/CC
Where VAM-7 and 7A are very tough to find and the others are much easier.

I would like to see the super set be one coin in one slot. I understand (and support) the top 100 set having multiple coins fill a slot: that’s the way the reference book was written. But for the super set, if you are going to that extreme, it should display all the VAMs. If PCGS wants to keep the set the same to not displace those already registered, perhaps an “ultra set” is warranted with one of each VAM being recognized by pcgs in its own individual slot.

I’d also like to see the Hot 50 set split out from the Top 100 set. Just show the Hot 50 coins separately. Why is the Hot 50 requirement to have started with the Top 100? They are two separate groupings?

I’d love to see some short sets created for VAMs that folks could concentrate on without 100 coins needed:

7/8 Tailfeather Set
8 Tailfeather Set
O over CC VAMS
Oval O VAMs
Clashed E VAMs
8TF VAMs

Finally, I’d lobby that the 1921-S Thornhead should be recognized with all the die stages VAM-1B1 through VAM-1B7
http://vamworld.wikispaces.com/1921-S+VAM-1Bx
some are quite rare and having the 1B6 “common” aliased into the other much more rare thornheads doesn’t help the less educated on this VAM.

Bottom line, love the PCGS VAM program. It raised awareness and even VAM values to the next level with the endorsement. I’d like to see progress continue and am sure some of you out there have other great ideas that would be even better than my suggestions. Lets hear them!

Rob

dwssws

Rob a lot of writing unfortunately I can't make out what you wrote

Leiana

I took the liberty of copying your html into a webpage so people could read it.

I hope you don't mind.

-Amanda

dwssws

Thank You Leiana it makes much more sense now

RobJoyce1921dVAMguy

Thanks guys. I should reread my posts! I wrote the original text in MS word and pasted it into the edit window. Wow. What a mess. I've cleaned it up above.

Rob

RBinTex

1921obsession

How is ANACS so much more capable that they can attribute every VAM when PCGS cannot? I don't think that's the case. Rather, I suspect VAM attribution is a loss-leader, so any suggestion made to expand this capability will only serve to push the practice deeper into the red for PCGS. Given that they certainly seem to be making business decisions based upon pure economics these days, I'm not hopeful.

VamGuy

<< <i>Rather, I suspect VAM attribution is a loss-leader, so any suggestion made to expand this capability will only serve to push the practice deeper into the red for PCGS. Given that they certainly seem to be making business decisions based upon pure economics these days... >>

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. At $15 per coin to verify the attribution that the submitter provides (PCGS does not attribute for you) of the limited 300 or so VAMs that they currently recognize, it's more than 2x what NGC charges and a full 3x what ANACS charges. Most of these 300 varieties can be verified in under 30 seconds by your average VAMmer. Probably less than 10 seconds by the guy that does nothing but verify attribution on the same 300 varieties every single day. Furthermore, I've personally submitted far more coins for actual grading, under express, regular, and economy levels solely because of the PCGS VAM program. I can promise you that I'm not the only VAM enthusiast who has increased their grading submissions as a direct result of the program. It's a spillover effect. Increasing the number of recognized VAM varieties will only serve to increase the number of grading, regrading, & crossover submissions. With PCGS's recent reduction in submissions, subsequent loss of revenue, and the stock hovering dangerously near a 52 week low, a fresh surge of grading submissions with an extra $15 for attribution would likely do them some good.

coindeuce

Rob, great thought. But in the real world, as far as the TPG's are concerned, money talks and idealism walks. If you could convincingly forecast a significant increase in revenues for PCGS by the implementation of your suggestions, it would happen in a heartbeat. Otherwise, I don't foresee anything changing from the present service offered.

1921obsession

<< <i>

<< <i>Rather, I suspect VAM attribution is a loss-leader, so any suggestion made to expand this capability will only serve to push the practice deeper into the red for PCGS. Given that they certainly seem to be making business decisions based upon pure economics these days... >>

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. At $15 per coin to verify the attribution that the submitter provides (PCGS does not attribute for you) of the limited 300 or so VAMs that they currently recognize, it's more than 2x what NGC charges and a full 3x what ANACS charges. Most of these 300 varieties can be verified in under 30 seconds by your average VAMmer. Probably less than 10 seconds by the guy that does nothing but verify attribution on the same 300 varieties every single day. Furthermore, I've personally submitted far more coins for actual grading, under express, regular, and economy levels solely because of the PCGS VAM program. I can promise you that I'm not the only VAM enthusiast who has increased their grading submissions as a direct result of the program. It's a spillover effect. Increasing the number of recognized VAM varieties will only serve to increase the number of grading, regrading, & crossover submissions. With PCGS's recent reduction in submissions, subsequent loss of revenue, and the stock hovering dangerously near a 52 week low, a fresh surge of grading submissions with an extra $15 for attribution would likely do them some good. >>



Nicely reasoned.

I therefore fall back on my original question: Why don't they attribute them all? That would be the step which brings me into the PCGS fold, because right now only ANACS grades what I collect. Of 100 or so individual 1921 VAMs in my collection, PCGS only grades 11. I have 9 of those, plus sub-variants like Pitted Reverses and Thornheads which they don't differentiate. So, at best, under 10% of my collection is eligible for attributed PCGS slabbing. There is no incentive for me to do business with PCGS.

Coxe

OK. Here are my thoughts, with no particular organization of those thoughts.

No obvious foresight was involved in designating PL and DMPL VAMs. I have gotten them back with coin numbers associated with the ordinary (non-PL) date andother times with the MS VAM coin numbers. They need to prefix them with perhaps an 8 or 9 for PL or DMPL. Also they should go over the pretty small number of already VAM designated prooflikes and adjust their coin numbers appropriately in the database (despite being different on the tags). That would rectify some things going forward.

I agree with Rob on the Super Set. We don't need a Sooper-Dooper Set; the Super Set should be the hole shooting match. This would also be interesting as the set scores would change dynamically as PCGS adds new varieties to their service.

They need to add a lot more varieties to their service. It makes for a good business decision as this is a service that will be making them decent mone well into the future. There are some significant ones that can easily be attributed that are not on the lists and do warrant market premiums already. I see Mike Faraone on eBay bidding and buying outside the lists fairly regularly too. Maybe he is accumulating study samples for that? The one thing they don't want to get into is doing a variety Leroy might eliminate or change on them. While it is always possible and is likely for some anyway, it is to be avoided. That might be tough for ones like the 1921-D VAM-1A, as Leroy is not doing grease fills anymore and may one day axe that Top-100 out of the catalogue.

Clashed dies that can be determined to likely be assigned the correct parentage (eg VAM-14 parent for a VAM-14A), should be added. They are all pretty easy to attribute. Some of the weak n clashes have subtle position differences, but discriminating that is exactly the sort of professional service one might expect from the likes of PCGS. The collector should be able to turn to somewhere to definitively make that assessment. Leroy is too busy (thanks to folks like me and others in this thread) and some folks have questioned ANACS reliability in its most recent incarnation. This is a day to seize, PCGS.

DennisH

Great points/ideas Rob, and I agree with them all.

"Why don't they attribute them all?"

As one who was involved in the process that resulted in PCGS doing the VAMs they are doing now, I have a simple and very serious answer to this question:

Because there are not accurate, well illustrated (photos), easy-to-follow attribution guides for all VAMs.

In the near-three year process leading up to the announcement by PCGS that they would begin attributing a limited number of VAMs, the significance of this point became crystal clear to me. Why? Because if PCGS blows an attribution, they will make good on their error financially... which is also why they charge more for VAM attributions. To my knowledge the other TPGs do not. The existence of a Hot 50 attribution book is why all Hot 50 coins are attributed. Ditto for the 7/8TFs, the Top 100, all the 8TFs, and all the B1 reverses.

As more good attribution books continue to come out for other groups of VAMs, I expect PCGS will begin to attribute them as well.

VamGuy

<< <i>As more good attribution books continue to come out for other groups of VAMs, I expect PCGS will begin to attribute them as well. >>

"Elite Clashed Morgan Dollars" by Mark Kimpton comes immediately to mind.

Coxe

What we need are much more in depth study attribution guides. I like the ones mentioned, but they are still only summaries with a scant few photos and rarely, if ever, full on obverse and reverse shots to give better perspective. IMHO for a coin to be properly attributed by the likes of PCGS, two pages which are not completely devoted to the attribution of the coin are insufficient as a usable reference. There are secondary confirmation PUPs, die state analyses, wear and strike issues, ... We really are in the early history of all of this stuff. But for what they need, more comprehensive references would be very helpful -- especially if they aren't going to have a reference specimen collection to work with for them all.

DennisH

<< "Elite Clashed Morgan Dollars" by Mark Kimpton comes immediately to mind. >>
It does, doesn't it! So does the "Fun With '21" book!

Coxe -- Your comments are dead-on in my opinion!

messydesk

First of all, $15 a pop to review attributions is pretty darned high. They've chosen to limit the VAMs they attribute to those they can do quickly and accurately, which is currently limited to some of those for which there are books other than the VAM Book. Since they guarantee the attribution (at least I'm pretty sure they do), they don't want to take their chances or waste their time on varieties that aren't "heavily" published. It appears that they've already run into a snag with the 1928-S VAM 3 and VAM 4 Peace dollars, in that there are more DDOs than just those two. Look for them to expand to other current books as it becomes apparent whether or not VAM attribution has been profitable for them. Stuff like all 7TFs and 78-S will have to wait until there is a definitive guide accepted as easy to use and error free that will help them attribute the coins quickly and accurately.

TwoSides2aCoin

so how could PCGS improve the VAM program ? END IT !

Peaceman

Lobby for changes. I for one can say that due to some homework I did on my part I was able to have PCGS change some registry set weights on some of the Top 50 Peace $'s. The registry set is something set up for US to use. The more people insist on changes, the more you'll see PCGS accomidate....

dizzlecc

Argh! Where to begin.

First, I agree with many of the comments already posted.

I would like to see them added to the price guide so that some type of price line is established.

Maybe, as a service at coin shows they attend, they could sponser an educational class on vams.

Wolf359

<< <i>Lobby for changes. I for one can say that due to some homework I did on my part I was able to have PCGS change some registry set weights on some of the Top 50 Peace $'s. The registry set is something set up for US to use. The more people insist on changes, the more you'll see PCGS accomidate.... >>



This is good news. We can only hope changes to weights on Morgan vam registry sets are also forthcoming, these were submitted in March by several high powered collectors.

Also, PL and DMPL vam pops should be viewable in one display when I enter the coin number. I guess they can't do it now, because there are 3 different numbers, so you'd need to create a 4th number which actually would store the 3 numbers to display. Then PCGS could send an email with the new 4th number we can use...

ashmore

If you haven't seen me post in a while, it isn't a coincidence. I've been very behind in getting to the CU board and I apologize.

I first want to say that I COMPLETELY agree with Rob on his post, on all points. In addition to this, I am working to get quite a number of ADDITIONAL VAMs added to the PCGS list.

I have been lobbying with Ron Guth and Mike Faraone to let me send them a list of the VAMs that the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors would like to see added to the list of accepted gradable VAMs. This list would include the 1878 7TF coins, the 1878-S coins, many clashed coins and sub-variety coins (i.e., 44A, 1A, 1B1, etc, you probably recognize a few just by the number, without the dates). I would like to see all the O/CC coins, and the Oval O coins, Micro O coins ex. 80-O, and about 20 or so REALLY neat discoveries that haven't made a HOT list so to speak -- like the VAM 13 1888-S.

This is one of the things that I have on a list of bullet points that I am addressing as President of the SSDC and a governor of the NSDR.

I'm also working on several other hot topics with respect to bulk pricing, Registry lists, etc.

I am so excited to see the level of response that this thread got as well, I'd love to see a bunch of folks write to me at ash@ashmore.com with ideas like this. I am able to use the strength of being able to speak for an entire organization, and if I/we take the time to channel our ideas, we have a much better focus to PCGS and possibly better bargaining position.

Ash Harrison
Pres. SSDC, Gov. NSDR
Ashmore Rare Coins www.ashmore.com
"Home of the VAM Book Update"

DennisH

Ash:

Some of the most insightful words I've ever read about collecting and why people do it was in David Bowers' 2-volume Silver Dollar encyclopedia: "People collect what there is to collect."

This also sums up why clear, lavishly illustrated, and above all accurate, attribution guides are the fundamental key to developing collector interest in, and demand for, varieties -- regardless of whether the coins are large cents, seated dimes, bust halves, or silver dollars. If people can sit down with their coins, a good loupe, an easy-to-follow attribution guide, and a nice glass of wine (optional, but very enjoyable!), then the excitement of "finding" coins will snowball upon itself and create enthusiasm where little or none had been before. And once enthusiasm is sparked, people will look for coins like never before.

Once such attribution guides are available, then collectors will start discovering what is out there to collect... and they will collect them. But if the guides don't exist, then for most collectors the coins don't either. And if PCGS decides to get involved by attributing more and more of them... well, you'd better buckle your seatbelt and hang on for a sudden burst of acceleration!

VamGuy

Keeping the dream alive.

RobJoyce1921dVAMguy

Thanks for all the feedback. I think it will take the users of the VAM service clearly stating what we would most like to see in order to give PCGS the feedback they need on where the next level could be. Please keep it coming!

Rob

HighRelief

IMO PCGS could take a lesson from NGC on how to set up their Vam program.