REGISTRY DEBATE?

PEACEKEEPER · January 2, 2002 12:42PM

I THINK THAT SOMEONE HAS PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. I WOULD THINK THAT ONE WOULD WANT TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT SPOOLY FIND'S OUT FROM CU. IT IS THEIR REGISTRY AND THEY PROBABLY WILL HAVE A SAY IN WHAT IS AND IS NOT DONE. LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT HE WORKS OUT AND THEN GO FROM THERE.

ModMan · January 2, 2002 12:51PM

(((yawn)))
I'd rather throw the baby out with the bathwater and count my chickens before they hatch.

MoneyLA · January 2, 2002 12:53PM

Hi and happy 2002 to you all. Just got back from a weekend out of town and away from the computer and it appears that I missed a lot of fireworks -- the fireworks here and not the fireworks on the strip in Vegas.

Regarding the Council idea (council I think will be preferred spelling over counsel which indicates legal representation):

I think the prospective members should come up with a plan for what this counsel will do? What areas it will offer advice on, or reaction or input, etc. Clearly, I don't think PCGS will want a bunch of customers "overseeing" or passing judgment on each day's operations. Once a plan is in place, then you could see if PCGS would be willing to open itself up to outside "help."

Frankly, I dont think any business wants to ordain any of its customers with any policy-making privileges.

Should PCGS want some input on what registry sets to create, or how many collections would be featured on the front page of a registry set (5 or 3 or 10), or what color labels to use in its slabs, then I can see how such a council could get involved.

But if you think PCGS is going to let this "council" create real policy for grading standards, or what varieties to recognize, or to set levels for mirrors on Morgans... I think the position of PCGS will be disappointing.

Should they NOT welcom a council, then having a "shadow policy group" to represent collectors to voice comments in unison might be appropriate and fitting. After all, a little "consumer action" from we consumers couldn't hurt.

I look forward to reading your plan for what the council will do and how it would benefit PCGS, collectors and the industry.

cheers and happy new year, alan mendelson

keithdagen · January 2, 2002 1:03PM

Alan,

I think that this sums up the initial idea which I posted in a different thread. It was in response to these questions:

<< <i>
<<
1) why a council is needed?
2) what benefits PCGS might derive from it?
3) how this council would seek comments from collectors, dealers and registry users at large?
4) if there is some more effective and efficient way for PCGS to solicit and/or react to Registry user suggestions, complaints, or concerns other than creating a bureaucracy., or
5) distill if most of us are just upset because we don't believe PCGS cares if we exist or not and we are made and don't want to take it any more. >>

I'll take a stab with my view of your questions:

1. PCGS gets lots of input from dealers who do business with them on how to shape the Registry. Collectors feel that they are the "little guy" in this situation and want a representative voice.

2. PCGS can get direct feedback from the collector. Although the dealer has to market the coins for PCGS and assist the collector, the end person is the collector and that is PCGS's eventual target market.

3. I would suggest through the use of polls, e-mails, threads, Private Messages. I think that Spooly is looking for a committee to sift through the threads and get the pulse of the community and make sure that PCGS knows what that beat is.

4. There may be, but PCGS has not solicited anything specifically from the user. We have the power to e-mail or call PCGS, but many collectors don't feel that this is working.

5. The last month or so has shown an increasing discontent with PCGS and the changes being made to its #1 marketing program, the Registry. And so far, only a handful of sets have been changed. Something needs to be done and a grass roots campaign of respected collectors and dealers needs to happen. In the long run, an effective campaign like this could really benefit PCGS by strengthening user satisfaction with the product and the collector by giving them a voice. >>

Keith

madmike · January 2, 2002 2:11PM

I'd have to agree. I don't think for a minute that PCGS will let anyone outside of their board of directors make any decisions regarding the company. I see this council as more of an advisory group.

All I really see them doing is helping to voice the concerns of Reg Collectors and only in areas regarding the registry.

The way I see it PCGS will still be making all the decisions, this council will just make sure that the collectors voices are heard before that decision is made.

madmike

MoneyLA · January 2, 2002 2:53PM

Keith, your post was well written with good points made in response to mine. Many thanks.

As a follow-up to my original post in this thread, let me suggest that if a serious presentation is going to be made to PCGS for them to recognize a collectors' council, the proposed council should indicate why they should be recognized. That is, what will we bring to PCGS that they NEED and SHOULD have?

This is a chance for the council to "pick its battles," and to put PCGS on notice of an official groundswell of collector discontent with some of its policies.

Otherwise, creating an ad hoc group with no specific reason will be easy for PCGS to dismiss as unneccesary.

so, who wants to start creating a "platform for the committee" ?? And what should the first issue be: content of registry sets, or?

cheers, alan mendelson

REGISTRY DEBATE?

Comments