So the $62 K would reflect PCGS' acquisition costs of the coins in the sets as market value can only be estimated if the coins aren't sold. Is an appraised value allowable under such circumstances?
<< <i>So the $62 K would reflect PCGS' acquisition costs of the coins in the sets as market value can only be estimated if the coins aren't sold. Is an appraised value allowable under such circumstances? >>
You'd have to ask their controller or CFO, or someone familiar with GAAP accounting rules for such items.
We've always had a grading set. It has changed in size and scope several times.
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, we had a very large grading and "testing" set. We often displayed the grading set at shows. We used the testing set to submitt coins "blindly" to see how the graders graded them and then we'd analyze the results.
In the mid-1990s, we sold a lot of the grading set as we got ready to publish the PCGS grading guide. We had a lot of money tied up in the set and we figured the grading standards book would cement the standards in concrete. We retained a number of the core coins and often displayed them at coin shows...Morgans, Saints, $20 Libs, counterfeits etc.
We also used grading set coins (and others) in the "World Series of Coin Grading" a few years back. And we continued to display grading set coins at shows on occasion.
We are now expanding our grading set once again. Rather than have one or two examples of each grade in the major series...as we've had since day one...we'll have at least four and in some cases as many as ten examples for every grade. We now feel the actual coins are more important to a permanent standard than pictures and descriptions in a book.
The combination of written standards, i.e. the PCGS Grading Guide, and an extensive grading set should be a big help to collectors, dealers, and PCGS graders. The PCGS grading book is in print and available...written standards for all to see. Portions of the PCGS grading set have been displayed at coin shows in the past but we feel that it is everyone's interest for us to display the set more often and more extensively. So we'll display portions of the set (on a rotating basis) at major shows.
As always, we're appreciative of any and all suggestions...so if you have any comments on coins you see in the PCGS grading set...if you have any suggestions on what you think we could do differently, better, etc...if you want to out a coin doctor...if there's anything you don't understand...we're all ears and we're here to help. Just send an email to PCGS President Ron Guth (and remember he and I don't have a lot of time to check this forum or PM's...so please send emails.)
Ron will have portions of the PCGS Grading Set at the ANA and he'll discuss more about all of this at the Set Registry luncheon.
<< <i>We've always had a grading set. It has changed in size and scope several times.
....
As always, we're appreciative of any and all suggestions...so if you have any comments on coins you see in the PCGS grading set...if you have any suggestions on what you think we could do differently, better, etc...if you want to out a coin doctor...if there's anything you don't understand...we're all ears and we're here to help. Just send an email to PCGS President Ron Guth (and remember he and I don't have a lot of time to check this forum or PM's...so please send emails.)
Ron will have portions of the PCGS Grading Set at the ANA and he'll discuss more about all of this at the Set Registry luncheon.
David >>
Who was it that was telling me the other day that PCGS doesn't ever talk about the business?
<< <i>According to the "Hot Topics" on the Legend Numismatics web site, the major grading services have sold their reference grading sets. Why would they do this? Are they desperate for money? Are the coins now so hopelessly undergraded that they can no longer be used as a reference? Enquiring minds want to know. >>
POOF!!!! The coins from the grading set are now probably so undergraded that they have to be replaced with slabs with those big numbers on them. Please if anyone sees the "new improved" grading set at the ANA please let us know how many of the coins in the set are in green holders and how many have serial numbers starting with 011111 or 111111. And it would be amazing if PCGS could post those great photos that they take of the old set vs the new set online so we can see if standards have changed. Welll I guess this will probably be my last post......was nice getting to know you all.
And I think PCGS is the only grading service that has ever had a grading set...though I may be wrong about that.
And I don't recall ever seeing any other service display their set at a coin show...but I don't go to every show.
And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
<< <i>And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
David >>
HRH ... I love the idea of a grading set for each series. Can you take the one that you have, have it TrueView imaged, and placed on the PCGS website? I think that might do a lot to boost consumer confidence as well as be an amazing educational resource for us regular collectors who are not fortunate enough to view hundreds of coins from every series on the bourse.
You said "We used the testing set to submitt coins 'blindly' to see how the graders graded them and then we'd analyze the results." Do you still do this? It seems to me that such blind submissions are essential to insure consistency over time.
Just what flavor is the Kool-Aid today that HRH would show up on Saturday afternoon?
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
<< <i>And I think PCGS is the only grading service that has ever had a grading set...though I may be wrong about that.
And I don't recall ever seeing any other service display their set at a coin show...but I don't go to every show.
And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
David >>
Sounds awesome ...so we can now expect truviews of the old set and new set online so that we can compare them and have the "market take care of everything" cos at the moment the market is looking to a consortium to take care of everything
As an insect taxonomist, I am somewhat surprised that portions of a grading set have been sold or expanded through the years. In insect taxonomy (and all plant and animal taxonomy for that matter), a single specimen of each species is designated THE EXAMPLE of that species and is maintained in a museum essentially forever. That specimen, along with accompanying examples, become the standard by which all other species are compared. Now matter how well a species is described, illustrated, or photographed, the ultimate standard as to what that species is is the type specimen. Taxonomists would never consider getting rid of a type specimen to replace with another unless the type somehow was lost. It seems to me that constantly selling off reference sets and then purchasing new reference sets opens the door for standards to drift and change through time. This is particularly true if all of the initial reference sets are exchanged for more recent acquisitions. Documenting grading, photographing initial standard reference coins, and meticulously illustrating grading standards simply do not compare (IMO as a taxonomist) to maintaining your initial reference standard for grading.
<< <i>HRH ... I love the idea of a grading set for each series. Can you take the one that you have, have it TrueView imaged, and placed on the PCGS website? I think that might do a lot to boost consumer confidence as well as be an amazing educational resource for us regular collectors who are not fortunate enough to view hundreds of coins from every series on the bourse. >>
I would really like to see something like this. The black and white pics in the books: Photograde, ANA Standards, PCGS Standards (Don't own/haven't read the NGC one) are good, and great teaching tools, but only get you so far, and I'm not buying another one or any updated versions until they're full color photos. I would love to see the coins to include the comments on the labels. I'd probably learn as much from the pics as the books.
I wonder if the CAC-Consortium will put together a grading reference set.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Russ---Do you know this as fact or are you speculating?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
HRH---Are there any plans to submit the PCGS grading set to the CAC Consortium for their review and approval?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
So does anyone know if PCGS even has a grading set any more? I doubt they would say today publicly today like HRH did in 2007.
Does anyone know if CAC actually acquired a grading set?
There's a lot of talk now about how much tougher CAC is compared to the other top two.
Yes, I have asked this question, too, when discussing the change in grading standards or gradeflation. It shouldn't be a forbidden topic, should it? Does it break any PCGS board guidelines?
Originally it was a good idea but I think that it was destined to become obsolete.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
So does anyone know if PCGS even has a grading set any more? I doubt they would say today publicly today like HRH did in 2007.
Does anyone know if CAC actually acquired a grading set?
There's a lot of talk now about how much tougher CAC is compared to the other top two.
I saw a post on Instagram a while back where JA bought a seated dollar for cac’s grading set. I collect Seated Dollars and xf45 is my sweet spot. I took a screenshot -
Comments
<< <i>Did they bother to post the same info for NGC? >>
NGC is privately held.
Russ, NCNE
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>So the $62 K would reflect PCGS' acquisition costs of the coins in the sets as market value can only be estimated if the coins aren't sold. Is an appraised value allowable under such circumstances? >>
You'd have to ask their controller or CFO, or someone familiar with GAAP accounting rules for such items.
<< <i>What exactly is the point of this? >>
HRH says the grading sets cost $300K, but the 0-Q filing numbers don't support that is the point the OP of this tidbit was trying to make? IMHO WGAF?
<< <i>I am pissed about Hall trying to claim all of the sudden they have agrading set. HE specifically told me PCGS SOLD IT. I KNOW what I heard. >>
We've always had a grading set. It has changed in size and scope several times.
In the late 1980s/early 1990s, we had a very large grading and "testing" set. We often displayed the grading set at shows. We used the testing set to submitt coins "blindly" to see how the graders graded them and then we'd analyze the results.
In the mid-1990s, we sold a lot of the grading set as we got ready to publish the PCGS grading guide. We had a lot of money tied up in the set and we figured the grading standards book would cement the standards in concrete. We retained a number of the core coins and often displayed them at coin shows...Morgans, Saints, $20 Libs, counterfeits etc.
We also used grading set coins (and others) in the "World Series of Coin Grading" a few years back. And we continued to display grading set coins at shows on occasion.
We are now expanding our grading set once again. Rather than have one or two examples of each grade in the major series...as we've had since day one...we'll have at least four and in some cases as many as ten examples for every grade. We now feel the actual coins are more important to a permanent standard than pictures and descriptions in a book.
The combination of written standards, i.e. the PCGS Grading Guide, and an extensive grading set should be a big help to collectors, dealers, and PCGS graders. The PCGS grading book is in print and available...written standards for all to see. Portions of the PCGS grading set have been displayed at coin shows in the past but we feel that it is everyone's interest for us to display the set more often and more extensively. So we'll display portions of the set (on a rotating basis) at major shows.
As always, we're appreciative of any and all suggestions...so if you have any comments on coins you see in the PCGS grading set...if you have any suggestions on what you think we could do differently, better, etc...if you want to out a coin doctor...if there's anything you don't understand...we're all ears and we're here to help. Just send an email to PCGS President Ron Guth (and remember he and I don't have a lot of time to check this forum or PM's...so please send emails.)
Ron will have portions of the PCGS Grading Set at the ANA and he'll discuss more about all of this at the Set Registry luncheon.
David
<< <i>We've always had a grading set. It has changed in size and scope several times.
....
As always, we're appreciative of any and all suggestions...so if you have any comments on coins you see in the PCGS grading set...if you have any suggestions on what you think we could do differently, better, etc...if you want to out a coin doctor...if there's anything you don't understand...we're all ears and we're here to help. Just send an email to PCGS President Ron Guth (and remember he and I don't have a lot of time to check this forum or PM's...so please send emails.)
Ron will have portions of the PCGS Grading Set at the ANA and he'll discuss more about all of this at the Set Registry luncheon.
David >>
Who was it that was telling me the other day that PCGS doesn't ever talk about the business?
Me, and this is about coin grading, not the business.
David,
Thanks for taking the time to clear this up!
<< <i>According to the "Hot Topics" on the Legend Numismatics web site, the major grading services have sold their reference grading sets. Why would they do this? Are they desperate for money? Are the coins now so hopelessly undergraded that they can no longer be used as a reference? Enquiring minds want to know. >>
POOF!!!! The coins from the grading set are now probably so undergraded that they have to be replaced with slabs with those big numbers on them. Please if anyone sees the "new improved" grading set at the ANA please let us know how many of the coins in the set are in green holders and how many have serial numbers starting with 011111 or 111111. And it would be amazing if PCGS could post those great photos that they take of the old set vs the new set online so we can see if standards have changed. Welll I guess this will probably be my last post......was nice getting to know you all.
And I think PCGS is the only grading service that has ever had a grading set...though I may be wrong about that.
And I don't recall ever seeing any other service display their set at a coin show...but I don't go to every show.
And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
David
<< <i>And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
David >>
HRH ... I love the idea of a grading set for each series. Can you take the one that you have, have it TrueView imaged, and placed on the PCGS website? I think that might do a lot to boost consumer confidence as well as be an amazing educational resource for us regular collectors who are not fortunate enough to view hundreds of coins from every series on the bourse.
You said "We used the testing set to submitt coins 'blindly' to see how the graders graded them and then we'd analyze the results." Do you still do this? It seems to me that such blind submissions are essential to insure consistency over time.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
<< <i>Just what flavor is the Kool-Aid today that HRH would show up on Saturday afternoon? >>
Huh? Why not try discussing your point of view. Otherwise, this is worthless BS.
<< <i>And I think PCGS is the only grading service that has ever had a grading set...though I may be wrong about that.
And I don't recall ever seeing any other service display their set at a coin show...but I don't go to every show.
And Joflax...We've had some of the coins in the set for 20 years...but we will expand the set...and we've always had different inserts for the grading set coins...they say stuff like "original toning," "artifical toning," "too weakly struck for MS65," "High," "Low," "Mid," etc. so they don't have the normal inserts or serial numbers. We're just trying to make things better...and we certainly realize that for some people, whatever we do is always criticized and never enough. But our basic approach to critics is to listen if it makes sense, and ignore the critics if what they say doesn't make sense or is mean-spirited, or just plain outright lies. We just keep on doing what we think is the right thing and we're convinced that if you do that the market takes care of everything eventually. And right now we think expanding the grading set and making it much more visible at major shows is the right thing to do.
David >>
Sounds awesome ...so we can now expect truviews of the old set and new set online so that we can compare them and have the "market take care of everything" cos at the moment the market is looking to a consortium to take care of everything
<< <i>HRH ... I love the idea of a grading set for each series. Can you take the one that you have, have it TrueView imaged, and placed on the PCGS website? I think that might do a lot to boost consumer confidence as well as be an amazing educational resource for us regular collectors who are not fortunate enough to view hundreds of coins from every series on the bourse. >>
I would really like to see something like this. The black and white pics in the books: Photograde, ANA Standards, PCGS Standards (Don't own/haven't read the NGC one) are good, and great teaching tools, but only get you so far, and I'm not buying another one or any updated versions until they're full color photos. I would love to see the coins to include the comments on the labels. I'd probably learn as much from the pics as the books.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I wonder if the CAC-Consortium will put together a grading reference set. >>
Yes.
Russ, NCNE
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Russ---Do you know this as fact or are you speculating? >>
It's in the big thread.
Russ, NCNE
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Old thread alert!!!
So does anyone know if PCGS even has a grading set any more? I doubt they would say today publicly today like HRH did in 2007.
Does anyone know if CAC actually acquired a grading set?
There's a lot of talk now about how much tougher CAC is compared to the other top two.
Yes, I have asked this question, too, when discussing the change in grading standards or gradeflation. It shouldn't be a forbidden topic, should it? Does it break any PCGS board guidelines?
Originally it was a good idea but I think that it was destined to become obsolete.
I saw a post on Instagram a while back where JA bought a seated dollar for cac’s grading set. I collect Seated Dollars and xf45 is my sweet spot. I took a screenshot -
