Do you think pcgs hates modern coins?
LincolnsRule
Posts: 1,738 ✭
We've just seen the thread about how they discriminate against modern coins when it comes to pedigrees.
Most of the modern registry sets they haven't bothered to give a weighting, and the ones they did weight, they did it completely backwards. They weighted what is toughest is plain old BU (like mint set only coins) and not what is toughest to find in high grade, which is what every single registry set consists of as no one submits or collects pcgs ms60 moderns.
The whole satin finish vs business strike thing is completely backwards too! They should have business strikes in the same set as the 1965-2004 circ strikes, and the satin finish coins could be in a varieties set or have their own set.
What they've included in the modern registry sets is extremely inconsistent. They have some (but not most) SMS coins (1994,1997 nickels for example) in some circ strike sets, they have some (but not most) varieties, like the 1982 no P dime, and 1972 DDO Lincoln in some basic sets. They haven't bothered to put in a 1965-date clad dime no bands set. Are they just being lazy overlooking this stuff, or do they have an agenda?
The coins of a "classic" modern set, the 7 1982 Lincoln varieties, aren't even distinguished by pcgs! (Actually, last I heard, I believe they will put the variety on the holder now, but they won't be listed in the pop report). They should have a 7 coin registry set just for these!
And finally, the grading itself... I won't say anything, I don't want to get kicked off the boards.
Most of the modern registry sets they haven't bothered to give a weighting, and the ones they did weight, they did it completely backwards. They weighted what is toughest is plain old BU (like mint set only coins) and not what is toughest to find in high grade, which is what every single registry set consists of as no one submits or collects pcgs ms60 moderns.
The whole satin finish vs business strike thing is completely backwards too! They should have business strikes in the same set as the 1965-2004 circ strikes, and the satin finish coins could be in a varieties set or have their own set.
What they've included in the modern registry sets is extremely inconsistent. They have some (but not most) SMS coins (1994,1997 nickels for example) in some circ strike sets, they have some (but not most) varieties, like the 1982 no P dime, and 1972 DDO Lincoln in some basic sets. They haven't bothered to put in a 1965-date clad dime no bands set. Are they just being lazy overlooking this stuff, or do they have an agenda?
The coins of a "classic" modern set, the 7 1982 Lincoln varieties, aren't even distinguished by pcgs! (Actually, last I heard, I believe they will put the variety on the holder now, but they won't be listed in the pop report). They should have a 7 coin registry set just for these!
And finally, the grading itself... I won't say anything, I don't want to get kicked off the boards.
0
Comments
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
But also locked in this problem are the collectors who I think, or at least post, more about getting an MS 69, not because it’s a high graded example, but because of how much it is worth. A coin still being minted can not be worth much in my opinion, regardless of any grade. I have failed to see anyone build a whole new exemplary collection based on the sale of few high end moderns. Yet we send the darn coins in by the truckload. So maybe the graders are not thrilled to see another Washington Dollar.
And you know I have to say this - There absolute failure to respond to the issues of BS vs Satin from the collectors who support them, is absolutely disgusting. Their last attempt was lame, and again, no one was contacted for opinions, no announcement was made, it was just snuck in.. What’s up with that?
WS
<< <i>Do you think pcgs hates modern coins? >>
When you look at the revenue that PCGS generates from modern coinage, why would you ask such a question?
Lets just get slots in the sets for the modern "business strike" coinage then we can worry about "Fine Tuning" the sets!
JMHO,
Tim
The Mint state issue moderns (I think) is different from the proofs. Much harder to build the set and the coins become scarcer at the higher levels. I think the ability to be pedigreed should exist as long as you are meet the criteria and you are within a certian range of the Current Finest Possible Set Rating (i.e. within -.05).
I can't really comment on the Satin vs BS issue since I don't focus in this realm. I think some of your other points are well taken and it could be something changed within PCGS with enough pushing. I would like to see the 82 varieties added, but the past sins of not specifying them when holdered just created a nightmare. Just think of all the $$$ in submission fees!!
I did not see that at all. I personally have no problem with their position on the subject and have dozens of such registered sets myself.
"Most of the modern registry sets they haven't bothered to give a weighting, and the ones they did weight, they did it completely backwards. They weighted what is toughest is plain old BU (like mint set only coins) and not what is toughest to find in high grade, which is what every single registry set consists of as no one submits or collects pcgs ms60 moderns."
Whatever the current weighting, it is fair to all particpants. Of course, individual weighting per date, per grade is ideal. But, consider something... when I originally assisted NGC with their weightings using that novel and revolutionary approach many years ago, to do it right took incredible amounts of time. For example, on the Jefferson nickel weights for coins with and without FS in every grade, I recall spending the better part of a month on that charting alone. LR- why don't you volunteer to assemble the weights of a single series of moderns in every grade / every date and present your proposed weights to the forum?
"The whole satin finish vs business strike thing is completely backwards too! They should have business strikes in the same set as the 1965-2004 circ strikes, and the satin finish coins could be in a varieties set or have their own set."
I personally love the new, all-inclusive, variety set of state quarters -it is precisely as I would have done it.
"What they've included in the modern registry sets is extremely inconsistent. They have some (but not most) SMS coins (1994,1997 nickels for example) in some circ strike sets, they have some (but not most) varieties, like the 1982 no P dime, and 1972 DDO Lincoln in some basic sets. They haven't bothered to put in a 1965-date clad dime no bands set. Are they just being lazy overlooking this stuff, or do they have an agenda?"
Don't get paranoid on us now with that "agenda" talk.
"The coins of a "classic" modern set, the 7 1982 Lincoln varieties, aren't even distinguished by pcgs! (Actually, last I heard, I believe they will put the variety on the holder now, but they won't be listed in the pop report). They should have a 7 coin registry set just for these!"
I think they should include all 7 in a Memorial cent variety set... if others agree, let customer service know.
"And finally, the grading itself... I won't say anything, I don't want to get kicked off the boards."
You have already said it time and time again. You believe you can outgrade PCGS graders. By the way, how did you do with their grading contest a couple years back?
Wondercoin
WS
<< <i>"The whole satin finish vs business strike thing is completely backwards too! They should have business strikes in the same set as the 1965-2004 circ strikes, and the satin finish coins could be in a varieties set or have their own set."
I personally love the new, all-inclusive, variety set of state quarters -it is precisely as I would have done it. >>
I wonder if PCGS polled the top ten set owners of all the "BASIC" modern sets effected (infected) by the either / or policy of the "Satin Finish - Business Strike", what precentage would want just the "Business Strike" issues in the "BASIC" sets?
<< <i>"We've just seen the thread about how they discriminate against modern coins when it comes to pedigrees."
I did not see that at all. I personally have no problem with their position on the subject and have dozens of such registered sets myself.
Wondercoin >>
I have to personally disagree here. I believe that what is done to one set, should be for the same. There should no be discrimination on the sole basis of when the coin was made. I would argue that it is just as hard to find top pops in 1978 as it is for 1914. There is an opportunity to build a top set in any category and the reward for doing so should be the same.
What happens if someone manages to complete the 1968-present mint set and does it with a very high GPA of say 67.5 out of 68.2? Is that 513 coin set not worthy of a pedigree. It would certainly be difficult just to finish that set, let alone get a GPA over 67. Many of the coins in that set are unique in top grades and difficult to find at any given time. Or what about the 2004 mint set of Walt's. Those 22 coins are the very definition of perfection. It is a prefect set that he spent many years to finish. The best anyone could do it tie that set or to find an ms70 Lincoln to get a pop 1 upgrade and beat that set, which we know will be extremely difficult. Either way, do you think this set will ever fall out of the top 5? I personally don't.
It just seems like they could have taken the time to analyze the sets on a case by case basis to determine a pedigree rather than just say no to all of them without a second look back. Why penalize modern collectors for collecting what they like?
Just my humble opinion!
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
Tim: Why the top 10? Why not poll every registry set owner?
Wondercoin
I agree with that too. I would limit the pedigrees equally.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
<< <i> "top ten set owners"
Tim: Why the top 10? Why not poll every registry set owner?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I picked the top ten set owners mostly for logistics, I figured ten votes from basic modern Lincoln cents, Jefferson nickels, Roosevelt dimes, Washington Statehood quarters, Kennedy half dollars, Sacaqawea dollars and the new Presidential dollars would be a total of seventy votes from the most serious collectors (some may argue that only the top five set owners from each basic modern sets should be polled). If PCGS wanted to ask every set owner, that wouldn’t bother me, I suspect that the percentage outcome would be the same either way (which ever way the poll was done, would be fairer then the way that PCGS arbitrarily came up with the “either / or” policy).
Let’s be frank, PCGS set up the Registry for the Collectors (it also helped PCGS’s bottom line financially no doubt). There forth, any decision that PCGS makes concerning changes, modifications, weights or policies about the Registry should have the consensus of the participants of the set in question or PCGS should let the participants of the Registry elect a “Review Committee” from it’s own membership that any changes, modifications, weights or policies in the Registry have the “once over” before they take effect (just a suggestion).
Again, I have no horse in this race. All my son and I wanted was to have both the Satin Finish and Business Strikes as part of the Complete Set of Kennedy Half Dollars which I think PCGS is in the process of correcting. But I can understand some of the collectors that just want the Business Strike coins in the Basic Sets. In another thread I listed what I thought a group of sets should be for a series and the titles of the sets were self explanatory:
<< <i> 1) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
3) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes (1999-Present)
4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present)
5) Washington Statehood Quarters, Proof (1999-Present)
6) Washington Statehood Quarters, Complete Set (1999-Present / Circulation, Satin Finish and Proof) >>
End of my rant,
Tim
I don't think that PCGS hates modern coins, but they tend to grade them differently at times IMO. There is a difference of opinion between NGC and PCGS (just as an example) on where the dates of Modern coins start. Another couple of examples on moderns would be that coins with a proof like fields are not as well liked as coins having flow lines or a somewhat textured appearance (NGC views these coins a little different than PCGS). Another example on comparison of toning, PCGS likes the notion that Toning adds a little, but forgives a lot. This IMO does not carry over to the moderns in all cases since (IMO) PCGS looks at these coins as newer and should be whistle white
I think we can all agree that PCGS has great experts working for them and I send the majority of my coins to them for grading. I know we would like to get our coins in their slabs with slightly higher grades at times and I'm included in this. Yet I have noticed that PCGS (if you really think about it) has their own style of grading and stick pretty close to what they want to see a coin look like in their slab. What I try to do is look for this style as well as look for a coin that pleases me and I'll send it off to them. The graders are of course like us humans and taking into account that on any given day we have good days and bad not to mention that their style must spread across many graders; which may very from time to time and this is what I tell my self when I get coins returned to me with less than what I expected and I really feel this coin is worthy of a higher grade and have to re-submit it to get it where I feel it belongs. There are time that a coin just will not go up and I look at it and refer back to what I have said previously (make sense?)
Here is what I would hope for: PCGS is a work in progress as they state to us and that they do not feel attacked when any of us post our opinions and suggestions to the point posters are concerned about being banned. That said I like Tims idea of a
<< <i>“Review Committee” >>
to help seek input from a larger collector base and not just a few that appear to have their finger on the pulse of what is wanted or needed by the vast majority.
My Washington Type B/C Set
I couldn't resist and Christmas is coming you know
My Washington Type B/C Set
<< <i>Let’s be frank, PCGS set up the Registry for the Collectors (it also helped PCGS’s bottom line financially no doubt). There forth, any decision that PCGS makes concerning changes, modifications, weights or policies about the Registry should have the consensus of the participants of the set in question or PCGS should let the participants of the Registry elect a “Review Committee” from it’s own membership that any changes, modifications, weights or policies in the Registry have the “once over” before they take effect (just a suggestion). >>
I'd like that as well since I can't seem to drive the FIRST STRIKE issue any further even thought I am pretty much the ONLY one to have submited complete FS sets other than the few Silver sets and I have yet to get early FS silver Eagles included in existing sets. I think PCGS listens to their bottom line and that would be pretty much it I am afraid to say which has been my eperience.