It's time for PCGS to start slabbing problem coins.
291fifth
Posts: 24,421 ✭✭✭✭✭
At least problem coins are real. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for PCGS to buy the rights to the PCI holder and use that holder for problem coins.
The age of raw coins is over. Asian fakes are poised to overwhelm the market.
"While America slept..."
The age of raw coins is over. Asian fakes are poised to overwhelm the market.
"While America slept..."
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
<< <i>At least problem coins are real. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for PCGS to buy the rights to the PCI holder and use that holder for problem coins.
The age of raw coins is over. Asian fakes are poised to overwhelm the market.
"While America slept..." >>
Let me quote HRH, never!
<< <i>It's time for PCGS to start slabbing problem coins. >>
uh they already do
K S
It's time for PCGS to stop slabbing problem coins.
I guess that's the First Step?
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>They already do, especially early and expensive rare coins. They just don't mention the problem on the label. At least they net grade the coin. >>
What he said.
A lightly cleaned common date Merc will likely get bodybagged. If it were a 1916-D Merc or an 1803 dime, it would likely slab with a small deduction for the light cleaning.
We have ANACS and NCS for our "special" coins.
I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but really... The only thing I believe would be a profitable and novel idea is to make drink coasters (enapsulate coins in a square slab large enough to accomodate a drinking glass or coffee cup). This way, PCGS could send those bodybags to the "SPECIAL OLYMPICS" department for some of us "shprecial" coin geeks.
For all of my friends with children that have autism, or Down's syndrome or affected in a way that disables their capacity to be in the "norm"... forgive my joking. I just think "problem coins" belong in a different holder than the "cream of the crop".
This doesn't mean our "problem" coins can't win a GOLD or Silver medal... it just means they will be useful in other endeavors, for other purposes. We can still get drunk and laugh at them
HRH and CoinKing - If you see this thread and disagree, I'd love to hear your reasons.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Let me get this straight. A PR63RB 1964 Lincoln Cent belongs in a PCGS slab because it is "the cream of the crop", but a lightly wiped 1792 Half Disme does not belong in a PCGS slab because it is "Cleaned"?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Let me get this straight. A PR63RB 1964 Lincoln Cent belongs in a PCGS slab because it is "the cream of the crop", but a lightly wiped 1792 Half Disme does not belong in a PCGS slab because it is "Cleaned"? >>
Searching for ANACS coins online is largely a waste of time these days for someone looking for problem-free coins, so I often don't bother searching on ANACS any more. If other people feel the same way, it could mean that even good ANACS coins get dragged down by the problem coins in ANACS holders (fewer people including ANACS coins in searches for material, fewer eyes on good ANACS coins, less competition, lower prices).
I'd hate to see PCGS go down that road. At least NGC had the sense to use a different arm of their business to slab problems. As for the side issue of whether some "significant coins" deserve a little more slack, that's a fair question and open for debate.
Edit to add:
PM sent.
<< <i>
<< <i>They already do, especially early and expensive rare coins. They just don't mention the problem on the label. At least they net grade the coin. >>
What he said.
A lightly cleaned common date Merc will likely get bodybagged. If it were a 1916-D Merc or an 1803 dime, it would likely slab with a small deduction for the light cleaning. >>
The 'Big 2' TPGs need these rare coins in their census reports to make them look like "the standard". They need to get back to basics, and take a lesson from ICCS and only grade on a strict technical basis. That is one reason ICCS is so well respected, and their coins bring big money compared to PCGS and NGC Canadian coins.
<< <i>Let me get this straight. A PR63RB 1964 Lincoln Cent belongs in a PCGS slab because it is "the cream of the crop", but a lightly wiped 1792 Half Disme does not belong in a PCGS slab because it is "Cleaned"? >>
Don't worry. PCGS would slab any 1792 US coin that has been lightly cleaned.
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
This would be an enourmous mistake, as many have pointed out in recent other threads.
Free Trial
A rigid, no exceptions approach, leaving coins with a minor problem (e.g. a few wispy hairlines underneath vintage toning on a coin in any grade) in a BB would be folly. At the other extreme, netting for whizzing, tooling, plugging would be folly as well. Minor scratches, dings and even light cleaning are reasonably factored in to the point grade by PCGS.
No doubt there are exceptions that members can cite in support of their concerns but they are just that, exceptions! PCGS does a commendable job overall in reflecting what is market acceptable.
<< <i>I agree that PCGS does slab problem coins. And, I generally think they do a good job.
A rigid, no exceptions approach, leaving coins with a minor problem (e.g. a few wispy hairlines underneath vintage toning on a coin in any grade) in a BB would be folly. At the other extreme, netting for whizzing, tooling, plugging would be folly as well. Minor scratches, dings and even light cleaning are reasonably factored in to the point grade by PCGS.
No doubt there are exceptions that members can cite in support of their concerns but they are just that, exceptions! PCGS does a commendable job overall in reflecting what is market acceptable. >>
the biggest problem in a lot of people's minds, including myself, is the major TPGs trying to dictate what is 'market acceptable' instead of following the lead of the market.
<< <i>They have been doing the no grade "Genuine" only slab which I have seen on a Corroded 1794 $1 and a Gouged 1943 Copper 1c. >>
If the abovementioned is true - I would like an option for all coins. If not all coins - how about those that are 150+ years old? 200+?
8 Reales Madness Collection
I agree completely. However, there's no harm in encapsulating an authentic problem coin as "genuine". A collector should have the option to display his entire set in a uniform holders, even if only some of the coins deserve a PCGS grade. Again, I am not advocating "net grades" or "details only" grades. I am advocating slabbing the problem coins without any mention of the grade or problem(s). The holders would only state "Genuine".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, this is why you are "special". This really does make a lot of sense.
Solution to net grading is have a subsidiary something like NGC's NCS. PCGS could have GCGS, (Genuine Coin Grading Service).
If a coin does not grade at PCGS then authenticate, net grade and throw it in a GCGS holder. Now when searching auctions you can look for non problem or problem coins.
<< <i>I'll take it one step further. I'd like to see PCGS offer a checkbox on every submission invoice to holder as "genuine" all genuine coins that would otherwise have been returned in bodybags. I would advise against listing the problem(s) on the slab insert, primarily because a collector wouldn't want to be reminded of the problem every time he looks at his coin, but also because there is often not enough room on an insert to list all of the coin's problems. (Of course, a sticker explaining why the coin wasn't graded would still be essential.) Finally, I would argue that the color of the insert should be exactly the same as other PCGS inserts, because that's the way a collector would want it.
HRH and CoinKing - If you see this thread and disagree, I'd love to hear your reasons. >>
Bad idea. This is slabbing problem coins. We don't want PCGS slabbing problem coins.
The people who want this are trying to hurt the brand.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>I'll take it one step further. I'd like to see PCGS offer a checkbox on every submission invoice to holder as "genuine" all genuine coins that would otherwise have been returned in bodybags. I would advise against listing the problem(s) on the slab insert, primarily because a collector wouldn't want to be reminded of the problem every time he looks at his coin, but also because there is often not enough room on an insert to list all of the coin's problems. (Of course, a sticker explaining why the coin wasn't graded would still be essential.) Finally, I would argue that the color of the insert should be exactly the same as other PCGS inserts, because that's the way a collector would want it.
HRH and CoinKing - If you see this thread and disagree, I'd love to hear your reasons. >>
Bad idea. This is slabbing problem coins. We don't want PCGS slabbing problem coins.
The people who want this are trying to hurt the brand. >>
they already 'net grade' to some 'market standards', which is lingo for slabbing problem coins (albeit coins that have modest problems). The real issue is whether to 'details grade' and/or package a coin as 'genuine' only. The top TPGs are hurting their own respective brand by net grading coins anyway, might as well make extra revenue by providing more options on the label showing problems.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I would whole heartedly support PCGS "authentication only" as an option. However, I also think the submitter should decide in advance if a grade is sought too.
<< <i>Did PCGS bring this up themselves, back when they were soliciting input? Or is this a forum generated notion? >>
Yes, this was a trial balloon PCGS floated when they were soliciting input, so this is more than just a hypothetical or random brain dropping.
<< <i>There is some precedent for authentication only by PCGS, as mentioned earlier here and in other posts. To expand that service IMO would not hurt the brand. It is what it is. Authentication. Given the persistant and perhaps even more pervasive trend toward fakes, this could serve an important niche. >>
It would hurt the brand. I can barely tolerate searching for ANACS coins any more because 2/3 of them are problem coins in "details" holders. I have to think that is hurting the marketability of ANACS coins, even the problem-free ones, because a lot of people are tired of separating the wheat (problem-free ANACS coins) from the chaff (ANACS coins with problems noted).
NGC did it right by using NCS for problem coins so as to not pollute the NGC brand, and if PCGS does enter the "authentication" business for problem coins, I think it's a fine idea if and only if the holders are NOT branded PCGS.
So yes, I have no issue with there being an "authentication only" option for problem coins submitted to PCGS, or even being able to use them in a PCGS registry set -- but they should NOT come back in holders labelled "PCGS." When I search for PCGS or NGC coins, one of the things I'm looking for is a coin with no major problems (indeed, that is the main reason why I sometimes limit searches to PCGS and NGC coins). Allowing major problem coins to carry the PCGS designation would cheapen the perceived quality behind the coins backed by the brand.
Yet this could not happen with PCGS. If PCGS adopted my proposal, I doubt that any general search for PCGS would ever yield more than 5-10% in problem coins.
Of course, use of an advanced search feature eliminating matches containing the word "genuine" in the title would eliminate most of the problem coins from the seach results. But my guess is that for the coins for which it pays to slab problem coins as "genuine", most potential buyers would prefer to have those coins included in the search results. (Example: Search for "PCGS" and "Half Disme".)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Of course, use of an advanced search feature eliminating matches containing the word "genuine" in the title would eliminate most of the problem coins from the seach results. >>
Do you think? Then people could just use the keyword "PCGS" in the title with no mention of "genuine." Why condemn your coin to be seen as a problem? The "PCGS" keyword, when used honestly, already implies genuine. So why would a seller of a "genuine" whizzed PCGS coin use the word "genuine" when it would cause a lot of people to exclude that coin from their search (as a lot of people do with the word "details" for ANACS)?
If PCGS had a subsidiary "XYZ" service which slabbed the problem coins, they couldn't call an XYZ coin "PCGS". People who know coins know an XYZ coin was authenticated by the same skilled and trusted staff and backed by the same authenticity guarantee as coins with the PCGS label. But those who don't want to search on problem coins wouldn't see them (except for keyword spamming).
<< <i>But my guess is that for the coins for which it pays to slab problem coins as "genuine", most potential buyers would prefer to have those coins included in the search results. (Example: Search for "PCGS" and "Half Disme".) >>
Sure, but if they wanted problem coins, they could include "XYZ" in their search (using my example above) as:
"half disme (pcgs, xyz)"
Those wanting ONLY problem-free PCGS half dismes could just enter "half disme pcgs". If the main point is the registry, there's no reason PCGS couldn't include XYZ coins in the registry, either for some base point value or to some net grade.
This isn't true. They are helping their reputation by silent net grading and keeping the words "cleaned" off holders. I'd much
rather have a net graded XF45 that looks PQ rather than an AU50 "cleaned" label on a holder.
Free Trial
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I've been asking for this for years. My motive is that I think a collection presents better when it is housed in uniform holders, and this makes collecting more enjoyable. Of course, I tend to look at things from a collector's perspective. It's possible that someone looking at this from the perspective of a dealer in "investment coins" might see things differently.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I mean, did a memo go out overnight or something? How did this become a big topic so suddenly? Ask yourself this: how would this help the PCGS brand? Pretend for a moment that's the main consideration here. >>
It's not sudden for me. I just want all of my coins in one type of holder and have ever since I got my first slab. Call it OCD. I also happen to like PCGS holders, just wish they had a label on top.
<< <i>Instead try looking at it from the perspective of a grading company whose name is synonymous with quality. Since you're asking PCGS to do this, try looking at it from their standpoint. What is the upside for them? And let's drop the disingenuous more revenue thing from this point forward. How does this idea help the brand? >>
It helps the brand being a one stop source for everything.
It helps the general collector who uses PCGS. Imagine all of those body bagged coins and the bad feeling collectors get when they pay $30 and get a mylar flip and no explanation.
<< <i>Instead try looking at it from the perspective of a grading company whose name is synonymous with quality. Since you're asking PCGS to do this, try looking at it from their standpoint. What is the upside for them? And let's drop the disingenuous more revenue thing from this point forward. How does this idea help the brand? >>
You can't separate the two. As a publicly traded business, "more revenue" and "more profit" has to be their motive or else they are breaching the fiduciary duty to shareholders.
I could ask the same question about the low ball registry, for example, and the "cashing in" on the PO-1 fetish. How does encouraging more of the most worn-slick coins on the face of the planet -- and possibly encouraging people to wear down perfectly collectible higher-grade coins -- help the brand or its image of quality? Or how about market grading among the grading services? How does that help their image of quality compared to how it fattens the coffers in terms of resubmissions?
Dollars and cents drive all the major decisions. It just so happens that in this case, I completely agree that diluting the brand and its "problem-free coins" reputation could cause more long-term financial damage than the short-term revenue boost would justify.
graded holders look better then its cousins in other tpg holders.
those days are gone. those good looking net graded coins were cracked out and
now probably reside in a normal holder.
this whole debate is pointless and moot when you consider their is no standard
set in stone. it is like a wave in the ocean. a standard that fluctuates whenever
a few higher ups in the industry want it to.
if pcgs does start slabbing "problem coins" it will be to get more business. not
because the hobby needs it.
As a publicly traded business, "more revenue" and "more profit" has to be their motive or else they are breaching the fiduciary duty to shareholders.
bingo. going public should have been seen as a problem in my book for people
looking for a consistent grading. xf45 is now au53. out of the mouths of experts!
<< <i>
<< <i>Instead try looking at it from the perspective of a grading company whose name is synonymous with quality. Since you're asking PCGS to do this, try looking at it from their standpoint. What is the upside for them? And let's drop the disingenuous more revenue thing from this point forward. How does this idea help the brand? >>
You can't separate the two. As a publicly traded business, "more revenue" and "more profit" has to be their motive or else they are breaching the fiduciary duty to shareholders.
I could ask the same question about the low ball registry, for example, and the "cashing in" on the PO-1 fetish. How does encouraging more of the most worn-slick coins on the face of the planet -- and possibly encouraging people to wear down perfectly collectible higher-grade coins -- help the brand or its image of quality? Or how about market grading among the grading services? How does that help their image of quality compared to how it fattens the coffers in terms of resubmissions?
Dollars and cents drive all the major decisions. It just so happens that in this case, I completely agree that diluting the brand and its "problem-free coins" reputation could cause more long-term financial damage than the short-term revenue boost would justify. >>
You went so many different ways with that, I'm left clueless what your point is.
The disingenuous it-will-help-their-revenues "argument" is invalidated by the harm to the brand, see?
Now, if yer agin it, say so. If yer fer it, say so. Let's say, 25 words or less. Starting. Now.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Take me, for example - I currently have in my collection a number of rare and semi-rare coins issued under emergency conditions (insurgencies, sieges, other necessity coinage) that, due to their manufacturing and circulation, are corroded, slightly bent, scratched, etc. None of those factors detract from the value, simply because better examples do not exist in the marketplace.
I would like to pay money to PCGS to have them authenticated through their subject matter experts. Nothing else - just that. I am willing to pay whatever per coin to do so.
I don't want to send my money to any other TPG because I would rather have a uniform collection for storage / display purposes, plus, as a strong advocate for PCGS, would not feel right giving business to their competitors.
8 Reales Madness Collection
<< <i>I would like to pay money to PCGS to have them authenticated through their subject matter experts. Nothing else - just that. I am willing to pay whatever per coin to do so.
I don't want to send my money to any other TPG because I would rather have a uniform collection for storage / display purposes, plus, as a strong advocate for PCGS, would not feel right giving business to their competitors. >>
It would be good if you could send these to go to PCGS and have them authenticate them with a PCAS label (Professional Coin Authentication Service). Same slab form factor, similar label, but perhaps distinguishable by label color and with "PCAS" instead of "PCGS". PCAS coins could be used in PCGS registry sets.
You get the authentication by the same professionals, you get the protection and encapsulation you paid for, you don't give business to competitors of PCGS, you get compatible holders and registry participation, and the quality and reputation of the PCGS brand is not compromised. Sounds like a win-win to me all the way around.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would like to pay money to PCGS to have them authenticated through their subject matter experts. Nothing else - just that. I am willing to pay whatever per coin to do so.
I don't want to send my money to any other TPG because I would rather have a uniform collection for storage / display purposes, plus, as a strong advocate for PCGS, would not feel right giving business to their competitors. >>
It would be good if you could send these to go to PCGS and have them authenticate them with a PCAS label (Professional Coin Authentication Service). Same slab form factor, similar label, but perhaps distinguishable by label color and with "PCAS" instead of "PCGS". PCAS coins could be used in PCGS registry sets.
You get the authentication by the same professionals, you get the protection and encapsulation you paid for, you don't give business to competitors of PCGS, you get compatible holders and registry participation, and the quality and reputation of the PCGS brand is not compromised. Sounds like a win-win to me all the way around. >>
Exactly.
I have a "genuine" rare coin and would love to have it labeled as such by PCGS.
Half the battle in selling such a coin is proving whether it's genuine or not.
- it has been said for awhile now that a majority of the "classic" coins that should be in holders, are already in holders of some brand. This leaves some other stuff to be graded that may be questionable about whether they "deserve" to be in holders, or whether it is cost effective to do so; this leaves the rest of the submissions coming in from the 'crack out artists'. Because of this static number of coins, you can either make your grading scale a sliding one (as we've seen with gradeflation these last few years) or look to do more darkside coinage.
- the US Mint has churned out tons of stuff to slab, but many of them are turning in holders creating a headache for PCGS and dismaying collectors. many others are starting to see through the 'FS' and ultra-high-grade marketing bonanza, and steer away.
- PCGS is a publicly traded company, and as such NEEDS to generate revenue to stay afloat and keep shareholders happy. There is nothing wrong with doing something like grading 'details grading' problem coins and slabbing coins as 'Genuine'; it has worked for NCS and ANACS and is a solid business model. Should they do it is the same type slab, but with a different label/brand? I dunno', that is up to PCGS.
So, in summary; this is one marketing move that would benefit both PCGS and the collector in the long run. To me, having a 'net graded' or 'geniune' coin is not doing as much damage to the brand as clever marketing like 'First Strikes' and quota grading of ultra-moderns.
Agreed, and another bad idea will not make up for the damage done by those bad ideas. PCGS doesn't need to slab problem coins. Your need to have problem coins in a more valuable PCGS slab is of no concern to anyone but you. It increases the value of your coin at the expense of PCGS's brand and implicit guarantee of genuine by being in a PCGS slab. This thread is a thinly veiled slap at PCGS and the quality of the top brand. Since I'm the only person on this forum who feels this way, I'll back off now.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
And I suppose I could make a lot of fast money selling SGS slabbed junk and AU coins as BU+++ on eBay. But I don't. Why not? Because it would damage or even destroy my reputation in the long run and cost me money. In PCGS's case, the reason they are #1 is because THEY DON'T deal with problem coin labeled as such on slabs. In the short run, yes - it makes money, in the long run, it's just plain self-destructive.
Free Trial