Options
Is PCGS getting too expensive?
ajaan
Posts: 17,125 ✭✭✭✭✭
Now that TrueView is going to cost a minimum of $20/coin is PCGS getting too unrealistic in their fees? I just got a package back from PCGS today. The actual postage on the box was $14.50. PCGS charged me $28.30 for shipping. Nice profit there guys. Don't tell me there is more than just postage involved in shipping, I know that, isn't that why we pay a $8/order service charge now?
I'm really beginning to rethink submitting my coins to PCGS.
I'm really beginning to rethink submitting my coins to PCGS.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
0
Comments
<< <i>Is PCGS getting too expensive? >>
They are (and have been for a while) for me. I had to pay $30 per coin when I submitted, and then around $24 return shipping (I sent it ins./reg. for $14). The clincher is when they want seperate return shipping if you have to mail several submission forms (on the same submission) because your coins don't all fit in the same category. Bummer....
yes.
<< <i>I LOVE ANACS holders... >>
This might be the new thing.... seems they'll let you pay one return shipping price for two coins even if they don't go on the same form.
That is just my humble opinion of course.
1-Dammit Boy Oct 14,2003
International Coins
"A work in progress"
Wayne
eBay registered name:
Hard_ Search (buyer/bidder, a small time seller)
e-mail: wayne.whatley@gmail.com
I'm a bit reluctant to post a reply to this thread, because I disagree a bit with the OP. I also have come to respect your posts and, as much as any one can "like" someone they've never met, I like you. Which probably means, I enjoy posts by the mushroom icon more than most posts. Please don't be offended by my reply, it isn't meant to offend, but it will disagree with you...
PCGS appears to be trying to strike a balance between two counter and juxtaposed forces that are competing as profitable ideas.
1. PCGS is, and wants to remain, the preeminent TPG. This means they want expensive coins in their holders. Higher fees drive out the cheap coins from the submission pool.
2. PCGS wants to legitimately support the hobby. I believe this to be true from their ongoing support this forum, their collector club program, their sponsorship of various events and from the statements from their senior management. They brought back the bulk submission program for the collector club and did so at very reasonable costs.
So force 1 drives up submission fees decreasing demand but increasing profit. Force 2 drives down submission fees increasing demand for the service and therefore profit.
PCGS has an obligation to their shareholders to balance these two forces to strike a healthy and profitable niche in the market.
Is $10 too high to replace a broken slab? Oh, plus a $5 handling fee. Oh, plus shipping fees (minimum of $16). Oh, plus shipping fees to PCGS...
I dunno. I know no company I have ever worked for could process an RMA for less than $700 in paperwork and overhead costs.
PCGS probably will keep $22 or something out of my fees.
Is a $20/coin fee too high? Maybe from a collector's point of view. I want to slab a 1938-D toned 5C. I just sent it in two days ago. It makes NO ECONOMIC sense for me to do so. Nor does it make any sense for PCGS to want that coin in their holder. But PCGS allowed me to send it in because they support collectors and thus a market place for coins in their holders. Will PCGS make any money from my submission? I doubt it. I can't imagine that any company can process a $25 order that involves receiving an item, storing and queing it for operations, moving it to the floor, grading it, moving it to a slabbing station, carefully putting the think in plastic (which they must procure, inventory, pay for etc), maybe pass the completed slab through QA, then onto shipping could possibly turn a profit on that order.
Regardless of the order size, they PCGS still will have the same administrative overhead and fixed costs (building, utilities, etc).
As a guy in my home office, I can pine for $5 grading fees, but as a guy that ropes on a tie in the morning and does his bit during the day to run a business that supports incomes for 50 families (yes, a small business I know), I am all to aware of the costs of running a business. At the end of the day, it's all about making money to stay in business.
I like PCGS for two reasons. First because I think they have excellent grading standards (and a nice holder). Second, because I think they are executing on a business model that is fair to me as a customer and fair their employees.
If I thought for a second PCGS was sending people home with "investment banker" bonus's or otherwise fleecing their customers I'd never do business with them. But I don't think that.
PCGS has a business model that allows us little fellas that enjoy the top rated TPGS products and services for the cost of a dinner out. As hobbies go, it seems pretty reasonable.
The OP said, "Don't tell me there is more than just postage involved in shipping, I know that, isn't that why we pay a $8/order service charge now?"
I'm guessing the answer is NO.
It costs my company more when we ship more stuff. That means our "handling and packaging" fees are on a sliding scale. We don't make jack from these fees, but we to expect our customers to cover their shipping (and handling and packaging) costs. We could just charge a single fee, say to cover a pallet and packaging and labor for a "medium" sized order. Our little costumers would feel ripped off, our large customers would be getting a deal and our medium customers would feel "okay." The part where our little customers would feel "pissed off" is why we don't do that. PCGS could just charge a $22 or $25 handling fee, but they don't. Did PCGS "make money" on the OP's S&H? I hope so or they'd be a charity, not a business.
Let's, for fun, play with some numbers.
PCGS bills shipping on a sliding scale to cover costs. And in a company costs include a margin for profit. So PCGS got $28.30 for shipping, spent $14.50 with the USPS, Probably spent another $3.50 on materials.
What does their labor look like? I dunno... Maybe warehouse guy is paid $15/hr + 30% for benefits (insurance, paid time off, sick time, workman's comp, Social Security), so call it $19.50 per hour.
What's the burden on labor... Burden being costs of folks not directly working on production (overhead), costs of facilities etc? For shop like PCGS that is mostly operating on a job shop model with an active marketing department, I'd guess burden on production is something on the order of 85% (could be twice that depending on management salaries and the size of the marketing budget).
So now the labor doing shipping is costing PCGS around $36/hr.
How long does it take to grab a box, stuff in a coin, tape it up, slap on a label and fill out "registered" paperwork? Let's call it 10 minutes. So $36/6 = $3.60 in labor for shipping.
So we have $28.30 - $3.50 - $3.60 - $14.50 = $6.70 profit. Is that too much?
Let see, if "shipping guy" makes $6.70 in EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) in 10 minutes and he works eight hours a day with 100% efficiency that means "shipping guy" makes the company $321/day. Dial back the efficiency to a more nominal 70% and "shipping guy" makes PCGS shareholders $225/day in EBITDA. That's like $100K per year in EBITDA for "shipping guy." That is a skin of your teeth business model (okay, a lean business model to be nice).
I'm sure there is someone on this board with much more fiducial savy than I have. I bet we could start a thread that could model PCGS's business costs and profits and get us in the right ballpark. After all, they are a public company and do file with the SEC. And we can have an idea of the pop report deltas from year to year. Costs are pretty easy to guess at and fees are stated. That would be a fun (and likely poofed) thread.
<< <i>Zee.... you want me to believe that PCGS is the Ferrari of TPG's and yet still believe they are in it for the "little man"? You can't have your cake and eat it to. >>
Turns out this is exactly the point. PCGS wants to be the Ferrari of TPG's but the market isn't big enough to sustain a TPG that only courts Ferrari priced coins. So they have to promote the hobby with the appearance (which includes a pricing model) for being in it for the little man.
PCGS is a business. They are "in it" for the shareholders.
But to be successful they have have to protect their brand (high end coins where a couple of bills in grading fees doesn't matter a hill of beans) AND they have to carve a niche where the market is large enough to sustain an ongoing revenue stream (market to the masses).
I'm not having my cake and eating it. Neither are they.
We are just watching a business try to maintain a high end brand in a market driven by collectors with middle class incomes.
If this were a car company, there would be Lexas and Camery slabs. But it's coins so there is only one slab. So we get to watch marketing for position (upcoming Vegas PCGS only show) and adjustments to pricing structures.
Since we're on the darkside forum, I'll relate this to darkside coins.
It seems to me that PCGS, should it want to become more competitive with NGC on high end darkside coins, would lower their prices to attract more business. The shipping costs, handling fees, increased TrueView prices and other things will not help with those holding expensive world coins and considering which TPG to have them slabbed with. Because of these factors, they will continue to choose the NGC who the market already overwhelmingly trusts to house expensive world coins, and PCGS will continue to slide in this area.
With PCGS being a publicly traded company, I certainly understand the balancing act they must perform in keeping shareholders happy, while ensuring that they remain a player in the grading game; but when your chief competition is already way ahead in so many areas, privately held (i.e. flexible) and willing offer more services, it doesn't make too much sense to price yourself out of the market.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
<< <i>Yes it is Don, but what choice do you really have? NGC's hideous new holders and their really unnecessary tight grading at a time when PCGS is already bringing more money in world coins compared to other TPGs? TrueView is optional anyway and still worth it for $250+ coins. JMHO. >>
Dimitri,
Aside from Canadian coins, and US-Phil issues, there is little data to suggest that PCGS coins bring more money as a whole. In fact, the opposite is true when considering which service holds the greater number of scarce and rare world coins. PCGS loves to tout (especially the new President, in posts on the US coin forum) that a TPG is judged "best" when the lion's share of rare coins are in a company's holders, and auction results are the key barometer they claim. If this is to be an accurate statement, consider the following world coin auction results during this last "bull" market.
PCGS six-figure coin total sold at auction: 6
PCGS seven-figure coin total sold at auction: 0
NGC six-figure coin total sold at auction: 94
NGC seven figure coin total sold at auction: 4
.....and I know the first response from some may be, "well, maybe the rare PCGS coins are being slabbed and not sold?". That is not the case either, in the vast amount of the NGC graded six figure coins I have cross-checked with PCGS pop reports, PCGS hasn't graded any. The same is true of the seven figure coins.
I know both services love to tout auction results as a barometer to their dominance, and if this is a trusted measure, PCGS has a long, long way to go toward gaining acceptance by anyone but US rare coin collectors.
My point is this; if you're only slabbing less than 10% of the rare world coins compared to your major competitor, and already losing market share on a regular basis, I can't see how rate hikes, handling fees and other things are going to allow you play catch up.
I will start with PCGS... I believe their grading is good, fairly consistent and I think they try hard to add value, support and the ability to communicate within the hobby by having a forum like this as well as a registry set. I will not comment on the registry set for afew reasons: 1. I was initially very critical of the registry because I thought it was too much of a show for the few driven by numbers based on an obsession of being ranked the best; 2. Honestly, and a number of years later, I can see that it is not always about the top grade and being number 1- but it can be about sharing, setting a goal and having something help you get where you set out to get... and I don't think that is wrong or really hurting the hobby. PCGS has made an effort to grade world coins and expand in areas that they really ignored for too long and there seems to be a concentrated effort to make up for lost ground.
As for the photo charges, I believe there should be a lower amount for this service for certain coins. As much as I like the TrueView service, I believe it would be far more successful if the message as to its availability was clear. And I mean to be critical on this point and I hope someone reads this part- I have submitted coins and asked about the service and was told on more than one occasion that the service ended. Then, it seems it was available, but you had to ask for it but when one asked, it was not available. This is no way to promote this service... and yes, I have used it and I would have used it more if it appeared to be a viable option at the time of submission.
PCGS should consider a multi- coin holder to compete with the Multi-coin holder NGC has used. There is nothing better than a British Maundy set in a single holder. I would have thought there would be interest in a multi-coin holder for US Proof Sets... but that is an issue for the otherside.
NGC grades well, however, I have experienced some inconsistency. I appreciate their service, the spectrum of the coins that they accept for grading and their older holders are fine. The new holders are not working for all types of coins... so what should NGC do? Simple... re-introduce the older holder and give collectors the choice of what holder they want... it would kind of be like what Coke did when they introduced a new coke that did not meet expectations and then re-introduced Coke Classic. Well, NGC should do the same thing. Sorry, but the new holders are nothing short of a disaster for smaller coins.
Finally, both services really need to consider and use an original services designation to promote originality within the hobby... I have been saying and writing about this for years and I have been ignored for years. Considering the spectrum of what would make TPG more valuable to the hobby, the last suggestion trumps the reast of what has been written here today.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
For me, it comes down to affordability combined with quality service. I don't much care about the rest of it....
<< <i>both services really need to consider and use an original services designation to promote originality within the hobby... I have been saying and writing about this for years and I have been ignored for years. Considering the spectrum of what would make TPG more valuable to the hobby, the last suggestion trumps the reast of what has been written here today. >>
That's a neat idea.
First I've heard it, but I think you may have something there. Why not, they put stars on them or green stickers.
edit to add: I must have missed it somehow. I'll do a search here for more info, I'd love to see the response you've gotten from others on this.
I have sent letters to NGC, PCGS, and ANACS as well as written about this on the PCGS FORUM... Mostly on the US coin forum, but it did surface here years ago.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Zar's Ebay
The Trueview cost is getting a bit silly, as is their handling of the service. This in the face of how many folks on the forum that offer photo services at significantly lower rates?
And to fluff up shipping and handling charges to make up in other areas in an attempt to claim low prices on core services... we don't like that when people do it on ebay, why would it be any more welcome here?
I just think they need to be more creative and more flexible. I've long thought coinkat's suggestion is a winner - why damn a nice coin with a rim ding or an 8 reales with an old light cleaning, it's still a nice coin - and this is an area where the CAC thing might be more useful ("nicer than most cleaned genuine 8Rs!"). Trying to erect barriers to maintain an elite brand is one thing, but as Doogy points out, how well is that really going?
One thing I can say for sure though - I sure am glad that the forum overlords are flexible enough to allow us this critical discussion
My wantlist & references
<< <i>...One thing I can say for sure though - I sure am glad that the forum overlords are flexible enough to allow us this critical discussion
Agreed. Forum overlords are even keeled as overlords go.
Okay... I have enjoyed my time here...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i> PEOPLE ARE BUYING HOLDERS AND NOT COINS >>
This has been happening ever since slabbing began. Anyone who thinks differently should look at the auction results for various coins and various value guides. It is especially true for Canadian coins in ICCS holders. Holders are bought for the name on the slab, not the coin. If one wishes to sell a coin in the future this only makes sense. That is just the way things evolved.
Zeebob, I respect your position and glad you stated it.
'kat, dream on, I don't think it'll ever happens eventhough it is one of the best ideas I've heard.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
<< <i>Did PCGS "make money" on the OP's S&H? I hope so or they'd be a charity, not a business. >>
I would hope they did not make a profit on Shipping and Handling!
How can any business claim a need for profit on shipping and handling, when the sole reason for even charging S/H is to make sure that S/H costs do not cut into the profit already garnered on fees charged for the service they provided.
S/H is Shipping and Handling and nothing else; otherwise it is S/H/P. And if the post office can deliver the product cross country for $24, then PCGS certainly can get it out of their building and to the neighborhood post office for much less. And the process of packaging it for delivery to the local Post Office? That is the handling part.
By the way, the holders from my most recent submission, (the NEW ones), they arrived with scratches. What's up with that?
<< <i>Zeebob, for the most part I agree with your comments. I don't agree with some. ...
I would hope they did not make a profit on Shipping and Handling!
By the way, the holders from my most recent submission, (the NEW ones), they arrived with scratches. What's up with that? >>
I understand your point. I respectfully disagree. If a person touchs a job, they have to be a profit center, they are in practice part of the Production. Not production folk (management and marketing mostly) don't contribute to profit.
Your slabs have scratches? HEY PCGS - What's up with that? I hope you folks at PCGS pay this guys shipping both ways and reslab his coins - sheesh.
(that would be a warrenty repair at my company)
<< <i>
Dimitri,
Aside from Canadian coins, and US-Phil issues, there is little data to suggest that PCGS coins bring more money as a whole. In fact, the opposite is true when considering which service holds the greater number of scarce and rare world coins. PCGS loves to tout (especially the new President, in posts on the US coin forum) that a TPG is judged "best" when the lion's share of rare coins are in a company's holders, and auction results are the key barometer they claim. If this is to be an accurate statement, consider the following world coin auction results during this last "bull" market.
PCGS six-figure coin total sold at auction: 6
PCGS seven-figure coin total sold at auction: 0
NGC six-figure coin total sold at auction: 94
NGC seven figure coin total sold at auction: 4
.....and I know the first response from some may be, "well, maybe the rare PCGS coins are being slabbed and not sold?". That is not the case either, in the vast amount of the NGC graded six figure coins I have cross-checked with PCGS pop reports, PCGS hasn't graded any. The same is true of the seven figure coins.
I know both services love to tout auction results as a barometer to their dominance, and if this is a trusted measure, PCGS has a long, long way to go toward gaining acceptance by anyone but US rare coin collectors.
My point is this; if you're only slabbing less than 10% of the rare world coins compared to your major competitor, and already losing market share on a regular basis, I can't see how rate hikes, handling fees and other things are going to allow you play catch up. >>
Doug,
it's hard to argue with the numbers that you posted and these are clearly on NGC's side. One reason that has severely contributed to NGC's lion's share of the market, is the ultra friendly dealer prices that they've always had, and the majority of coins are submitted by dealers. On regular world coin submissions, NGC was charging dealers $25 per coin, compared to $40 that PCGS was asking from dealers and collectors alike until a year ago.
Regarding the TrueView service, I believe that the real reason that the service existed but did not appear in forms, is that PCGS and Phil in particular, got sick and tired of bulk US bullion submissions that were asking for individual photos of each and every MS69 bullion coin at the advantageous $5 per coin price. I assume that the increase to $20 has brought the desired results there.
I don't think that PCGS is losing the small market share that they have, but I agree that they often take the wrong steps to increase it. Reading topics such as this one would certainly be very helpful to them. A lot of collectors, including myself, are paying considerable amounts on a yearly basis, just to crossgrade their NGC coins to PCGS, (mostly keeper coins), but I have yet to hear about someone doing it the other way round. And since most collectors are not as anal as myself about the holder's look, they must have other reasons for paying all that money.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
<< <i>Regarding the TrueView service, I believe that the real reason that the service existed but did not appear in forms, is that PCGS and Phil in particular, got sick and tired of bulk US bullion submissions that were asking for individual photos of each and every MS69 bullion coin at the advantageous $5 per coin price. I assume that the increase to $20 has brought the desired results there. >>
A good gimmick to get around that would be to base pricing on existing populations - $5 per coin if the pop is 20 or less, $10 up to pop 40, $20 over that.
My wantlist & references
<< <i>
<< <i>
Dimitri,
Aside from Canadian coins, and US-Phil issues, there is little data to suggest that PCGS coins bring more money as a whole. In fact, the opposite is true when considering which service holds the greater number of scarce and rare world coins. PCGS loves to tout (especially the new President, in posts on the US coin forum) that a TPG is judged "best" when the lion's share of rare coins are in a company's holders, and auction results are the key barometer they claim. If this is to be an accurate statement, consider the following world coin auction results during this last "bull" market.
PCGS six-figure coin total sold at auction: 6
PCGS seven-figure coin total sold at auction: 0
NGC six-figure coin total sold at auction: 94
NGC seven figure coin total sold at auction: 4
.....and I know the first response from some may be, "well, maybe the rare PCGS coins are being slabbed and not sold?". That is not the case either, in the vast amount of the NGC graded six figure coins I have cross-checked with PCGS pop reports, PCGS hasn't graded any. The same is true of the seven figure coins.
I know both services love to tout auction results as a barometer to their dominance, and if this is a trusted measure, PCGS has a long, long way to go toward gaining acceptance by anyone but US rare coin collectors.
My point is this; if you're only slabbing less than 10% of the rare world coins compared to your major competitor, and already losing market share on a regular basis, I can't see how rate hikes, handling fees and other things are going to allow you play catch up. >>
Doug,
it's hard to argue with the numbers that you posted and these are clearly on NGC's side. One reason that has severely contributed to NGC's lion's share of the market, is the ultra friendly dealer prices that they've always had, and the majority of coins are submitted by dealers. On regular world coin submissions, NGC was charging dealers $25 per coin, compared to $40 that PCGS was asking from dealers and collectors alike until a year ago.
Regarding the TrueView service, I believe that the real reason that the service existed but did not appear in forms, is that PCGS and Phil in particular, got sick and tired of bulk US bullion submissions that were asking for individual photos of each and every MS69 bullion coin at the advantageous $5 per coin price. I assume that the increase to $20 has brought the desired results there.
I don't think that PCGS is losing the small market share that they have, but I agree that they often take the wrong steps to increase it. Reading topics such as this one would certainly be very helpful to them. A lot of collectors, including myself, are paying considerable amounts on a yearly basis, just to crossgrade their NGC coins to PCGS, (mostly keeper coins), but I have yet to hear about someone doing it the other way round. And since most collectors are not as anal as myself about the holder's look, they must have other reasons for paying all that money.
Dimitri,
While i'll certainly agree with you that NGC's dealer pricing has been friendlier, thus the lion's share of the market in their corner for the usual material, the higher end stuff isn't being submitted at those pricing tiers for either services. I know for a fact that for six-figure coins and up, the submission price is far more than the price you quoted, which i'm assuming you're aware of. these submitters know one thing for sure; at this rarified level, only NGC is emerging as the dominant favorite and they are paying high submission fees to have them properly researched, graded, and attributed.
It is interesting that you state the crossing of coins from one service to another; the same is happening from PCGS to NGC. A slew of former PCGS 'top pops' are now in NGC holders, via the Millennia sale and the even more amazing recent NGSA sale click here
Why would these collectors and dealers spend a bunch of money at high priced grading tiers having their five figure PCGS coins crossed? They knew that NGC has the overwhelming auction result advantage in five figure and up coins the world over. I've personally done the same thing with 3 five-figure coins I've had recently. The market seems to show the majority of these coins in NGC holders by an overwhelming margin, so I crossed them from PCGS to NGC. IF it ever becomes apparant that PCGS can compete and outdo NGC with auction results for these coins, I'll cross them back; i'm interested in investment return for these and what service has the best track record in regards to them.
For four figure coins and below, the competetion between the services is much more apparant. This is generally where a lot of collectors play, including myself, so preferences can be based on emotion, holder type, or other things not directly related to immediate investment return. While this type of submission tier is popular, it doesn't do much for promoting their motto that PCGS is "the standard for the rare coin industry", when the only sector of the market that you're competitive in are the coins that trade on a daily basis and don't receive the kind of bragging rights that you normally see the two services rave about on their websites. Perception in this market is key; just like some US coin collectors that only consider PCGS and NGC as the players, and may only relegate their common MS64 Morgan stuff to ANACS for grading, the same thing can happen with world coins if one service continues to be viewed as only receiving the lower priced material for their holders.
Lastly, I would like to see more competition between the two services, at all levels. I think that both have a lot to offer, and i appreciate Ron's input on our forum and the even keeled nature that he brings to our hobby. I do certainly agree that there are good thoughts in this thread, from auction result comparisons, to the great idea from Kat, and all of the rest of the sage input from our forum members.
Doug
edit to add: I agree 100% on the TrueView; poor Phil must have felt like pulling his hair out after getting a batch of bullion to photograph. They all look the same at MS/PF 69/70, so that can be much fun. Heck, I wonder if he was ever tempted to use a stock photo for each bullion submission
<< <i>Just an FYI.... the admins are watching!!!! >>
So? Perhaps it is good they are watching. Honest questions and expressions shouldn't threathen PCGS.
To tell the truth I'll probably still submit my Canadian coins to PCGS because their grading is more consistant and closer to ICCS standards than NGC. Plus, the new NGC holder turns me off big time. I will not use TrueView anymore but I really haven't used them much once it increased to $10/coin which I think was a fair price. I think the $20/coin will only results in coins valued $200+ being imaged.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
Personally, I think the new ANACS holders were extraodinarily well done, and the only thing keeping me from using them, at this time, is that NGC and PCGS have a better reputation, and thus, my coins will be viewed more favorably by others when I decide to sell.
Now I will admit, the new NGC holders are much better than the old fatties, where small coins could get
at an angle and lost among all that thick white plastic, (what is that, Delrin?), but I believe they would have been better off selecting a clear plastic alternative having much finer precision tabbing for the smaller coins.
After all, how is having a tab extend into the devices any better at holding the coin in place than one which barely protrudes beyond the rim? I mean, the whole thing is entombed with a clear plastic barrier, so how would the coin get knocked free of more precise and less obtrusive tabs? And if they can make the outside clear plastic, why does the inner part have to be opaque white?
Now I am just ranting, so I should stop.
<< <i>Hey, if NGC were to redo their holders to look more like ANACS new holder, I'd consider using them. I want my coins athenticated and graded by a company that has a track record, but I also want to be able to look at them without thinking to myself, "What a fugly looking holder!
Personally, I think the new ANACS holders were extraodinarily well done, and the only thing keeping me from using them, at this time, is that NGC and PCGS have a better reputation, and thus, my coins will be viewed more favorably by others when I decide to sell.
Now I will admit, the new NGC holders are much better than the old fatties, where small coins could get
at an angle and lost among all that thick white plastic, (what is that, Delrin?), but I believe they would have been better off selecting a clear plastic alternative having much finer precision tabbing for the smaller coins.
After all, how is having a tab extend into the devices any better at holding the coin in place than one which barely protrudes beyond the rim? I mean, the whole thing is entombed with a clear plastic barrier, so how would the coin get knocked free of more precise and less obtrusive tabs? And if they can make the outside clear plastic, why does the inner part have to be opaque white?
Now I am just ranting, so I should stop. >>
agreed on the new ANACS holder, they are exceptionally well made! NGC has the clear plastic prongs, but they use them for the NCS brand. Funny that the coins that are supposed to be without problems (NGC), sometimes get parts of the rims obstructed; while the problem coins get the transparency of having clear prongs. Seems to me they didn't it bass ackwards. But....they are good about listening to the customer and coming out with new things, so maybe they will do it. Although I will say that on larger coins, the pronged holders are great, especially with NGC's optional scratch resistant slab coating they just came out with last month, cures annoying scratches on slabs that drive many (including me!) nuts.
I really like the PCGS slabs, but do feel the small coins are kinda lost in the clear surrounds; not a bad as NGC's old whte slabs that made small coins look like they were embedded in a bar of soap, but you'd think there is a better way.
...and since were opining about photography and TrueView, I wish PCGS (and ANACS too) would follow NGC's lead in photographing every coin they slab for their database. This could help with the whole counterfeit issue, at least in some cases. If all the major TPGs did it, it may help in identification purposes (especially in regards to expensive coins)
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>Doug, I wasn't aware that NGC photographed every coin they slab for their database. That is a fantastic idea, particularly if the photograph is high enough quality to be able to capture unique diagnostics of the coin. This will aid not only in counterfeiting, but in determining if a coin has been resubmitted. And while I think about it, this could be a way to keep track of each individual coin; whereas I've read about the debate of micro-engraving a unique ID number for each coin, it would be just as effective and non-invasive to assign a serial number (which is already done) to each coin and if it comes up again as a cross-over or resubmission, the previous details can be retrieved from the database.
they started photographing each coin a couple months ago. I think they only have the intent of using it to help identify the coin in the event of a counterfeit; maybe if a questionable slab/coin turns up in a major auction, they can look back at the real coin photo; may be the best scenario i can think of
<< <i>...Personally, I think the new ANACS holders were extraodinarily well done... >>
Has the ANACS slab been redesigned since introducing the one that many complained was too flimsy?
<< <i>
<< <i>...Personally, I think the new ANACS holders were extraodinarily well done... >>
Has the ANACS slab been redesigned since introducing the one that many complained was too flimsy?
yup. that one you're referring to quite frankly.....sucked. I cracked out three of them, just using my hands with not alot of force. the new one is quite the opposite; they are using one that is almost identical to the SEGS slab. It is far more bulletproof than either the PCGS or NGC slabs; almost to the point of being too hard to crack coins out.
<< <i>...Personally, I think the new ANACS holders were extraodinarily well done... >>
Has the ANACS slab been redesigned since introducing the one that many complained was too flimsy?
<< <i>yup. that one you're referring to quite frankly.....sucked. I cracked out three of them, just using my hands with not alot of force. the new one is quite the opposite; they are using one that is almost identical to the SEGS slab. It is far more bulletproof than either the PCGS or NGC slabs; almost to the point of being too hard to crack coins out. >>
Thanks; I guess I mised that one. I do have one with an angled top. Is that it? I wouldn't call it particularly flimsy, but certanly not an equal to the PCGS or NGC, let alone the SEGS. Does anyone have pics of this new ANACS slab? Thanks. -Preussen
Edited to add: nevermind, I saw it on the ANACS site. I think it's the one I have. Better than the original flimsy one, but I'm not impressed. JMO