Should PCGS include "Genuine" Coins in the Population Reports?

commoncents05

?

dogwood

No, it should be a non-category. Did they ever include body bags? Same thing.

illini420

well since they can be added to registry sets, I think they should report a pop.

could be very helpful to know how many "genuine" coins are out there if trying to complete a set and willing to take a "genuine"

would also be interesting information on very low mintage coins such as early proofs.

PerryHall

If they slab them, they should be in the pop report. It would be interesting to see how many problem key date coins there are in some series where there are a lot of problem coins (e.g. 1793 and 1799 large cents).

OKbustchaser

Do the coins exist? If so, then they are part of the population and should be counted.

coinkat

Yes... no question

Why?

I believe it will add some helpful thought as to the percentage of key dates that for whatever reason can not be graded

ColonialCoinUnion

Yes.

InternetJunky

<< <i>Yes... no question

Why?

I believe it will add some helpful thought as to the percentage of key dates that for whatever reason can not be graded >>

lope208

I think it's a good idea, BUT one point of note-- how many "Genuine" coins are
going to get cracked out for resubmission?

This could alter the numbers quite a bit if it's done on a large scale.
It would be great if everyone returned the labels after the fact, but
how often does that get done?

MidLifeCrisis

Yes

...for all the good reasons already stated (and for none of the bad ones).

Zoins

Yes. Please add them PCGS.

ricko

Yes, of course. It would be ridiculous NOT to include them. Cheers, RickO

BECOKA

Yes, it is very important to research. It would be nice to know especially for coins with small populations.

They should track the genuine coins by genuine code, i.e. how many are cleaned, bent etc...

Batman23

<< <i>Yes, it is very important to research. It would be nice to know especially for coins with small populations.

They should track the genuine coins by genuine code, i.e. how many are cleaned, bent etc... >>




I like this Idea.

The biggest problem I see will be the accuracy of the numbers. The Genuine holders are going to have the highest crackout and resubmission rates of any holder.

BECOKA

<< <i>

<< <i>Yes, it is very important to research. It would be nice to know especially for coins with small populations.

They should track the genuine coins by genuine code, i.e. how many are cleaned, bent etc... >>




I like this Idea.

The biggest problem I see will be the accuracy of the numbers. The Genuine holders are going to have the highest crackout and resubmission rates of any holder. >>



Maybe but that kind of thing is considered for the high end coins that have been submitted a dozen times as well.

commoncents05

I agree, I think they should be included. I recently sent in 2 Matte Proof Lincolns, both of which were slabbed Genuine, and I think it is important to include them in the Population. Not only MPLs, but for any key dates, or coins with low populations. I hope PCGS is listening....

-Paul

fivecents

Yes. They should be in the Pop reports.

topstuf

Yes, but in a small ugly font.

DDR

Yes. In addition to all the good reasons listed above, it might give us an intersting picture of which series or individual coins have more problems than others.

northcoin

Of course PCGS could apply the Barry Bonds rule. Add an asterick.

OKbustchaser

<< <i>


I like this Idea.

The biggest problem I see will be the accuracy of the numbers. The Genuine holders are going to have the highest crackout and resubmission rates of any holder. >>



The numbers have absolutely no basis in reality anyway. Why should this change simply because genuine holders are cracked out but still counted?

Steve

For what it's worth, I sent a similar request to the Q & A Forum a couple of weeks ago. So far, no response. Steve

dizzyfoxx

No, they should not.