If PCGS has an MS67 "assumed grade" in the registry set but DNC at MS66 should they remo

seateddime

Opinions

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

LIKE I SAID BIG BOY ...... BJ TOLD ME PCGS WILL BE REVAMPING ALL THE ELIASBERG GRADES AS WELL AS OTHER FAMOUS COLLECTIONS

STEWART

seateddime

Well here is the first coin, I already emailed the result to him

bidask

<< <i>LIKE I SAID BIG BOY ...... BJ TOLD ME PCGS WILL BE REVAMPING ALL THE ELIASBERG GRADES AS WELL AS OTHER FAMOUS COLLECTIONS

STEWART >>

Revamping to what?

STONE

1 oe 3 both work equally for me.
But regarding the ?, I'd go for #3

speety

<< <i>Well here is the first coin, I already emailed the result to him >>



Hopefully you don't mean BJ lol

Bochiman

BJ is a woman

Getting my post in before this thread is NUKED

ColonialCoinUnion

Where would you get the idea that the estimated grades in these all time sets would somehow be binding on PCGS?

I gave the example in another thread of a 1783 Nova Constellatio colonial ex-Garrett which PCGS estimated as a 63 for years, while all along the coin was actually in a PCGS 64 holder.

Eventually they caught that and changed the estimated grade in the Garrett all-time set to a PCGS actual grade of 64. They did not change the slab grade to 63.

seateddime

just one option, if the grade is being used for competition purposes, it came from somewhere.

seateddime

I see 3 votes for leaving the coins as assumed grades, I am wondering why?

CoinJunkie

<< <i>What the heck does DNC mean already? >>


Did Not Cross(over).

ColonialCoinUnion

You left out the only option that is logical, that PCGS should use estimated grades until such time as they actually grade the coin in question. Then once they do, they should change the estimated grade to the actual grade that they themselves have determined with their own eyes.

And, in my experience, this is exactly how they actually do it.

ajia

You left out the only option that is logical, that PCGS should use estimated grades until such time as they actually grade the coin in question.

Assuming they ever get to actually grade the coin(s).

So, in this instance, PCGS estimates a coin as being PM67, and everyone has to compete/compare with that grade.
Someone sends in ta coin listed in one of these 'classic' sets in another TPG's holder at MS66 and PCGS won't cross....in essence stating that the coin is an MS65 at best.

So the next logical question is will they list the coin at 65, or less if they think it was lower?

Does PCGS state why it did not cross?
What if there was a problem with the coin!?
Will they list the coin as N1????

commoncents05

It could be that the coin was assumed to be MS67, but the coin has been messed with since he owned, causing a downgrade?

-Paul

leothelyon

Correct me if I'm wrong. The coin in question resides in a NGC holder that was graded MS66. Someone tried to cross the coin into a PCGS MS66 holder and it failed. And 3, before the coin was holdered by NGC, the coin was raw with an assumed grade of MS67 by PCGS for a registry set.
Now that the coin DNC, the question is, should the entire set be removed from the registry and my question is; WHY? Because it's not 100% complete? Of course, an incomplete set would not qualify as an all-time greatest set when there is another set that is !00% complete. Why not just drop the set a couple of places with it's lower (cough, cough, assumed) GPA?

Remember the infamous 1960-D PCGS MS64FS Jefferson nickel that was taken out of the game/market. The registry still shows that two Jefferson nickel collections were 100% completed with this same coin, a coin that is, "no more", nada, it was downgraded to MS64, it was not a full step coin because there were flaws in the steps. But there are many nickels that have been certified in high grade and with full steps that are not high grade or have full steps. They don't even deserve a home in a mason jar but yet there they set undeservingly in registry sets owned by collectors who wouldn't know a high quality coin if it ran up and bit them in the butt. What are those people so proud of?


Leo

rld14

I think they should yank these theoretically graded sets, if this isn't a clear argument for it then I don't know what is.

So they say this coin should be a 67, but when they see it in hand they won't even give it a 66, then this lends absolutely NO credibility to ANY of the grades in these historical sets whatsoever. And I think that this in effect questions the credibility of the registry itself, think about it, PCGS is known for having high standards, but in this case it shows damning evidence that these are fantasy grades.