Options
The Anaconda's prediction about what PCGS will soon announce
ANACONDA
Posts: 4,692 ✭
I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
I think that's what their announcement is going to be because it's a brilliant idea that makes sense for everyone (except CAC).
It makes sense for PCGS because:
- they can do (and make money on) what CAC is doing, identifying coins that are PQ.
- CAC makes them look less than optimally competent and going to +/- or to decimal grading will probably make CAC obsolete.
-millions of coins will "need" to be re-graded and that's especially good for PCGS now that the economy and hence submissions are less than optimal.
-It makes sense for the public (I hope they do one or the other) because it will help protect them by allowing them to have more accurate grading. (Consensus grading isn't as replicable or "accurate" as weighted average blind grading.)
Lastly, I predict that they will announce that they are changing the way they grade coins. No longer will they have a finalizer and two opinion givers who render opinions for the finalizer (or some permutation of that), and whose opinions can be overridden by the finalizer. They will move to a system of blind grading by three people whose grades will be averaged together (probably by weight, i.e., the more experienced grader's opinion will play into the final opinion in a more substantial way than a less experienced/knowledgeable way) to produce the final grade. It will no longer be "consensus grading" but blind weighted average grading permitting traditional integer grades but also final grades between traditional integer grades.
I'm adrian and I approve this message.
Postscript - I just read on the boards that this announcement also involves Legend. I think they are owners or part owners of CAC. I predict that somehow CAC may be bought out by PCGS who will announce a new grading scale and methodology.
0
Comments
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
peacockcoins
nice to see a post from you
<< <i>Is he offering $1000 to anyone who correctly predicts their announcement? >>
Yes... but nothing was mentioned about wire transfers to third world countries
<< <i>I don't see how PCGS could introduce a new and improved method to grading without at the same time then declaring inadaquate grading up to this point. >>
They did it on PSA Sportscards when they introduced half point grading a few years ago so there is some precedent. At first there was a lot of kicking and screaming by collectors but in the end resistance was futile. Half grades sell for a lot more money. I know not exactly apples to apples but.................Not sayin I believe that this is the announcement, but I find it plausible just the same. JMHO. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Who are the goats? >>
I don't know... some rumor I heard about a goat farm... never mind... I did not post anything...
Still nice to see you posting... it's been a while... (if you have posted recently before this thread, I must have missed it)...
No, we do not know each other... but you always had(have) a way of livening things up here... usually with some great coins... but then there was "something" else I vaguely remember...
If it's either of the predictions you mentioned, I hope it is the first one and not the second one.
Many submitters use CAC to 1) get a second opinion and/or 2) weed out problem coins and/or get CAC approval in order to make the coins eligible for bids from CAC. Therefore, I don't see how the changes you predict would have much, if any negative impact on CAC. In fact, if huge quantities of PCGS coins were resubmitted to PCGS under a new grading system, that would probably be great for CAC.
This I predicted in the original thread.
Wow, I didn't know that. That info helps a lot. OK, my first prediction is super likely to happen as opposed to the second.
David Hall is one smart dude. PCGS already did this with cards because it was smart intrinsically but also to see what happens to help them predict the outcome of split or decimal grading in the coin realm. Split grading is the way to go. Hopefully they will abandon this less than desirable "consensus grading" and adopt blind weighted average grading.
I agree with RYK that the announcement should be something bigger and not a reaction to the market forces.
<< <i>Coming up with an improved methodology of grading in 2010 isn't an admission that their previous grading system was negligently designed or implemented. They're just improving something that was an improvement to the marketplace in 1987. >>
If grading was a science I would agree (improvement is always positive). Grading isn't though and thus any declarations of enhancement is also an admittance PCGS didn't get it right the first time.
As that is not accurate and doesn't serve the best interest of the company or the customers, that won't be the announcement.
peacockcoins
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
based on the discussions of a few years ago pertaining to the "100 point grading scale" it would be illogical for them to do what you propose. consider the + and - additions you mentioned; that would add 22 points to a 70 point scale and bring us to 92(in reality we'd be talking about 31 points because we already have MS/PR60- which is AU and there's no such thing as MS/PR70+ or better than perfect). grading from MS/PR60 through MS/PR70 by a factor of .2 would add 30 points and leave us at the more sensible and logical 100 point scale.
<< <i>"They did it on Sportscards when they introduced half point grading a few years ago"
Wow, I didn't know that. That info helps a lot. OK, my first prediction is super likely to happen as opposed to the second.
David Hall is one smart dude. PCGS already did this with cards because it was smart intrinsically but also to see what happens to help them predict the outcome of split or decimal grading in the coin realm. Split grading is the way to go. Hopefully they will abandon this less than desirable "consensus grading" and adopt blind weighted average grading. >>
For what it's worth. The PSA announcement. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You prediction does neither.
peacockcoins
If PCGS stays with consensus grading but adds decimals or -/+ grading, CAC could limp along.
Under either scenario, CAC will get hurt.
My fourth prediction is that CAC will be bought by PCGS and continue to exist within PCGS. Much like AMG and Mercedes. AMG used to be a company unrelated to Mercedes. People would buy a Mercedes then ship it to AMG to have it souped up.
After PCGS merges with CAC, you can send your coins in and if you want them to possibly get a sticker, you can at the time of submission, ask for CAC approval. No longer will people have to mail coins to PCGS then wait to get them to send them to CAC. You just send your coin to PCGS and either ask for CAC consideration at that time or don't.
(I'm getting ready to go skiing but will be back later today.)
Why submit coins for regrade, if you think they barely make the grade? It would be worse to have the minus on the label.
Why submit coins for regrade, if you think they are only average for the grade?
Looks to me like PCGS would simply be putting plus signs on coins that CAC would sticker, for a lot less money. I don't believe this is the Big One.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
You prediction does neither.
why wouldn't it??
<< <i>I don't see how PCGS could introduce a new and improved method to grading without at the same time then declaring inadaquate grading up to this point. >>
Indeed
Free Trial
<< <i>Unfortunately I am in the United States right now, Colorado to be exact. >>
Good to have you back Adrian, on the forum and in the U.S.
<< <i>I don't see how PCGS could introduce a new and improved method to grading without at the same time then declaring inadaquate grading up to this point. >>
+ and - is not an admission of inadequate grading.
The name is LEE!
A few years back CU bought Gemprint which "fingerprinted" gems by using a laser and looking at the light dispersion. Can't that be adapted to coins so each coin gets a unique fingerprint? Sounds more like a 2 year effort to me.
Gemprint: how it works
Gemprint diagram
<< <i>My fourth prediction is that CAC will be bought by PCGS and continue to exist within PCGS. >>
Won't happen. CAC supposedly has open offers on the dealer market for CAC coins. This is supposedly how they become "market makers". It is their form of guarantee. This would create a huge conflict of interest within PCGS. If it were to happen, then CAC should not be buying coins but this ends the need for the sticker.
<< <i>That is a horrible idea and benefits no one but PCGS. >>
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
response to consumer demand for grades to reflect a more precise gradation between grades. I
am sure that such a move, if enacted will rapidly change values of coins. Down on X- and up on X+.
It would be an interesting time. Of course, all of us very sharp Forum Members will have our coins
get the new designation which will of course all be X+ on the new label.
However, I would still like to see a diamond shape on the X+ Coins. I thing" PCGS Diamonds", will become
the most desirable coins of the future.
Camelot
From a business standpoint it benefits PCGS tremendously with all the re-submissions. From the standpoint of the collector and the hobby I think it is terrible if something like requiring a re-grade on all coins already certified were implemented. Some words like exploitation come to mind, as well as some I can't mention here, and Hall is a smart cookie, the backlash would be bad and he knows that.
As far as your postscript, there are some mighty big ego's involved, I'm really not exactly sure how a buyout of CAC could actually occur. And if it were, with some of the principals of CAC being either bought out or absorbed into the PCGS empire, it would sure seem like a sellout on their part, having abandoned all the quality NGC material to do PCGS exclusively. Again, not a plus for the hobby. Or for their reputations. Can't see that happening either.
All just MHO of course...
John
Edited to add, requiring a regrade won't happen of course. Bad choice of words. But there will be plenty of submissions under such a scheme to upgrade.
Don't like a new feature? (if, for example, it's decimal grading) then don't use it; the coins will still trade. Want to try to "lock in" a fraction of a point? Have at it!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I'm not sure how anyone gets from "decimal grading will be offered" to "requiring a re-grade on ALL previously graded coins"
Don't like a new feature? (if, for example, it's decimal grading) then don't use it; the coins will still trade. Want to try to "lock in" a fraction of a point? Have at it! >>
You're right... requiring was the wrong term. But be assured there will be plenty of new submissions on already graded coins to try and get the next bump up the ladder if that's what happens. In that scenario, wonder if the option to leave the coin in the original holder would be offered if the coin came back on the lower end of the scale?
<< <i>That would be disappointing (if that's all it is). I expect the Big One to be proactive, new, and exciting, not reactive. >>
<< <i>Hey, Decimal grading! Great idea! Read more about it Here
Did anyone notice in 2003 Adrian responded to this thread on decimal grading and used the words "David Hall and the next big chapter in coins?"
--Jerry
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>I think PCGS will soon announce that they will soon start grading coins with either a plus sign to indicate premium quality or a negative sign to indicate low end for the grade or with nothing to indicate average for the grade. There will be 65-, 65 and 65+, etc. There will 33 ms/pf grades instead of 11. The grading of circulated coins will remain the same.
And, I predict that if that isn't what they're going to announce, then they will soon announce that they will soon start some form of limited decimal grading like adding 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9., etc., to the grading scale.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of a + sign for PQ coins would be OK but to use a negative sign would in effect create a whole group of unsaleable coins. PCGS would be CRAZY to do this!!!
Likewise the use of decimal points,,,,,, 65.1, 65.2, 65.3, 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9 would be another BIG mistake.
We all know that grading is not accurate enough to be 100% reliable between a 1 point grade let alone throw in 10 more 0.1 grades in between. For the TOP TPG company to do this would surely cause them to lose ALOT of respect and credibility within the Coin Collecting World.
The day we go to + / - signs and 65.1 - 65.9 grading is the day I start selling out!!!!
GrandAm
However, one could rationally argue that ONE point swings between subsequent gradings happen precisely BECAUSE THE COIN GRADES IN BETWEEN the two grades
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I don't know about 2 point swings (I imagine they're rare; one seldom hears about 2 or more point changes between PCGS gradings)
However, one could rationally argue that ONE point swings between subsequent gradings happen precisely BECAUSE THE COIN GRADES IN BETWEEN the two grades >>
Fair enough, but I've heard accounts of 5 point swings (in the mid to high MS grades) between PCGS gradings... just sayin'
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Implementing the +/- system would not affect business at CAC, either folks want the second opinion or they don't, regardless of how many points are used. PCGS buying CAC would also trump this benefit.
I also think that CAC may be pleased with this move by PCGS. It will have no affect on them whatsoever.
But this is not about CAC. This will be an interesting step by PCGS.