My letter to PCGS

goldenpony

I do have comments on the modern type set.

#1. "This morning we sent out a letter to all registrants who have modern type sets listed
soliciting their opinion on type set composition issues."

>>I did not receive such am email either at this address, or my address that is associated
with my PCGS user name. Just as I did not receive the poll that Mr. Hall sent out a few
months back.

#2. "The 20th Century. The world celebrated the end of the 20th Century on December,
31, 1999...and so does the PCGS Set Registry. Deal with it!"

>>That is, in my opinion, a very unprofessional statement. Just because the news media
created so much hype over the end of the century and millennium being 12/31/99, doesn't
make it right. This set should be called, The 1900-1999 Type Set.

#3. State Quarters.

>>I would like to see only one state quarter in the MS set. Of course a mixed set, MS and
PR, should include both proofs, clad and silver, plus the CS coin.

#4. The Modern set.

>>1965 would be a good date to start. However for submissions you state modern coins as
starting at 1970. So if you have a modern type set starting in 1965, or 1959, shouldn't you
also change your submission guidelines to reflect your now "Official" stance on this set?

#5. Gold sets.

>>I like that idea.

#6. Eagles.

>>Put them only in the modern set.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, now a few extra comments.

I just cannot believe tthe statement, "Deal with it." That is totally unprofessional and uncalled for. In my opinion they are totally wrong with the dates for the 20th century set. I know this sounds like a small nit picky item, but they are worng. Why do they bother to ask our opinions? Why do they even want input if they are just going to throw it aside and use a statement like, "Deal with it"?

I try to not get emotional in any post. However, I would have accepted their stance on the date issue much more had they not used that line. I was expecting much more from a company whos name includes the word Professional.

I only have one coin affected by thier short sightedness, 2000D SC quarter. Others have a few more. This just makes no sense and could be debated until we are all blue in the face.

OK, I'll stop ranting and get off my soap box.

spinaker2000

Gpony, you have some good points, esp. about the "modern" grading charges being associated with the start of the modern type set. I personally, wasn't offended by the statement "deal with it". I took it to mean that there was no wiggle room on this matter.

tradedollarnut

Unfortunately, the "deal with it" attitude appears to permeate the company with regards to many Registry issues. I've been complaining about the "Phantom Cameos" on the Eliasberg proof trade dollar set to absolutely no avail. They haven't sent me a letter saying that's the way it is, deal with it, but their attitude is obvious. In response, I decided to leave the registry and no longer send any grading fees their way. As a consumer, I'll respond with my pocketbook.

CarlWohlforth

Here is my reply to the PCGS stance on the 20'th Century:

It is easy to deal with a world that doesn't know how to count. I even got
to celebrate the dawning of a new millenium twice! I'm OK with this as long
as the world doesn't get too picky about my spelling

braddick

"...deal with it..."
This is an innocent comment. Please don't let something so trite offend you. It's nice knowing, whether you agree with them or not, PCGS is made up of personalities and not robotics.

goldenpony

I just do not think their phrasing was very professional and I let them know it. I know they are not all robots, but they still could have used a better phrase.

I just wanted to post my thoughts and also to let the powers that be how I felt. Since it is thier program, they can do what they want.

Not matter what happens, I have made up my mnd as to what will happen to my sets. I should have stuck with my Morgans.

braddick

I see where you are coming from, but after reading countless letters to the editor in Numismatic News and Coin World during this time, it's good to see PCGS nip this one in the bud. For what it's worth: NGC ends their new 20th Century Type Set Registry with the year 2000. Looks like you've got a choice.

keithdagen

I think that you have to take the whole letter into context to get PCGS's meaning from the statement in question. Further down, they "forgive" Cosmic for being a pain because he has a "cool icon."

PCGS made some very wild and weird changes to the 1959 set, and their openness to admit that they should have reconsidered those changes first and are willing to reevaluate their opinion with additional collector input is great.

Keith

goldenpony

I know they try to do what they think is best, however it isn't always the case. I didn't think it was proper to add the little comment about CD in their letter either.

Well, some people sit back and complain and do nothing, others act and speak their mind. I spoke mine and maybe a few others will. People who are loosing some heavy coins from the year 2000, need to make thier voices heard. Point is PCGS is worng on its date for a 20th century set. No matter how you put it the 20th century ended 12/31/2000. If they choose to follow the heard and go with all the old hype, then fine. At one time PCGS was the leader, not just part of the pack.


As for the NGC Registry, I'm not going to bother with doing that. I like my own idea, stick with Morgans. Heck, who knows how they'll chance those registry sets.