If we are to consider a PQ designation, shouldn't we also consider one for "Dreck"?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
Surely, if there are only two possibilities - PQ or not PQ - then "Not PQ" will become code for "Low End", or "Dreck". And if that comes to pass, all of the "Not PQ" coins will effectively have been downgraded, likely leading to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for coin collectors.
To avoid that possibility, it may be important for a TPG to not introduce "PQ" without simultaneously introducing another "qualifier" - perhaps "DR" - for the low end coins. If they do that, things won't be so bad for coins graded before HRH's "Big Bang".
Agreed?
To avoid that possibility, it may be important for a TPG to not introduce "PQ" without simultaneously introducing another "qualifier" - perhaps "DR" - for the low end coins. If they do that, things won't be so bad for coins graded before HRH's "Big Bang".
Agreed?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Many collectors think they have PQ,and some rightly so. Sellers especially think their stuff is PQ; Double especially for many ebay sellers.
Any negative sign attached to say a 65 will only communicate that the 65- is better than the 64+ but not as good as the 65. (Eveyone wants a B- as opposed to a C+)
Theoretically, a 65 could be a 65.0, a 65.1, a 65.2, a 65.3, a 65.4, a 65.5, a 65.6, a 65.7, a 65.8 or a 65.9.
Don't you want to know which one it is more like especially when 64s are selling for $20 and 66s are selling for $180? Is the coin worth just a little more than $20 or almost $180?
Also, if you think decimal grading is eventually coming, don't you want to know now what your coin might be graded later as?
So, yes allow not just for 65s, but also for 65- and 65+. (et. cetera)
Of course, if you want to facilitate the sale of coins that are worth only a little more than $20 for amounts close to $180, then this grading sloshiness is what you want.
Coin collectors don't run PCGS (coin dealers do).
And yes, I know that most collectors don't want decimal grading but that is true only because they have not grasped the concept of implementing decimal grading only after ditching consensus grading for blind weighted average grading.
That can be done in any number of ways.
The boldest way would be to introduce a new holder as part of the Big Bang.
Another way would be to use H, M and L grade suffixes for High, Medium and Low. In which case, if there's no suffix, you'll know the coin was graded before the Big Bang.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I would prefer a eye appeal designation not associated with a coins grade instead of pq that suggests high end for the grade. Like a + for positive eye appeal and - for negative eye appeal. >>
I agree, we dont need to get crazy and say a coin is a 66.7. Something for superior eye appeal would be great like ngc does with the star
Maybe Genuine holders will get net grades.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
There are millions of coins that are not starred by NGC, or CAC approved, and dealers and collectors still buy and sell them with little worry they are buying dreck.
I would agree that CAC has done a good job in the areas where a substantial number of Saints were really overgraded, or messed with. But only a very small % of all coins have been evaluated by CAC. Are all the remaining coins low grade? No, of course not.
Is the 1817/4 half in AU 50,or the infamous 1804 dollar in AU 58, not CAC-ed, dreck? No, but many would argue correctly, that both coins are overgraded.
If PCGS gives us the chance to have superior coins for grade designated as such, so be it. But the majority of all coins of a certain date/grade, are not in the upper eschelon. The lack of a designation does not require a minus for the bottom 10%.
The public loved it, it is and was good for sellers and buyers and I bet they made millions from resubmissions of coins looking for stars.
<< <i>Your argument is sound; they should have a "-" if they're going to have a "+" (and for other reasons).
Any negative sign attached to say a 65 will only communicate that the 65- is better than the 64+ but not as good as the 65. (Eveyone wants a B- as opposed to a C+)
Theoretically, a 65 could be a 65.0, a 65.1, a 65.2, a 65.3, a 65.4, a 65.5, a 65.6, a 65.7, a 65.8 or a 65.9.
Don't you want to know which one it is more like especially when 64s are selling for $20 and 66s are selling for $180? Is the coin worth just a little more than $20 or almost $180?
Also, if you think decimal grading is eventually coming, don't you want to know now what your coin might be graded later as?
So, yes allow not just for 65s, but also for 65- and 65+. (et. cetera)
Of course, if you want to facilitate the sale of coins that are worth only a little more than $20 for amounts close to $180, then this grading sloshiness is what you want.
Coin collectors don't run PCGS (coin dealers do).
And yes, I know that most collectors don't want decimal grading but that is true only because they have not grasped the concept of implementing decimal grading only after ditching consensus grading for blind weighted average grading. >>
If they can't always tell the difference between a 64 and a 65 why would you have ANY faith in a 64.4 vs a 64.6?
Edit: And who appointed the grading companies to tell us which it is?
<< <i>
<< <i>I would prefer a eye appeal designation not associated with a coins grade instead of pq that suggests high end for the grade. Like a + for positive eye appeal and - for negative eye appeal. >>
I agree, we dont need to get crazy and say a coin is a 66.7. Something for superior eye appeal would be great like ngc does with the star
There is no way to know if the .7 was due to eye appeal or not. There are plenty of starred coins with no so hot EA.
<< <i>Surely, if there are only two possibilities - PQ or not PQ - then "Not PQ" will become code for "Low End", or "Dreck". And if that comes to pass, all of the "Not PQ" coins will effectively have been downgraded, likely leading to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for coin collectors.
To avoid that possibility, it may be important for a TPG to not introduce "PQ" without simultaneously introducing another "qualifier" - perhaps "DR" - for the low end coins. If they do that, things won't be so bad for coins graded before HRH's "Big Bang".
Agreed? >>
How about nice, real nice and not so nice? Frankly, if a coin is fugly, lacks EA, is full of carbon spots or other distracting stains or marks; PCGS should refuse to holder it and send it back in a genuine holder or net graded down as junk.
I agree. This would never fly.
But, don't coin collectors run coin dealers??? Therefore, indirectly, coin collectors ultimately run PCGS.
In other words, if there were no coin collectors, there would be no coin dealers, and therefore there would be no PCGS.
So its not so much as what would we want but what could it be? I guess it could be for used rd/rb or dm/dmpl or something different not yet mentioned.
It only shows two valid options for the digit a zero or a one.
Digit 14 valid data 0-1 Grade modifier 0 - False, 1 – True (future use).
I guess we will find out soon...
Of course there are more than just the two possibilities of PQ or dreck.
<< <i>A "dreck" designation would never work in the hobby. Dealers would not want them in their cases. They would crack them out and resubmit them until they got what they wanted or sell them raw.
Of course there are more than just the two possibilities of PQ or dreck. >>
I would think the goal would be to get the dreck out of the hobby permanently and not foist it off on some sucker.
<< <i>PCGS shud charge the high rollers more and take the money and buy up the dreck and melt it. >>
I've long said the U.S. Treasury should have a bounty on it. Pay a premium and get it back. It isn't like we can't print up the money for it.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If only, say, 5% of coins get the PQ designation, then it won't necessarily depress values of the "normal" coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>A "dreck" designation would never work in the hobby. Dealers would not want them in their cases. They would crack them out and resubmit them until they got what they wanted or sell them raw.
Of course there are more than just the two possibilities of PQ or dreck. >>
I would think the goal would be to get the dreck out of the hobby permanently and not foist it off on some sucker. >>
Removing garbage coins from the market would be extremely difficult, expensive, and unnecessary. There's quite an active market for garbage.
Gary
Dreck - isn't that why they came out with a "genuine" holder. To make sure you have an at least REAL piece of dreck?
<< <i>If we are to consider a PQ designation, shouldn't we also consider one for "Dreck"? >>
Of course. Dreck that is PQ should be designated as such.
I agree with him. Every coin has a place and some history attached to it.
If by "dreck" you are trying to describe an over graded coin then please choose another word as "dreck" in this use doesn't make sense!
"
dreck
/drɛk/ Show Spelled[drek] Show IPA
–nounSlang.
1.
excrement; dung.
2.
worthless trash; junk.
Use dreck in a Sentence
See images of dreck
Search dreck on the Web
Also, drek.
Origin:
1920–25; < Yiddish drek; c. G Dreck filth; cf. OE threax, ON threkkr excrement
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dreck
<< <i>IMHO, to call any coin a "dreck" is just plain ignorance- quote by dizzyfoxx
I agree with him. Every coin has a place and some history attached to it.
If by "dreck" you are trying to describe an over graded coin then please choose another word as "dreck" in this use doesn't make sense!
"
dreck
/drɛk/ Show Spelled[drek] Show IPA
–nounSlang.
1.
excrement; dung.
2.
worthless trash; junk.
Use dreck in a Sentence
See images of dreck
Search dreck on the Web
Also, drek.
Origin:
1920–25; < Yiddish drek; c. G Dreck filth; cf. OE threax, ON threkkr excrement
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dreck >>
The use of this term is more of an insight as to how some collectors view others, at least that's how I see it.
<< <i> Agreed, as long as we know which coins were graded before
That can be done in any number of ways.
The boldest way would be to introduce a new holder as part of the Big Bang.
Another way would be to use H, M and L grade suffixes for High, Medium and Low. In which case, if there's no suffix, you'll know the coin was graded before the Big Bang. >>
The "new" 22 digit barcode would be the "Big One" jump off or close.
a 63 PQ with sticker may someday be worth more than a 64 dreck?
or am I missing your point?
could you please tell the story of how you submitted the same buffalo nickel many times - I have forgotten some of the details
Why does anyone need PCGS to tell us which coins are P.Q.
In the same breath why does anyone need Laura Sperber to tell us which coins are Dreck ?
And what about David Halls fabulous expression "The coin is a liner" . For those that don't know it is a coin on the line between two grades.
Stewart
<< <i>Why does anyone need PCGS to tell us which coins are P.Q.
In the same breath why does anyone need Laura Sperber to tell us which coins are Dreck ?
...,
Stewart >>
For starters, I am not aware that Laura is labeling coins as dreck.
Secondly, more collectors are harmed by unknowingly purchasing low quality coins than by unknowingly purchasing high quality coins. In fact, a DQ designation may be more beneficial to collectors than a PQ designation.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why does anyone need PCGS to tell us which coins are P.Q.
In the same breath why does anyone need Laura Sperber to tell us which coins are Dreck ?
...,
Stewart >>
For starters, I am not aware that Laura is labeling coins as dreck.
Secondly, more collectors are harmed by unknowingly purchasing low quality coins than by unknowingly purchasing high quality coins. In fact, a DQ designation may be more beneficial to collectors than a PQ designation. >>
I agree,
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Here is a novel thought.......How about taking an interest in the hobby and deciding for yourself which coin is PQ and which isn't. The TPG's already have given their opinion as to the grade, if I'm so inept at viewing coins that I can't even tell if a coin is nice or not, I should find another hobby. Gees.......the way things are headed, pretty soon the G'ment will be telling us how to manage our own health.........oh wait
Are you and expert in detecting altered surfaces on silver and copper coins? Are you an expert in detecting puttied gold coins? In the past even the tpg's have been fooled and thats why today unfortunately some of these coins are in slabs today. For the record, I am not an expert.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
And the sticker has already been designed!
<< <i>i predict that the BigAnnouncement will be that from this point on PCGS will focus oin one thing and one thing only. they will grade a coin and not try to assign any value to it.........................period. no qualifiers, no designations, just a simple numeric grade. >>
Sounds like the status quo. Not exactly the big one.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is a novel thought.......How about taking an interest in the hobby and deciding for yourself which coin is PQ and which isn't. The TPG's already have given their opinion as to the grade, if I'm so inept at viewing coins that I can't even tell if a coin is nice or not, I should find another hobby. Gees.......the way things are headed, pretty soon the G'ment will be telling us how to manage our own health.........oh wait
Are you and expert in detecting altered surfaces on silver and copper coins? Are you an expert in detecting puttied gold coins? In the past even the tpg's have been fooled and thats why today unfortunately some of these coins are in slabs today. For the record, I am not an expert. >>
Who said anything about being an expert? You don't need to be an expert to decide if a coin is nice for the grade. Remember, we are talking about coins that have already been graded. I'm pretty sure if someone gave you 10 slabbed MS64's, you could sit down and put them in order as to which was strongest for the grade and which was weakest for the grade. Sure some of the coins in the middle of that 10 would be hard to tell apart, but there would deffinately be a top coin and a bottom coin.
read my PM and tell me if you still think the same.
of course it won't happen and you should have understood that i meant it tongue in cheek.
Here is why the gold sticker works at CAC: They don't give them out very often.
If they gave them out often, any coin without the "PQ" modifier would be assumed dreck, and values would fall.
This is why I doubt we'll ever see decimal grading, or a space for a grade qualifier at PCGS, EVER.
Empty Nest Collection
The beauty of the original grading system was that once given a grade, all coins of that grade were "generally" equal. And the majority of them generally traded as such. Decimal grading would blow this "concept" to pieces. In one respect it is the backbone of TPG grading....at least to date.
And what about David Halls fabulous expression "The coin is a liner" . For those that don't know it is a coin on the line between two grades.
Fine. But if it's a liner then stick to the lower grade - 64.9 is just fine.
Who said anything about being an expert? You don't need to be an expert to decide if a coin is nice for the grade. Remember, we are talking about coins that have already been graded. I'm pretty sure if someone gave you 10 slabbed MS64's, you could sit down and put them in order as to which was strongest for the grade and which was weakest for the grade. Sure some of the coins in the middle of that 10 would be hard to tell apart, but there would deffinately be a top coin and a bottom coin.
Let's face it, the majority of people in the hobby cannot grade technically on the level of the TPG's. In the same way most cannot look at a diamond and certify its quality....yet how many fork over money for jewelry not having a clue as to the technical quality, but only what they are told by the sales person. And taken a step further how many are truly qualified to certify a quality used car before spending thousands on it? Yet, it happens every day. If you're lucky you have a good mechanic who tells you it's a good car to buy. I don't know why slabs are considered so different.
When buying coins most don't have the luxury of having 10 generally equivalent coins to choose from. And photographic memories of what we saw before are in short supply. Even if one did rank those 10 slabbed MS64's and felt good about it, the odds are that it would not match the ranking of the TPG. You might focus on marks to the detriment of luster or vice versa. You might use a glass where a TPG might not. There are so many variations that's there's a reason why someone grading 8 hours per day for many years has skills that 99% of us don't have. For the 1% of collectors/investors here that do have those skills in all areas (grading, authentication, altered surface or AT detection, etc.), it doesn't help the 99% of the hobby that 1% of the top collectors can probably grade at the TPG level or nearly so.
roadrunner
please excuse me.
<< <i>A PQ designation will only continue the downtrend in prices that CAC has already started. The NGC "star" feature only denoted an eye appealing coin and said nothing about it's technical grade.....hence no damage - only upside. Continuing to break down the grading spectrum into decimals or other levels of pq/dreck will only serve to depress prices as people start to toss out their junk (ie anything less than pq or very solid will be considered crap). It doesn't matter that CAC has seen few coins. They've seen enough to come up with a percentage that gives people an idea on what they're probably holding. Just look at MS65/66 Saints.
The beauty of the original grading system was that once given a grade, all coins of that grade were "generally" equal. And the majority of them generally traded as such. Decimal grading would blow this "concept" to pieces. In one respect it is the backbone of TPG grading....at least to date.
And what about David Halls fabulous expression "The coin is a liner" . For those that don't know it is a coin on the line between two grades.
Fine. But if it's a liner then stick to the lower grade - 64.9 is just fine.
Who said anything about being an expert? You don't need to be an expert to decide if a coin is nice for the grade. Remember, we are talking about coins that have already been graded. I'm pretty sure if someone gave you 10 slabbed MS64's, you could sit down and put them in order as to which was strongest for the grade and which was weakest for the grade. Sure some of the coins in the middle of that 10 would be hard to tell apart, but there would deffinately be a top coin and a bottom coin.
Let's face it, the majority of people in the hobby cannot grade technically on the level of the TPG's. In the same way most cannot look at a diamond and certify its quality....yet how many fork over money for jewelry not having a clue as to the technical quality, but only what they are told by the sales person. And taken a step further how many are truly qualified to certify a quality used car before spending thousands on it? Yet, it happens every day. If you're lucky you have a good mechanic who tells you it's a good car to buy. I don't know why slabs are considered so different.
When buying coins most don't have the luxury of having 10 generally equivalent coins to choose from. And photographic memories of what we saw before are in short supply. Even if one did rank those 10 slabbed MS64's and felt good about it, the odds are that it would not match the ranking of the TPG. You might focus on marks to the detriment of luster or vice versa. You might use a glass where a TPG might not. There are so many variations that's there's a reason why someone grading 8 hours per day for many years has skills that 99% of us don't have. For the 1% of collectors/investors here that do have those skills in all areas (grading, authentication, altered surface or AT detection, etc.), it doesn't help the 99% of the hobby that 1% of the top collectors can probably grade at the TPG level or nearly so.
roadrunner >>
Authentication is a different story. Since the coin is already slabbed, it's been authenticated, and therefor has the guarentee of the TPG. Grading is subjective and I typically use the stated grade on the holder as a guideline and typically put the coin into 1 of 5 categories; overgraded, low end for the grade, average for the grade, high end for the grade, undergraded. If you are buying top tier slabs, then authentication is not a concern, if the coin is ever determine to be fake, the TPG will be more than happy to take that coin of your hands and out of the marketplace.