I'm at a loss to understand the significance of your statement regarding forcing anyone to grade right away? We should have waited? For what? Were we to forecast this change?? Please explain that statement.
The fact is, we've already paid them very well to have them graded. The shipping and hassle should be more than enough to have them re-considered for PL/DM.
My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
Maybe PCGS should put this idea of grading PL and DMPL on hold, just like APMEX had to do with selling pucks, because new rules to make everything fair for everyone simply gets in the way--------BigE
I'm at a loss to understand the significance of your statement regarding forcing anyone to grade right away? We should have waited? For what? Were we to forecast this change?? Please explain that statement.
The fact is, we've already paid them very well to have them graded. The shipping and hassle should be more than enough to have them re-considered for PL/DM.
My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
Maybe PCGS should put this idea of grading PL and DMPL on hold, just like APMEX had to do with selling pucks, because new rules to make everything fair for everyone simply gets in the way--------BigE >>
I'm assuming that your're being more sarcastic then serious. That said, APMEX's original decision to suspend puck sales was of course not their decision at all, it was rightfully forced on them by The Mint. Their decision to not sell the remainder after all this time (assuming that the remainder have not left via the back door) is inexplicable.
PCGS can of course do whatever they want. It's their product and their decision. I, like several others, was simply expressing my opinion. I think that good customer service would dictate free or substantially reduced re-submission. The latter would be a reasonable compromise. It will be interesting to see what actually happens.
<< <i> My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
It was a wise business decision to grade these with the PL/DMPL---but they should have been grading the coins accurately from the beginning. PCGS has a lot to profit from the new distinction, and those who gave them business early on shouldn't get the shaft. Personally, that seems kind of cold. In a good faith more, I think it would be a good idea to offer to regrade for free. After all, it's a few months of submissions over the course of ten+ years of ATB releases. It's a relative drop in the bucket to repair some some discontent with the early-submitting customers. Of course, nobody is forcing them to do this, but it would show the community they have some amount of integrity and that they're trying to be consistent.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
Interesting discussion. I had hopes of PCGS making this move but didn't think it would happen.
My first submission was mailed 02/01/2011 and received into PCGS' system 02/07/2011. I hope I made the PL/DM cutoff and should know in a few days. If none of my coins make PL or DM? Then I'll need to call and find out if they were considered but they probably are.......
Maybe this situation should be handled like how stores give back the difference if a price change occurs in the first 30 days after purchase. I believe the grading companies should do something to make a regrade affordable if not free due to the profound implications this change has on the whole market. Why should we as customers have any reason to think this change would come when we waited almost two years for it on the UHR's and it has been known to be a policy at PCGS that they don't give PL's to moderns. From reading the information here in the weeks before this change I never thought this would happen. I don't have coins that were graded by PCGS but am still pretty mad about this just due to the fact that it messes up all the current ATB's that were graded already.
I look at this decision by pcgs to grade these PL and DMPL as a great benefit to collectors and flippers alike, even though I/we may have lost a little in submission fees, we will gain much more. This divides the pucks into subsets, some affordable, and some expensive. It will double the registry action. It is effectively like reducing the mintage, the value of everyones puck holdings just went up 20-25%. Lets not complain about the past, just be happy we are handed a whole new division of these coins to collect/market, whatever your game is. The glass is half full my friends, lets not slow things down at pcgs by creating more rules. Just in case-even though I wanted to wait for my DG's to get here, I am sending first thing Monday, if there is lots of complaints to customer service they may just take PL/DMPL away. Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World-------------------BigE
<< <i>I look at this decision by pcgs to grade these PL and DMPL as a great benefit to collectors and flippers alike, even though I/we may have lost a little in submission fees, we will gain much more. This divides the pucks into subsets, some affordable, and some expensive. It will double the registry action. It is effectively like reducing the mintage, the value of everyones puck holdings just went up 20-25%. Lets not complain about the past, just be happy we are handed a whole new division of these coins to collect/market, whatever your game is. The glass is half full my friends, lets not slow things down at pcgs by creating more rules. Just in case-even though I wanted to wait for my DG's to get here, I am sending first thing Monday, if there is lots of complaints to customer service they may just take PL/DMPL away. Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World-------------------BigE >>
Alright, I guess I can live with it when you put it like that
Edit: But I am still scared by your dip comment from earlier.
For the people who think PCGS should regrade these for free, I think it is an unrealistic thought. First off, what is the graded POP, 600, total? At $20 each, that is $12K. It's mice nuts for most medium to large businesses. It is not even worth considering, it would cost more to discuss it than the actual act of regrading. There are real costs involved with this and judging by PCGS's earnings statement, the margins are not that great. Get over it and send in the worthy coins, it is worth it for you to pay the increase because it is you that will enjoy the reward, not PCGS, from the designation. There is no one here that does any business that matters, that will stop doing with PCGS because they came up with a new designation after you sent your coins in and won't do it for free after the fact. Buck up and pay the $100, for a potential $500 bump, or choose not to, it is up to you.
<< I have yet to see the Washington side on any of these 5 oz ATB coins with true frost and real mirrored fields. I am only guessing here, since I have only held a 100 or more in hand, that the standards are less for these ATB coins. >> Here you go...only used my cell phone camera...from Fidelitrade.
Nice, that looks like a deep mirror proof like. I guess I was getting my DCAM's and DMPL's mixed up.
For those who contemplating cracking out NGC 69's and sending them to PCGS thinking they will get 69 PL's I'd be very careful! You may end up with PCGS 67's with no PL designation. That's a $300 mistake waiting to happen. PCGS is way tighter then NGC!! Don't think PL are going to be easy at PCGS.
Just got grades back for my 2 Amark sets sent to NGC. 8 MS69s, including a Yosemite MS69 PL, 1 MS 68 Yellowstone and a Grand Canyon that was left ungraded. Pretty psyched with the MS69 full set and the PL. Booyah
<< <i>Just got grades back for my 2 Amark sets sent to NGC. 8 MS69s, including a Yosemite MS69 PL, 1 MS 68 Yellowstone and a Grand Canyon that was left ungraded. Pretty psyched with the MS69 full set and the PL. Booyah >>
Hey Ibex- What happened to the 70's that were supposedly made?
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade.
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Great idea about going to the booth at a major show. I can't believe that you got those 62s. One of the coins in my last submission was horrible (wanted a reference set) and got a 65.
Wowser! As the former head of the world's first grading room, I would say that you probably got a grader whose girlfriend had a headache the night before! Ouch! TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Guys - Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks. 10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67. After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded. I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys. Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's. Yes you read it right. I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation. This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations. Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result. Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Wow. That is frightening. I can't believe that you were so off on your initial evaluations. There has to be some explanation. I would be less surprised had you reported eight 70s and two 69s. It is hard to believe that you got eight 62s. The odds of that actually happening have got to be astronomical...
<< <i>For those who contemplating cracking out NGC 69's and sending them to PCGS thinking they will get 69 PL's I'd be very careful! You may end up with PCGS 67's with no PL designation. That's a $300 mistake waiting to happen. PCGS is way tighter then NGC!! Don't think PL are going to be easy at PCGS. >>
No question about that!!! An NGC 69 will beat a PCGS 68PL and likely a PCGS68 DMPL (perhaps?).
I have two PCGS 69s that w/very deep mirrors. One of them, the Yos is just awesome. I turned down a $2850 offer on it a few weeks ago because I thought that it was an incredible, PL looking coin. I'm glad that I did as I'm sure that it will get DMPL.
The question is, will a re-submission of a PCGS 69 have a chance to come back as a 68?? The Yos still have (by a small margin) the lowest % of 69s.
Also, I'm certainly not complaining about the new change, just suggesting that they should give a substantial break to those who want to resubmit for DM/PL consideration. In addition, I'd hope that this is the only thing reconsidered, i.e., not having 69s come back as 68s.
I'll find out the deal on all of this on Mon.
I have four very nice, cherry-picked PL looking pucks at NGC. I'm going to have them sent back ungraded. Likely won't be the only one requesting this on Mon.
I also have two sealed, FS eligible UHRs going to PCGS on Mon. I'd imagine that if I was lucky enough to get a PL and or DM FS they'd bring moon money on Ebay.
In fact, any sealed UHR should do better on Ebay now.
Still kills me that they're melting all of the rest of the UHRs. Such fantastic coins.
<< <i>Guys - Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks. 10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67. After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded. I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys. Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's. Yes you read it right. I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation. This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations. Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result. Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Sounds to me like you pissed someone at ngc off...bad
Great BST experiences: abitofthisabitofthat, silvercoinsdude, gerard, coinfame, mikescoins, wondercoin
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Can you post pics? Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks...
Srsly. That is bizarre, something isn't right, a mistake must have been made, somewhere, somehow.
I've been over my coins with a loupe five different times. I still can't decide whether to submit or dump them. Two I think are great, six are pretty good, two have 'issues'. one coin has scratches on the obverse rim, another has weird tiny white gunk on GW's neck.
And the Amark slab distorts / diminishes any ability to discern what the coin really looks like.
My gut says I should dump these two sets and call MTB and see if I can buy another fresh set "for my Dad". If I can't decide what to do, then I think I need to dump.
For a change of pace, I've been doing the Bald eagle nest web cam thing. Pretty cool - two eggs as of now, saw the she-eagle shudder and contort last nite as she dropped the second egg into the nest. Usually not a lot going on, just an eagle sitting on a nest, but he-eagle and she-eagle take turns nesting, hatching at the end of March I believe, then it's game on, check it out if you want, an up close perspective of the national bird -
That is a cool camera, didn't realize there were more out there. Here are two nest cameras in San Jose and San Francisco that watch Peregrine Falcons. So far I think each bird has laid one egg, with possibly two more coming.
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer.
<< <i>That is a cool camera, didn't realize there were more out there. Here are two nest cameras in San Jose and San Francisco that watch Peregrine Falcons. So far I think each bird has laid one egg, with possibly two more coming.
Cool! A Peregrine falcon would be a nice design on a puck. Full dive bomb mode and another bird hovering in the wind looking for prey. I've already digressed from the the thread topic of pucks, so I'll stop now.
I have a set of amark pucks at pcgs...received 2-17 under express submission. They still are not graded. I'm hoping its because they had to be reviewed for pl
Great BST experiences: abitofthisabitofthat, silvercoinsdude, gerard, coinfame, mikescoins, wondercoin
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer. >>
I believe that moderns are not graded quite the same way, and that sometimes the folks grading moderns may not be the "top" graders that some others are. The grades, and decisions about AT/NT, make me wonder this as I view different coins.
<< <i> Have there been any spotting issues showing up on these yet? Maybe they are just being cautious.
. >>
Is anyone who is holding these long term doing an acetone dip prior to slabbing or putting away? >>
I gave my APMEX set an acetone bath, as I will do with my other sets, it removed a film I could see on the surface. In another strange twist to the "Puck Saga", A Mark sets will be the first to spot if it occurs on these coins because they will have been submitted in their original First Strike holders, so we have to wonder was the 18.00 gift per coin really a gift at all--------------BigE >>
Big E, what is your preferred dip method ? Acetone>Alcohol rinse>distilled water rinse and hair dryer Acetone>distilled water rinse and hair dryer or just acetone dip ? Also how long did you dip in acetone just for spot protection? thanks!
This fiasco just reinforces a basic rule of advice... buy the coin--not the holder! To me, a 69 does not let the seller off the hook in taking good photos.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
<< <i>That is a cool camera, didn't realize there were more out there. Here are two nest cameras in San Jose and San Francisco that watch Peregrine Falcons. So far I think each bird has laid one egg, with possibly two more coming.
Boise has the a captive breeding program as well as a nesting box. They nest a bit later due to the weather. We did use the Peregrine on our State quarter.
I bet those unhappy with the revised PCGS 2010 puck grading criteria would get their comments read if you tell him.
I doubt he reads this puck thread, but I bet he reads comments to his blog!
PCGS adding additional designations after initially grading w/out a PL / DMPL designation, then allowing the PL / DMPL 45 days later is thin ice to drill a hole and fish from.
So at this point if CNT or Jack Hunt offered sets for sale would anyone buy? Or would you assume everything has been cherrypicked and all of the ungradables are left?
Question. I have 1 a-mark set and 1 from ft.If I want to send both sets of coins in do I have to send two separate forms or just the one and mark both regarade and new grade?
<< <i>So at this point if CNT or Jack Hunt offered sets for sale would anyone buy? Or would you assume everything has been cherrypicked and all of the ungradables are left? >>
I would still buy, somewhat based on what spot silver is doing. Remember, the APs cannot, right now anyway, mark these up if silver goes up. They could be an incredible deal, even if they have been cherrypicked.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
<< <i>Question. I have 1 a-mark set and 1 from ft.If I want to send both sets of coins in do I have to send two separate forms or just the one and mark both regarade and new grade? >>
My understanding is that you will need to use two forms. You can not mix regrade, raw and/or crossover on the same form.
<< <i>So at this point if CNT or Jack Hunt offered sets for sale would anyone buy? Or would you assume everything has been cherrypicked and all of the ungradables are left? >>
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer. >>
Let's see some pics of these low pop coins...I still think you gotta be BSing...62's...I say impossible...
Comments
<< <i>Yes, REALLY, WITHOUT QUESTION.
I'm at a loss to understand the significance of your statement regarding forcing anyone to grade right away? We should have waited? For what? Were we to forecast this change?? Please explain that statement.
The fact is, we've already paid them very well to have them graded. The shipping and hassle should be more than enough to have them re-considered for PL/DM.
My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
Maybe PCGS should put this idea of grading PL and DMPL on hold, just like APMEX had to do with selling pucks, because new rules to make everything fair for everyone simply gets in the way--------BigE
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, REALLY, WITHOUT QUESTION.
I'm at a loss to understand the significance of your statement regarding forcing anyone to grade right away? We should have waited? For what? Were we to forecast this change?? Please explain that statement.
The fact is, we've already paid them very well to have them graded. The shipping and hassle should be more than enough to have them re-considered for PL/DM.
My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
Maybe PCGS should put this idea of grading PL and DMPL on hold, just like APMEX had to do with selling pucks, because new rules to make everything fair for everyone simply gets in the way--------BigE >>
I'm assuming that your're being more sarcastic then serious. That said, APMEX's original decision to suspend puck sales was of course not their decision at all, it was rightfully forced on them by The Mint. Their decision to not sell the remainder after all this time (assuming that the remainder have not left via the back door) is inexplicable.
PCGS can of course do whatever they want. It's their product and their decision. I, like several others, was simply expressing my opinion. I think that good customer service would dictate free or substantially reduced re-submission. The latter would be a reasonable compromise. It will be interesting to see what actually happens.
<< <i>
My family managed to maintain a successful business for 5 generations - not very common. Part of a business decision is factoring in good will - not being penny wise and dollar foolish. Letting the original submitters re-submit for PL/DM consideration for free or for a nominal ($10) fee would buy far more in good will then it would cost from it's customers. Their costs would be minimal and the good will would go far.
I'd think that the comments from posters here would be a great gage of sentiment for PCGS on this issue.
As a business decision, I think that this would indeed be a no-brainer. I have no doubt that they'll be hearing from a lot of their customers in very short order about this very subject.
In addition, PCGS should want consistency as much as we do in their grading of these pucks. DM/PLs should be correctly labeled as such, not just the ones sent from mid - Feb and later. >>
It was a wise business decision to grade these with the PL/DMPL---but they should have been grading the coins accurately from the beginning. PCGS has a lot to profit from the new distinction, and those who gave them business early on shouldn't get the shaft. Personally, that seems kind of cold. In a good faith more, I think it would be a good idea to offer to regrade for free. After all, it's a few months of submissions over the course of ten+ years of ATB releases. It's a relative drop in the bucket to repair some some discontent with the early-submitting customers. Of course, nobody is forcing them to do this, but it would show the community they have some amount of integrity and that they're trying to be consistent.
My first submission was mailed 02/01/2011 and received into PCGS' system 02/07/2011. I hope I made the PL/DM cutoff and should know in a few days. If none of my coins make PL or DM? Then I'll need to call and find out if they were considered but they probably are.......
Here's to hoping for the best!
<< <i>I look at this decision by pcgs to grade these PL and DMPL as a great benefit to collectors and flippers alike, even though I/we may have lost a little in submission fees, we will gain much more. This divides the pucks into subsets, some affordable, and some expensive. It will double the registry action. It is effectively like reducing the mintage, the value of everyones puck holdings just went up 20-25%. Lets not complain about the past, just be happy we are handed a whole new division of these coins to collect/market, whatever your game is. The glass is half full my friends, lets not slow things down at pcgs by creating more rules. Just in case-even though I wanted to wait for my DG's to get here, I am sending first thing Monday, if there is lots of complaints to customer service they may just take PL/DMPL away. Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World-------------------BigE
Alright, I guess I can live with it when you put it like that
Edit: But I am still scared by your dip comment from earlier.
Sour grapes !
Get over it !
Resubmit if you want the extra cash they will bring.
I am sure it does not involve all of the coins you submitted.
In other words, cherry pick them, that's what I would do.
You are making plenty on these coins so don't be so greedy.
PCGS actually made a quick decision on these, look how long it took on the UHR's.
Nice, that looks like a deep mirror proof like. I guess I was getting my DCAM's and DMPL's mixed up.
<< <i>Just got grades back for my 2 Amark sets sent to NGC. 8 MS69s, including a Yosemite MS69 PL, 1 MS 68 Yellowstone and a Grand Canyon that was left ungraded. Pretty psyched with the MS69 full set and the PL. Booyah >>
Hey Ibex- What happened to the 70's that were supposedly made?
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade.
<< <i>Guys -
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Great idea about going to the booth at a major show. I can't believe that you got those 62s. One of the coins in my last submission was horrible (wanted a reference set) and got a 65.
As the former head of the world's first grading room, I would say that you probably got a grader whose girlfriend had a headache the night before!
Ouch!
TD
<< <i>Guys - Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks. 10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67. After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded. I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys. Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's. Yes you read it right. I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation. This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations. Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result. Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Wow. That is frightening. I can't believe that you were so off on your initial evaluations. There has to be some explanation. I would be less surprised had you reported eight 70s and two 69s. It is hard to believe that you got eight 62s. The odds of that actually happening have got to be astronomical...
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
<< <i>For those who contemplating cracking out NGC 69's and sending them to PCGS thinking they will get 69 PL's I'd be very careful! You may end up with PCGS 67's with no PL designation. That's a $300 mistake waiting to happen. PCGS is way tighter then NGC!! Don't think PL are going to be easy at PCGS. >>
No question about that!!! An NGC 69 will beat a PCGS 68PL and likely a PCGS68 DMPL (perhaps?).
I have two PCGS 69s that w/very deep mirrors. One of them, the Yos is just awesome. I turned down a $2850 offer on it a few weeks ago because I thought that it was an incredible, PL looking coin. I'm glad that I did as I'm sure that it will get DMPL.
The question is, will a re-submission of a PCGS 69 have a chance to come back as a 68?? The Yos still have (by a small margin) the lowest % of 69s.
Also, I'm certainly not complaining about the new change, just suggesting that they should give a substantial break to those who want to resubmit for DM/PL consideration. In addition, I'd hope that this is the only thing reconsidered, i.e., not having 69s come back as 68s.
I'll find out the deal on all of this on Mon.
I have four very nice, cherry-picked PL looking pucks at NGC. I'm going to have them sent back ungraded. Likely won't be the only one requesting this on Mon.
I also have two sealed, FS eligible UHRs going to PCGS on Mon. I'd imagine that if I was lucky enough to get a PL and or DM FS they'd bring moon money on Ebay.
In fact, any sealed UHR should do better on Ebay now.
Still kills me that they're melting all of the rest of the UHRs. Such fantastic coins.
<< <i>Guys -
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Sounds to me like you pissed someone at ngc off...bad
<< <i>For the people who think PCGS should regrade these for free, I think it is an unrealistic thought... >>
I'm not even sure it has to be a re-grade, just a DMPL evaluation. Should be pretty quick and easy. Certainly not a $30 service.
<< <i>Guys -
Dont be assured at any grades you may get on these pucks.
10 submitted to NGC on 1/31. All had very reflective prooflike surfaces except for 2. I grade them in the 68/69 category for most, maybe 1 - 67.
After many, many years of modern submissions to NGC and PCGS, and I will also say at least 10 re-grades over the years that 80% upgraded, I am shocked at how these coins graded.
I dont know what went wrong over there at NGC, but they must be pulling in folks with no grading ability at all. My young son can grade better than those guys.
Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's.
Yes you read it right.
I have another submission pending now, all ER, I believe high end, better than the group before. These should all grade in the 68/69 category, if not, they are off to PCGS. It is also unfortunate that I hear the rumor that NGC has effectively "shut off the spicket" on PL designation.
This type of behavior, if proves to be reasonably likely, gives the TPG's a bad rep. It shows that when the volume of certain grades or designations get's too high, they start to rethink thier criteria and get tougher on certain grades and designations.
Wrong answer. Doesnt show much objectivity in the process. A flawed result.
Dont put up with it. Take the coin in holder along with another of the higher grade side by side to the service at a reviewing booth at a large show. Call them out in person. Then resubmit for regrade. >>
Can you post pics? Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks...
<< <i>[Eight MS62's; 2 MS61's. No PL's. >>
Whaaaatttt?
Srsly. That is bizarre, something isn't right, a mistake must have been made, somewhere, somehow.
I've been over my coins with a loupe five different times. I still can't decide whether to submit or dump them. Two I think are great, six are pretty good, two have 'issues'. one coin has scratches on the obverse rim, another has weird tiny white gunk on GW's neck.
And the Amark slab distorts / diminishes any ability to discern what the coin really looks like.
My gut says I should dump these two sets and call MTB and see if I can buy another fresh set "for my Dad". If I can't decide what to do, then I think I need to dump.
For a change of pace, I've been doing the Bald eagle nest web cam thing. Pretty cool - two eggs as of now, saw the she-eagle shudder and contort last nite as she dropped the second egg into the nest. Usually not a lot going on, just an eagle sitting on a nest, but he-eagle and she-eagle take turns nesting, hatching at the end of March I believe, then it's game on, check it out if you want, an up close perspective of the national bird -
bald eagle nest cam
San Francisco, CA: Link
San Jose, CA: Link
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer.
<< <i>That is a cool camera, didn't realize there were more out there. Here are two nest cameras in San Jose and San Francisco that watch Peregrine Falcons. So far I think each bird has laid one egg, with possibly two more coming.
San Francisco, CA: Link
San Jose, CA: Link >>
Cool! A Peregrine falcon would be a nice design on a puck. Full dive bomb mode and another bird hovering in the wind looking for prey. I've already digressed from the the thread topic of pucks, so I'll stop now.
They still are not graded. I'm hoping its because they had to be reviewed for pl
<< <i>
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer. >>
I believe that moderns are not graded quite the same way, and that sometimes the folks grading moderns may not be the "top" graders that some others are. The grades, and decisions about AT/NT, make me wonder this as I view different coins.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Have there been any spotting issues showing up on these yet? Maybe they are just being cautious.
. >>
Is anyone who is holding these long term doing an acetone dip prior to slabbing or putting away? >>
I gave my APMEX set an acetone bath, as I will do with my other sets, it removed a film I could see on the surface. In another strange twist to the "Puck Saga", A Mark sets will be the first to spot if it occurs on these coins because they will have been submitted in their original First Strike holders, so we have to wonder was the 18.00 gift per coin really a gift at all
Big E, what is your preferred dip method ? Acetone>Alcohol rinse>distilled water rinse and hair dryer
Acetone>distilled water rinse and hair dryer
or just acetone dip ? Also how long did you dip in acetone just for spot protection? thanks!
Shouldn't it be the grader?
Isn' t there a definition of PL. I would think the grader would decide, on their own if a coin is PL, kind of independent....
if the label don`t fit......
you must resubmit!!!
<< <i>That is a cool camera, didn't realize there were more out there. Here are two nest cameras in San Jose and San Francisco that watch Peregrine Falcons. So far I think each bird has laid one egg, with possibly two more coming.
San Francisco, CA: Link
San Jose, CA: Link >>
Boise has the a captive breeding program as well as a nesting box. They nest a bit later due to the weather. We did use the Peregrine on our State quarter.
Boise Nest
DW
I bet those unhappy with the revised PCGS 2010 puck grading criteria would get their comments read if you tell him.
I doubt he reads this puck thread, but I bet he reads comments to his blog!
PCGS adding additional designations after initially grading w/out a PL / DMPL designation, then allowing the PL / DMPL 45 days later is thin ice to drill a hole and fish from.
My $.02
I was looking for a HUGE jump
Cherrypicked totally. Only low grades are left for the suckers to buy.
<< <i>So at this point if CNT or Jack Hunt offered sets for sale would anyone buy? Or would you assume everything has been cherrypicked and all of the ungradables are left? >>
I would still buy, somewhat based on what spot silver is doing. Remember, the APs cannot, right now anyway, mark these up if silver goes up. They could be an incredible deal, even if they have been cherrypicked.
<< <i>Question. I have 1 a-mark set and 1 from ft.If I want to send both sets of coins in do I have to send two separate forms or just the one and mark both regarade and new grade? >>
My understanding is that you will need to use two forms. You can not mix regrade, raw and/or crossover on the same form.
<< <i>So at this point if CNT or Jack Hunt offered sets for sale would anyone buy? Or would you assume everything has been cherrypicked and all of the ungradables are left? >>
everything has been cherrypicked
<< <i>Looks like pcgs didn't update the pops today.
I was looking for a HUGE jump >>
Are you finding the pops on coinfacts?
When I look at them, I only see 1 in 68 and 1 in 69 for the Grand Canyon.
Is there another place to find them?
Then enter numbers 505100 through 505104.
Yellowstone 506587 has 4, 3 69, 1 68.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sounds like your package was run thru a shreader at the PO! I'd love to see pics of these pucks... >>
Not at all. They were pretty clean. No real surface marks, no edge dings, no hazing due to too amny hairlines in the fields. Sounds like someone came out of the "classics room" and doesnt know how to grade moderns.
They will stay in holders and accompany me to the next show NGC attends.
I have seen NGC69's and believe me - my coins are nicer. >>
Let's see some pics of these low pop coins...I still think you gotta be BSing...62's...I say impossible...