At first blush one might simply conclude that about slightly over half the FS sets being submitted will grade out 70 (and that certainly appears to be the case looking at the data in a macro fashion). But, for each individual submittor, the data gets looked at from a micro perspective. Hence, someone submitting 10-20 sets, might end up with 60% of this coin and 65% of that coin but only 30% of this other coin (assuming a perfect "share" of the macro grade through rate). A 5 set submission might yield 0-1 of a particular coin resulting in no complete 70 sets or 1 set (20%) at best. The nature of the grading beast.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>It seems that if you pay for a designation of FS...your "more' likely to get a 70.... >>
Really? You can't proof that theory by my grades...I received 4 - 70's out of a total of 30 coins with 3 different submissions. >>
I didn't say I was prooving anything..I just compared the charts..and it appears the 70 FS grading runs higher than non FS grades ..which fees for FS are extra if I'm not mistaken.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops...
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen. >>
This is ONLY true for coins within the Anniversary Sets where the original US Mint shipping box had to remain sealed due to the coins within the sets OR for First Strike eligible coins submitted AFTER the First Strike deadline that were in a sealed US Mint shipping box with a date that fell within the First Strike deadline.
An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen. >>
This is ONLY true for coins within the Anniversary Sets where the original US Mint shipping box had to remain sealed due to the coins within the sets OR for First Strike eligible coins submitted AFTER the First Strike deadline that were in a sealed US Mint shipping box with a date that fell within the First Strike deadline.
An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission. >>
The post you just quoted was all about the 25th Anniversary set.
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant?
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications.
Does anyone have an idea (or sufficient clout with our hosts) to know or estimate what the backlog is? Right now it looks like only 20--30,000 sets will end up graded...anyone know what happened with prior sets?
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications. >>
Of course, you mean that they somehow obtain higher quality unopened boxes.
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening. Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys) (2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only. (3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications. >>
Of course, you mean that they somehow obtain higher quality unopened boxes. >>
I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all.
It's interesting that NGC has not released their census for graded 25th anniversary sets. I think once they release the numbers the gap between pcgs and ngc will widen since NGC would have more coins graded 70. Just my opinion.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit. . >>
You mean like the shift before lunch compared the shift in the afternoon...??..I think we've seen those guys on TV taking thier break....Thanks for your input....!!! I edited part of your statement for clarity....
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
IMO, the quality of the coins would remain constant because we don't know the storage procedures.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
I hope your right. I recently submitted two boxes to get graded. Those boxes were part of the first batch the mint shipped (box label 11/10 and 11/11). I will soon find out.
Thought I'd put the Pops at the top of the latest page for easier reference. And thanks 08HALA20 for your informative spreadsheet on the 25th Ann. ASE Set. Oh, and Wondercoin, you're welcome for the report, and I thank you for your expert analysis on these sets. It will be interesting to see how those 6:30pm ordered sets impact the pops.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit. . >>
You mean like the shift before lunch compared the shift in the afternoon...??..I think we've seen those guys on TV taking thier break....Thanks for your input....!!! I edited part of your statement for clarity.... >>
Personally, I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. I am pretty new to the grading game, although I have been collecting forever. I kind of got caught up in the hype and excitement of these sets, so I started to do a little research to figure out whether to go with our hosts or ATS, and whether or not to pay the extra $450 for FS if I went with PCGS. I understand many people think FS doesn't ever really mean much, but I understand buyers paying a premium for a limited subset of a total. With respect to these sets, I did not understand the rationale at first of paying a premium for FS, since, under the rules, virtually all sets sent in unopened would be eligible for the designation.
Now I am beginning to understand. I know the grading standards should be consistent regardless of whether or not you pay extra for FS, but I also understand that paying extra for FS for these sets would be a waste of money if grading standards were the same and if buyers realized (I have to assume most do) that all sets were struck at the same time and almost all were shipped in the first 30 days, thereby rendering the label even more meaningless for these sets than they are in general. If, however, the extra $450/5 sets yields 5 extra 70s (the difference between 30% and 55% of 25 coins), then paying the extra money is totally worth it!
Since all coins already graded were shipped in the first 30 days, and were thereby eligible for FS whether or not they were slabbed as such, any speculation that the already graded non-FS coins are any different for FS coins is without foundation. As far as I know, there is no basis to believe that PBGS had any idea of the order in which coins were struck when they shipped them out, or that all 100,000 of any given coin were not sent from the mint to PBGS in a single shipment. Consequently, regardless of whether your order was placed at 12:01 on 10/27 or was the last order shipped off the waitlist, it should be totally random whether the coins you receive were the first ones struck or the 100,000th.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
You are free to believe what you wish. I think it highly unlikely considering the mint makes no attempt to ship the coins in the order they were minted at all. The coins were minted in different parts of the country beginning a few months before the release and all were minted before the release date then probably shipped to a common location, assembled into sets there and then shipped to and then from Illinois to the end users in maximum quantities of five. I highly doubt there is any rhyme or reason between the date of minting to the date of shipment, especially across a large sample.
<< <i>Until someone shows us an FS 70-graded coin that shouldn't be, there is no evidence to support any conspiracy theories. >>
I have not had the opportuninty to view a large number of sets yet. I will do that at Baltimore this March though. We do have a poster on this board claiming to have a bulk graded MS 70 that has more frost breaks than the 5 MS 69's he has from a small submission, but granted without supporting proof of such. The anomoly in the pop reports defies easy explanation- at least to me and requires that I form an opinion. I have a strong leaning at the moment but feel I must examine some sets in person. I will do that because of the possible implications and how they affect where my dollars get spent in the future on coins that I can't view in person prior to purchase. My curiosity is highly piqued.
"Until someone shows us an FS 70-graded coin that shouldn't be, there is no evidence to support any conspiracy theories."
Even then, showing one coin out of the 25,000+ graded thus far ... it would prove virtually nothing to me at all.
I have seen about ten or twelve 69 grade "key" coins thus far from the early bulk grading that I thought could have easily graded 70 in my view. Does this prove the early grading in bulk was far too tight? Of course not.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>"Until someone shows us an FS 70-graded coin that shouldn't be, there is no evidence to support any conspiracy theories."
Even then, showing one coin out of the 25,000+ graded thus far ... it would prove virtually nothing to me at all.
I have seen about ten or twelve 69 grade "key" coins thus far from the early bulk grading that I thought could have easily graded 70 in my view. Does this prove the early grading in bulk was far too tight? Of course not.
Wondercoin >>
I agree about one coin not being an indictment. I also believe a very large number of people are wondering many things about the huge anomoly in the population reports, myself included. Many serious accusations have been levied on this board and others, the worst one being of different grading standards existing for different groups of customers. I hate the thought of that being the case because the implications would be extremely serious, enough to sicken me to my stomach and enough to completely change my submission practices and how my collecting dollars are spent from here on out. If that were true, it would not even be anything against the bulk submitters in my opinion and I'm fully aware you are in that group. I must gather all the available info and come to my own conclusion with that information (and I will). There seem to be a lot of people watching very closely.
Chipper10: I have said this many times here on the boards before ...
Anyone who seriously buys into the "conspiracy theory" ... I am happy to submit the coins under my dealer number and at roughly the same cost that Mercantis cost to slab using the collectors' club pricing.
I already submitted a sizeable number of these sets for collectors and everyone has been pleased with their results. That said, the results have been all over the place ... some close to what have been reported here and some far better. Every box of 25 coins is different than the next. My point is simply that PCGS has no idea whatsoever who owns the coins I am submitting. Hence, a conspiracy theory becomes quote far fetched in my view.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>As of 12/12/11... Looks like there are a lot of NGC 70 compared to PCGS 70. >>
Are there any very popular modern releases where this isn't the case? >>
Well the focus of this thread is the 25th anniversary sets. Currently PCGS 70 sets are selling just a couple of hundreds above NGC 70 sets. I was wondering if the gap in prices will increase with the release of NGC census.
<< <i>Chipper10: I have said this many times here on the boards before ...
Anyone who seriously buys into the "conspiracy theory" ... I am happy to submit the coins under my dealer number and at roughly the same cost that Mercantis cost to slab using the collectors' club pricing.
I already submitted a sizeable number of these sets for collectors and everyone has been pleased with their results. That said, the results have been all over the place ... some close to what have been reported here and some far better. Every box of 25 coins is different than the next. My point is simply that PCGS has no idea whatsoever who owns the coins I am submitting. Hence, a conspiracy theory becomes quote far fetched in my view.
Wondercoin >>
While I don't believe there is a conspiracy or that PCGS intentionally grades coins differently, there are different graders who handle bulk submissions vs. regular submissions (at least for some modern coins). Since grading is subjective, it is possible that the different groups of graders may grade things differently.
From what I get in the charts..there are less 70 Grade NON First Strike 2011 S ...103 ms69 compared to 39 in 70 grade.. now when First Strike is submitted for grade....2724 in 69 and 3229 in 70 grade 2011 S I see a disparity when a coin goes in for First Stike or Not....Could I be wrong....???
I took a look at all shared orders for unopened sets for all of November and compiled all the data into a spreadsheet. Matches up with what's being said, shared orders and member reported numbers seem much lower than population reports.
Oh, and you will notice FS versus non-FS numbers don't match up evenly. There was one box of 5 sets that appears to have been judged to not be mint sealed by PCGS and thus 3/5 got non-FS and the keys got FS. I know I've read at least one report of this happening so I left that submission in my numbers.
Otherwise I removed ALL submissions of just the keys as they were clearly picked over. These numbers should represent unopened boxes.
Comments
At first blush one might simply conclude that about slightly over half the FS sets being submitted will grade out 70 (and that certainly appears to be the case looking at the data in a macro fashion). But, for each individual submittor, the data gets looked at from a micro perspective. Hence, someone submitting 10-20 sets, might end up with 60% of this coin and 65% of that coin but only 30% of this other coin (assuming a perfect "share" of the macro grade through rate). A 5 set submission might yield 0-1 of a particular coin resulting in no complete 70 sets or 1 set (20%) at best. The nature of the grading beast.
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems that if you pay for a designation of FS...your "more' likely to get a 70....
Really? You can't proof that theory by my grades...I received 4 - 70's out of a total of 30 coins with 3 different submissions. >>
I didn't say I was prooving anything..I just compared the charts..and it appears the 70 FS grading runs higher than non FS grades ..which fees for FS are extra if I'm not mistaken.
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems that if you pay for a designation of FS...your "more' likely to get a 70....
Really? You can't proof that theory by my grades...I received 4 - 70's out of a total of 30 coins with 3 different submissions. >>
Well If you're not getting them then somebody paying for FS is getting a WHOLE bunch of them plus extra ones to negate your low grade through rate.
<< <i>General point remains.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops...
<< <i>
<< <i>General point remains.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>General point remains.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen. >>
This is ONLY true for coins within the Anniversary Sets where the original US Mint shipping box had to remain sealed due to the coins within the sets OR for First Strike eligible coins submitted AFTER the First Strike deadline that were in a sealed US Mint shipping box with a date that fell within the First Strike deadline.
An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission.
The name is LEE!
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>General point remains.
With a significant sample size the Non FS reverse proof and 2011-s should grade equal to or higher than the FS coins.
We'll see how it works out.............. >>
Your assumption is that the submitter can accurately prescreen. I think there are folks that can do this ( I can, as I have done it with other submittals, not the 25th). BUT I also think there are a large number of folks who dont know how. I dont think it is that difficult, you just need to know what to look for.
In any case, you point out an interesting thing to watch with the pops... >>
The percentage of FS coins that were prescreened would be micro compared to the non FS coins and therefore First Strike would be more likely to do worse in the pop reports. The vast majority of them were submitted sight unseen. >>
This is ONLY true for coins within the Anniversary Sets where the original US Mint shipping box had to remain sealed due to the coins within the sets OR for First Strike eligible coins submitted AFTER the First Strike deadline that were in a sealed US Mint shipping box with a date that fell within the First Strike deadline.
An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission. >>
The post you just quoted was all about the 25th Anniversary set.
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening.
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
That should make it clear.
<< <i>An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission.
>>
How can these coins be pre-screened prior to submission if there in a sealed box..???..Tht's impossible...the charts speak for themselves..
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening.
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant?
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening.
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications.
<< <i>
<< <i>An overall majority of the First Strike coins being submitted to the TPG's are in fact prescreened prior to submission.
>>
How can these coins be pre-screened prior to submission if there in a sealed box..???..Tht's impossible...the charts speak for themselves.. >>
Read my entire post please.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening.
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications. >>
Of course, you mean that they somehow obtain higher quality unopened boxes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems some people know what happened, while most people still confused what is happening.
Read between the line of those population reports and you can draw your own conclusion without confusion.
(1) Screening won't affect the pop report that much. There are 5,8xx graded for the 3 non-keys VS 6,1xx graded for 2 keys. It means only less than 5% coin is screened. (you cannot screen non-keys)
(2) Regarding Non-FS VS FS, you have to know that the FS population consist of two types: bulk and regular submitters, and most Non-FS is by regular submitters only.
(3) Look at the shared PCGS result and compare with the forum member's graded result, you will find that the results are very similar. >>
With respect to point #2 above, how does this explain the disparity between the 70s received by the two (approximately 55% for FS and 30% for non-FS? Do bulk submitters have access to better unopened boxes, is a different 70 standard applied to bulk submitters, or is the population of approximately 150 non-FS compared to the population of approximately 5800 FS not statistically significant, even though the disparity in the grading results seems very significant? >>
I think you answered your own question. It's in there I'm sure. I'm leaning towards the one with potentially huge ramifications. >>
Of course, you mean that they somehow obtain higher quality unopened boxes.
Of course
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all.
merse
I think once they release the numbers the gap between pcgs and ngc will widen since
NGC would have more coins graded 70. Just my opinion.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
. >>
You mean like the shift before lunch compared the shift in the afternoon...??..I think we've seen those guys on TV taking thier break....Thanks for your input....!!!
I edited part of your statement for clarity....
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
IMO, the quality of the coins would remain constant because we don't know the storage procedures.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
I hope your right. I recently submitted two boxes to get graded. Those boxes were part of the first batch the mint shipped (box label 11/10 and 11/11). I will soon find out.
POPS as of 12/11/11............................
First Strike®..............
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Check out the 69 to 70 ratio on these non FS's!!!
Non First Strike............................
Thought I'd put the Pops at the top of the latest page for easier reference.
And thanks 08HALA20 for your informative spreadsheet on the 25th Ann. ASE Set.
Oh, and Wondercoin, you're welcome for the report, and I thank you for your expert analysis on these sets.
It will be interesting to see how those 6:30pm ordered sets impact the pops.
<< <i>You don't see anything like these pops when you look at shared orders. >>
I think the shared orders are very consistent with the non-FS graded coins in the pop report...
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>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
. >>
You mean like the shift before lunch compared the shift in the afternoon...??..I think we've seen those guys on TV taking thier break....Thanks for your input....!!!
I edited part of your statement for clarity.... >>
Personally, I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. I am pretty new to the grading game, although I have been collecting forever. I kind of got caught up in the hype and excitement of these sets, so I started to do a little research to figure out whether to go with our hosts or ATS, and whether or not to pay the extra $450 for FS if I went with PCGS. I understand many people think FS doesn't ever really mean much, but I understand buyers paying a premium for a limited subset of a total. With respect to these sets, I did not understand the rationale at first of paying a premium for FS, since, under the rules, virtually all sets sent in unopened would be eligible for the designation.
Now I am beginning to understand. I know the grading standards should be consistent regardless of whether or not you pay extra for FS, but I also understand that paying extra for FS for these sets would be a waste of money if grading standards were the same and if buyers realized (I have to assume most do) that all sets were struck at the same time and almost all were shipped in the first 30 days, thereby rendering the label even more meaningless for these sets than they are in general. If, however, the extra $450/5 sets yields 5 extra 70s (the difference between 30% and 55% of 25 coins), then paying the extra money is totally worth it!
Since all coins already graded were shipped in the first 30 days, and were thereby eligible for FS whether or not they were slabbed as such, any speculation that the already graded non-FS coins are any different for FS coins is without foundation. As far as I know, there is no basis to believe that PBGS had any idea of the order in which coins were struck when they shipped them out, or that all 100,000 of any given coin were not sent from the mint to PBGS in a single shipment. Consequently, regardless of whether your order was placed at 12:01 on 10/27 or was the last order shipped off the waitlist, it should be totally random whether the coins you receive were the first ones struck or the 100,000th.
<< <i>
<< <i>You don't see anything like these pops when you look at shared orders. >>
I think the shared orders are very consistent with the non-FS graded coins in the pop report... >>
What is the difference between a shared order and a regular one? Thanks in advance for educating me!
<< <i>
What is the difference between a shared order and a regular one? Thanks in advance for educating me!
You have the option to share results [of Grading your coins at PCGS].
http://www.pcgs.com/membership/Shared.aspx
CHECK out the link.
<< <i>I don't understand all of the conspiracy theories here. I think a much simpler explanation is that quality standards at the mint started out quite strong due to the hype around the sets and the mint wanting to hit a home run (which they did). After minting them for a while quality standards slipped a bit.
This would mean that PCGS has been grading consistent and the quality of the coins has declined a little. No conspiracy here at all. >>
You are free to believe what you wish. I think it highly unlikely considering the mint makes no attempt to ship the coins in the order they were minted at all. The coins were minted in different parts of the country beginning a few months before the release and all were minted before the release date then probably shipped to a common location, assembled into sets there and then shipped to and then from Illinois to the end users in maximum quantities of five. I highly doubt there is any rhyme or reason between the date of minting to the date of shipment, especially across a large sample.
<< <i>Until someone shows us an FS 70-graded coin that shouldn't be, there is no evidence to support any conspiracy theories. >>
I have not had the opportuninty to view a large number of sets yet. I will do that at Baltimore this March though. We do have a poster on this board claiming to have a bulk graded MS 70 that has more frost breaks than the 5 MS 69's he has from a small submission, but granted without supporting proof of such. The anomoly in the pop reports defies easy explanation- at least to me and requires that I form an opinion. I have a strong leaning at the moment but feel I must examine some sets in person. I will do that because of the possible implications and how they affect where my dollars get spent in the future on coins that I can't view in person prior to purchase. My curiosity is highly piqued.
Even then, showing one coin out of the 25,000+ graded thus far ... it would prove virtually nothing to me at all.
I have seen about ten or twelve 69 grade "key" coins thus far from the early bulk grading that I thought could have easily graded 70 in my view. Does this prove the early grading in bulk was far too tight? Of course not.
Wondercoin
<< <i>"Until someone shows us an FS 70-graded coin that shouldn't be, there is no evidence to support any conspiracy theories."
Even then, showing one coin out of the 25,000+ graded thus far ... it would prove virtually nothing to me at all.
I have seen about ten or twelve 69 grade "key" coins thus far from the early bulk grading that I thought could have easily graded 70 in my view. Does this prove the early grading in bulk was far too tight? Of course not.
Wondercoin >>
I agree about one coin not being an indictment. I also believe a very large number of people are wondering many things about the huge anomoly in the population reports, myself included. Many serious accusations have been levied on this board and others, the worst one being of different grading standards existing for different groups of customers. I hate the thought of that being the case because the implications would be extremely serious, enough to sicken me to my stomach and enough to completely change my submission practices and how my collecting dollars are spent from here on out. If that were true, it would not even be anything against the bulk submitters in my opinion and I'm fully aware you are in that group. I must gather all the available info and come to my own conclusion with that information (and I will).
There seem to be a lot of people watching very closely.
Anyone who seriously buys into the "conspiracy theory" ... I am happy to submit the coins under my dealer number and at roughly the same cost that Mercantis cost to slab using the collectors' club pricing.
I already submitted a sizeable number of these sets for collectors and everyone has been pleased with their results. That said, the results have been all over the place ... some close to what have been reported here and some far better. Every box of 25 coins is different than the next. My point is simply that PCGS has no idea whatsoever who owns the coins I am submitting. Hence, a conspiracy theory becomes quote far fetched in my view.
Wondercoin
PCGS current numbers (6000 submissions):
2011-S MS70: 55%
2011-P PR70: 55%
NGC current numbers (16000 submissions):
2011-S MS70: 73%
2011-P PF70: 65%
Do you think this will create a wider gap in prices between PCGS 70 and NGC 70 sets? Looks like there are a lot of NGC 70 compared to PCGS 70.
Will they trust each other that the "set" coins are part of the A25 set?
If this is the case then the number of possible PCGS sets will be much lower.....
<< <i>As of 12/12/11... Looks like there are a lot of NGC 70 compared to PCGS 70.
Are there any very popular modern releases where this isn't the case?
<< <i>
<< <i>As of 12/12/11... Looks like there are a lot of NGC 70 compared to PCGS 70.
Are there any very popular modern releases where this isn't the case? >>
Well the focus of this thread is the 25th anniversary sets.
Currently PCGS 70 sets are selling just a couple of hundreds above NGC 70 sets.
I was wondering if the gap in prices will increase with the release of NGC census.
<< <i>As of 12/12/11
PCGS current numbers (6000 submissions):
2011-S MS70: 55%
2011-P PR70: 55%
NGC current numbers (16000 submissions):
2011-S MS70: 73%
2011-P PF70: 65%
Do you think this will create a wider gap in prices between PCGS 70 and NGC 70 sets? Looks like there are a lot of NGC 70 compared to PCGS 70.
Based on these numbers we have about 10,400 NGC PF70 2011-P compared to only 3,300 PCGS PR70 2011-P.
Even more for the "S" coin.
<< <i>Chipper10: I have said this many times here on the boards before ...
Anyone who seriously buys into the "conspiracy theory" ... I am happy to submit the coins under my dealer number and at roughly the same cost that Mercantis cost to slab using the collectors' club pricing.
I already submitted a sizeable number of these sets for collectors and everyone has been pleased with their results. That said, the results have been all over the place ... some close to what have been reported here and some far better. Every box of 25 coins is different than the next. My point is simply that PCGS has no idea whatsoever who owns the coins I am submitting. Hence, a conspiracy theory becomes quote far fetched in my view.
Wondercoin >>
While I don't believe there is a conspiracy or that PCGS intentionally grades coins differently, there are different graders who handle bulk submissions vs. regular submissions (at least for some modern coins). Since grading is subjective, it is possible that the different groups of graders may grade things differently.
now when First Strike is submitted for grade....2724 in 69 and 3229 in 70 grade 2011 S
I see a disparity when a coin goes in for First Stike or Not....Could I be wrong....???
Oh, and you will notice FS versus non-FS numbers don't match up evenly. There was one box of 5 sets that appears to have been judged to not be mint sealed by PCGS and thus 3/5 got non-FS and the keys got FS. I know I've read at least one report of this happening so I left that submission in my numbers.
Otherwise I removed ALL submissions of just the keys as they were clearly picked over. These numbers should represent unopened boxes.
I'll run the data again later into December...
So far there have been about 6000 sets graded with the last week a slowing down of numbers (400 less from prior week)
Even if in these 3 months there ends up 10,000 sets graded or 50,000 coins.
It is only about 10% of PCGS business for the quarter.
Why would they have anything but a passing interest in these coins which is more of a headache for them.
There is a whole lot more expense and processing involved to receive and return packaging.
I think they will be happy when these run their course.
Joe