Well, something very GOOD has occured in the last year regarding coins being ruined!
saintguru
Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭
I spoke with John Albanese this morning about the coin flow he's been seeing come across his desk lately. He said with some awe, "It's amazing what effect the PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors has done. These guys are terrified now. I am seeing 70% LESS doctored junk in the last six months."
Well, I say hooray for this! It seemed that this was a pancea that would be almost impossible to attack. But the numbers don't lie. Now, 70% is great, let's hope it goes to 90%. It doesn't fix all the coins that have been tampered with either, but it's a hell of a lot better. Things do change.
PCGS...DaHamboneHall...it worked.
Well, I say hooray for this! It seemed that this was a pancea that would be almost impossible to attack. But the numbers don't lie. Now, 70% is great, let's hope it goes to 90%. It doesn't fix all the coins that have been tampered with either, but it's a hell of a lot better. Things do change.
PCGS...DaHamboneHall...it worked.
0
Comments
2/20/12
Edited to add for LanceNewmanOCC's benefit: It appears that the PCGS complaint was dismissed without prejudice in Federal court. So my question stands: what is PCGS doing currently that would affirm the remarks reported here?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby.
Doesn't mean that it did not have effect but makes it harder to use it as the cause in a cause and effect scenario.
<< <i>Fantastic!
Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby. >>
The policy on eBay for replicas goes a long way for that, I think. It's kind of like doing surgery with an axe but it gets the job done.
Counterfeit is pretty easy to spot. Modern "doctoring" can only be spotted by the VERT MOST experienced eyes in the biz. I have been shown coins that were messed with by experts and I saw absolutely nothing...even when I was told to look for it!
Edited to correct a mistake of writing CAC and PCGS in the wrong spots.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Perhaps the threat of a lawsuit over doctoring is enough to get a bunch of them to quit doing it.
Lawsuits are expensive to be involved in and PCGS did sure put their money where their mouth was!
bob
<< <i>It would be really nice if PCGS had that great an impact on making the hobby-industry less vulnerable to boinked coins, but the experience of CAC might be due to other factors, too. One factor might be that those who submit to CAC are learning what CAC likes and what CAC does not like, which can then affect what is submitted to CAC. This could serve to lower the percentage of doctored coins submitted to CAC by a certain amount. A more telling observation might be if the new prong styler holders or Secure Plus holders had a significantly lower frequency of altered coinage in them when compared against the rattlers, OGH generations or various blue holders.
Edited to correct a mistake of writing CAC and PCGS in the wrong spots. >>
I agree-
<< <i>It would be really nice if CAC had an impact on making the hobby-industry less vulnerable to boinked coins, but the experience of CAC might be due to other factors, too. One factor might be that those who submit to CAC are learning what CAC likes and what CAC does not like, which can then affect what is submitted to CAC. This could serve to lower the percentage of doctored coins submitted to CAC by a certain percentage. A more telling observation might be if the new prong styler holders or Secure Plus holders had a significantly lower frequency of altered coinage in them when compared against the rattlers, OGH generations or various blue holders. >>
I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not.
Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance?
<< <i>Fantastic!
Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby. >>
But what TomB says is very true. I can bet that doctored coins are probably not even sent in.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>I believe that the question has been posed before in recent time here: What is the standing of the lawsuit? I have not seen any press releases from our host on the issue since the initial announcement of the civil complaint. >>
your inquiry has been answered more than once here on this forum somewhere
.
Woefully mistaken there.
<< <i>I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not. >>
I would be shocked to learn that PCGS has opened their database to JA for this purpose. Of course the version of the slab can be some indicator.
Lance.
<< <i>Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.
Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>
Both PCGS and NGC.
TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and
BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not. >>
I would be shocked to learn that PCGS has opened their database to JA for this purpose. Of course the version of the slab can be some indicator.
Lance. >>
I don't think that you would need access to the database to tell that. I know that cert numbers are randomly assigned, but slab appearance, consecutiveness of cert numbers as well as info from the shared submissions page mite be enough to guess from. Maybe too, dey haf dere vays!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.
Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>
Both PCGS and NGC.
TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and
BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!
If I had $50K coins and up I'd be more concerned with manipulation. For the lion's share of $500 to $2500 coins, I'd be more worried about grade assurance.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.
Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>
Both PCGS and NGC.
TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and
BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!
We agree on that point completely, SG. I never meant to infer that there was a shifting standard by JA or CAC; what I meant was that submitters (typically dealers) are now getting conditioned or accustomed to what CAC will and won't sticker and so they are less likely to submit coins that will not sticker. The dealer learning curve, in this case, would mean that over time many fewer altered coins would be submitted to CAC whether or not there was a similar tightening on the part of PCGS/NGC.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.
Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>
Both PCGS and NGC.
TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and
BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!
So it is fine to sell without disclosure? On one hand you want to be ethical but the wallet says let the next sucker take the hit?
I know of quite a few people that have been sued (and lost) for not disclosing issues on houses they have sold.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
That's the only way I would sell a coin that I suspected of being questionable. My conscience is fine.
My guess is that the TPGs and the public are far more scared than the doctors.
I also agree with TomB, of course.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.