Options
Submission Hypothetical - Problem Cross?
TommyType
Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’m sure this has been covered before, so forgive my question....
Hypothetical:
- You have a coin in another certification service holder. The coin is graded as a “problem” coin, and net graded.
- You don’t agree that a “problem grade” is appropriate.
What’s the best way to submit it to PCGS for their full and proper consideration?
A) Send it in for cross, with minimum grade “Current”, and trust that that they will either cross it with the problem, (if they agree it exists), or with a straight grade, (if they agree it doesn’t).
Crack it so that the old holder doesn’t provide an immediate bias.
In theory, it shouldn’t matter...right? Once they crack the coin, it should get their full consideration as to grade, authenticity, and surface status/quality?
Non-Hypothetical:
I just sent a coin, for cross, in an ANACS slab, listed as “Corroded”. But it looks like any other coin of the era, and not any different than two others sent at the same time in “straight” ANACS slabs. (Offending coin is an 1806/5 Draped Bust half....two similar coins were 1806 and 1807 of same design, similar VG-F grade level).
My intent leading up to the submission was that I would crack it....until I figured out that it would have to be submitted on a separate submission form, and require an additional return shipping cost, and I wasn’t ready to submit the another 5 or 6 raw coins just yet.
So, I threw caution to the wind, and put it in with the “cross” submission, cross at “Current”.
Figure the worst that can happen is that it will come back in a “problem” holder, and I can reconsider whether to crack it then. But then I’m left with the question of whether the original ANACS holder had unduly influenced the grade, or if they honestly agree that the problem exists, and any further submissions by me would be a waste of time and money!!
Call it an experiment....(Which, unfortunately, will leave me with questions...unless they straight grade it)!
Oh, well....I’ll report on the results either way. To be honest, it doesn’t have to be in a straight grade holder for me to like it, so I’ll probably just let it stay in its new home no matter what. But I’ve set myself up to always wonder.
Maybe someone can assure me that the PCGS process will assure that the old holder won’t bias their decision....
Added: Some old pics of the "offending" coin. May not be good enough for you to ascertain the "corrosion", or lack thereof. But it should show you why I like the coin, either way!
Hypothetical:
- You have a coin in another certification service holder. The coin is graded as a “problem” coin, and net graded.
- You don’t agree that a “problem grade” is appropriate.
What’s the best way to submit it to PCGS for their full and proper consideration?
A) Send it in for cross, with minimum grade “Current”, and trust that that they will either cross it with the problem, (if they agree it exists), or with a straight grade, (if they agree it doesn’t).
Crack it so that the old holder doesn’t provide an immediate bias.In theory, it shouldn’t matter...right? Once they crack the coin, it should get their full consideration as to grade, authenticity, and surface status/quality?
Non-Hypothetical:
I just sent a coin, for cross, in an ANACS slab, listed as “Corroded”. But it looks like any other coin of the era, and not any different than two others sent at the same time in “straight” ANACS slabs. (Offending coin is an 1806/5 Draped Bust half....two similar coins were 1806 and 1807 of same design, similar VG-F grade level).
My intent leading up to the submission was that I would crack it....until I figured out that it would have to be submitted on a separate submission form, and require an additional return shipping cost, and I wasn’t ready to submit the another 5 or 6 raw coins just yet.
So, I threw caution to the wind, and put it in with the “cross” submission, cross at “Current”.
Figure the worst that can happen is that it will come back in a “problem” holder, and I can reconsider whether to crack it then. But then I’m left with the question of whether the original ANACS holder had unduly influenced the grade, or if they honestly agree that the problem exists, and any further submissions by me would be a waste of time and money!!
Call it an experiment....(Which, unfortunately, will leave me with questions...unless they straight grade it)!
Oh, well....I’ll report on the results either way. To be honest, it doesn’t have to be in a straight grade holder for me to like it, so I’ll probably just let it stay in its new home no matter what. But I’ve set myself up to always wonder.
Maybe someone can assure me that the PCGS process will assure that the old holder won’t bias their decision....
Added: Some old pics of the "offending" coin. May not be good enough for you to ascertain the "corrosion", or lack thereof. But it should show you why I like the coin, either way!
Easily distracted Type Collector
0
Comments
On your: Hypothetical. I would crack it.
+1
On your: Hypothetical. I would crack it.
+1
Am I allowed to "+2"?
I really should have. Hindsight is 20/20.
Got into a rush, and countermanded my better judgment.
And, now that I think about it....I don't think I asked to cross at "Current". I think I asked to cross at "Details".....which may make matters even worse!
Live and learn.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
For non-NGC coins, you could submit either way. For NGC coins with your situation, crack them.
That's a twist....care to expound on why NGC would be different from ANACS/ICG/Whatever?
For non-NGC coins, you could submit either way. For NGC coins with your situation, crack them.
That's a twist....care to expound on why NGC would be different from ANACS/ICG/Whatever?
Only 1 of them is a worthy competitor to PCGS....hence the bar is raised higher to cross their coins (ie holder bias). At least that's what I've seen over the years. Who cares what the cross rate is on ANACS/ICG coins? Either way it won't affect the TPG pecking order in the market place one little bit.
I'd think to have any chance at all of getting a grade, you'd have to crack it out and send it in raw.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I'd be shocked and stunned with surprise if PCGS crossed any coin from another TPG's problem holder into their problem free holder.
I'd think to have any chance at all of getting a grade, you'd have to crack it out and send it in raw.
That might be the case...
But in my (tiny little) mind, I see the process something like this:
- Pre-screening in the old holder to see if the coin will make the minimum grade on the submission form. (In my case, "details", and not "current" as originally stated).
- If it makes the cut, (and how could it NOT, in this case), the coin is cracked from the holder, and put into line for grading.
- Grading is the same at this point, whether it was mailed in raw, or submitted for cross.
I know....huge assumption on my part. IF they do the entire grading process while still in the holder...or if the old holder grade travels with the coin to grading....It's probably a lost cause for me, and cracking before submission was the ONLY way to go.
Had I thought about it a little more, I would have withheld it to be cracked out, and submitted raw.
Oh, well.
On your: Hypothetical. I would crack it.
+1
+2.
Absolutely crack it. Why would you want graders to see that another TPG bodybagged it? There is no advantage.
Lance.
If I disagreed with a "problem" coin, and wanted to submit it, heck, even if I agreed with it but wanted to submit it elsewhere, I would crack it out for the submission.
It's only the NON-problem coins that I think may be thought of differently, for whatever reason as the phase of the moon at that time, that I get scared of cracking for submission.
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
Except in my case the "details" holder is a PCGS one. (Noted problem: "Filed Rims".)
I intend to crack it and try for a straight grade Across The Street at least once, to see what happens.
I like the coin very much, and on thin hammered medieval gold like this, some slight clipping or filing to the rims is not unusual. I don't see it on this one, and even if it's there, I think it falls within acceptable ranges. Regardless of whether or not I ever get it into a straight graded holder or not, I think the coin has superior eye appeal due to the toning, and not a bad strike for the issue, either.
I hope your Draped Bust half comes back straight-graded, but I wouldn't hold my breath, and me personally, I'd have cracked it before submitting it. But hey, what do I know. I am not a frequent TPG submitter by any means.
Collector, occasional seller
I will vote with the 'crack it' crowd.....Please follow up when you get results. Cheers, RickO
Many people who buy problem coins buying to crack and put in albums.
The other alternative wb eBay liquidation or offer to dealer specializing in problem coins.
I thought they covered up the other TPG grades when doing crossovers. Am I mistaken on this?
How can a cross decision be made without knowing the current grade?
I suppose a little game could be played...cover up the cert before the grader makes a call and then unveil the cert for the surprise answer. But I don't see it.
Of course the TPG's want you to feel that everything is perfectly anonymous and fair. There is one certainty: graders need to move through coins quickly...very quickly. No time for games.
Here's an example of efficiency that hurts crosses:
We know the decision to cross is conservative because the holder conceals some or all of the rims and the grader is looking through plastic. Once the decision to accept a cross is made the coin needs to be cracked and holdered. After cracking, but before holdering, why not return it to the grader for another look-see...so the now-naked coin can be fairly assessed?
Because it slows things down.
It is because of this process that crosses are often "regraded" by collectors and dealers. My most recent regrade of a cross: XF45 to AU53, where it was originally. An extreme example, maybe.
Lance.