Should PCGS offer a new service??
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was looking at this thread https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/990965/try-for-higher-grade-or-leave-in-old-holder#latest and it caused me to wonder if PCGS should offer a new service where they grade themselves?? They would essentially be grading their grades ala CAC.
I think it would be attractive to collectors who place a value on the holders, a fact which has been acknowledged/noted by PCGS on their website where they list all the generations. To my way of thinking it would be a regrade which leaves the coin intact and would only be offered on certain specific holder types. One good example is the link above, a coin which appears quite nice in a choice older holder.
On one hand it would probably balance out for PCGS with fees, but it would also compete with CAC.
If I'm off the nut feel free to tell me, it happens sometimes!! 
Al H.
Comments
How many opinions are collectors/dealers willing to pay for before they start saying no?
This MIGHT be the worst idea I have ever heard.
It fascinates me that a subjective "opinion" of the grade of a coin that has been entombed in a piece of plastic that has a paper insert in it with multiple numbers of same (with the most important number being between 1-70) has been successfully made into a profitable business model.
If fascinates me even more that separate business models have been created (successfully it appears) where someone is paid to give an "opinion" (in the form of a sticker affixed to the piece of plastic that that has the paper insert in it with the numbers) on the "opinion" of the business that put the coin into the piece of plastic with the paper insert in it.
We hear of third party grading and fourth party grading.
Is "first party grading" the term that describes what grade a collector places on a coin he/she owns?
Is "second party grading" the term that describes what grade a dealer places on a coin he/she owns?
What is the term that describes grade an investor places on a coin he/she "invests" in?
ATS will grade Redfield and GSA coins in original holders. ATS will issue their grade along side the Redfield grade so the coin has 2 grades. Imagine collecting if TPGs started grading coins in each other's and their own holders?
This was my idea when seeing this thread. Use a sticker/label like Anacs and NGC use for GSA holders.
I think it might be liked by some but most would say this is going over the top.
This is a can of worms just waiting to be opened. Can you imagine what would go through the office over at CAC, if say a PCGS MS65 Rattler with a Gold CAC, was then submitted to PCGS for a 66+ sticker? That then negates the Gold CAC, yet the collector is left to wonder if the Gold CAC applied to the original grade or the new one?
The theory sounds good, but implementation would not pan out, way too complicated. I like the idea of keeping the old holder.
CAC has a well-known sticker position for the first grade. They could have a different location for the 2nd grade or simply a slightly different sticker.
They already do. It is called regrade and reconsideration.
You raise great points. IMO, If the U.S. had a universal, STANDARDIZED grading system that was designed by experts, precise (no wiggle room), and forced on everyone whether they liked it or not; PLUS its condition of preservation would be completely separated from its ownership, rarity, and value, much of the problems we have now would disappear. Trying to put a grade on a coin based on its value was the beginning of just about every BIG PROBLEM there is with grading.
There would be no need for stickers. When a YN can pick up an 1884-S Morgan dollar and grades it MS-61 because it matches every other MS-61 of every other date and mint - grading would be simplified. Yet, when a professional grades the same coin AU because of the price jump, there is a BIG PROBLEM with the present system. When a Large cent expert posts that an Uncirculated Large cent will not be graded Uncirculated (61 or 62) due to marks that only allow a "net" grade of AU, there is a BIG PROBLEM.
Look, under pressure from the market, even the TPGS were forced to let the long held STANDARDS (close to what they began with) to "evolve," that's a BIG PROBLEM. There should have never been a reason to need stickers. That is A BIG PROBLEM.
There is no way to fix this mess as it is too late. As long as grading is entwined with value, all the up-and-down variables of the economy + the popularity of a coin series will force slight changes all the while that gradeflation is also going on. There can be no grading standards! Savvy collectors and dealers have learned how to grade and how their personal grade relates to the TPGSs and the market. Others take advantage of the grading crutch and the sticker. It is better now than in the old days.
There are many possibilities; from ICG I sometimes get personalized comments on submitted coins by their long term grader. https://i.imgur.com/H0HKKYZ.jpg
Details coins: ICG and Anacs offer graduated details grading, ie EF45, AU53-58 "details". They could also do "gem" or "MS6X" details which would probably be counter-productive. Grading services could give submitters helpful internal notes, which they would probably never do as it would let the proverbial camel into the tent. I have seen additional grading permutations from PCI and SEGS over the years.
They could further expand the grading scale, they could offer added services with extra charges. For me the current system is verging on overkill, the true view imaging with a numerical grade is sufficient.
IMO, it would take too much time to call submitters, and send notes or reasons given for the grades. I read that in an attempt to educate collectors, it was tried by the First TPGS (INSAB) as an additional service called "In-Depth" Grading where every aspect of the grade was evaluated. Part of their evaluation was similar to the sheet you posted to point out the defects. ANACS, the SECOND TPGS tried a certificate that graded each side and ranked the coins attributes with *'s.
There are ways to improve the grading experience and I guarantee that better minds than ours are working on it to improve their "bottom line."
Do you mean add plusses and minuses or do you mean a stickering operation like "this is really, really MS65 - not like the grade inflated material we have turned out in recent years?" If the latter, exactly how much reassurance do collectors need? If the first TPG opinion (at least 3 graders) wasn't enough, why would the subsequent opinions? If three isn't enough for a collector to make up his mind and he lacks the confidence to act on his own, then perhaps he should give up and find a different hobby.
Will you be able to submit the same coin for grading and re-grading on the same form? That would be efficient... LOL.
Simple solution! CAC introduces the CAC mini sticker for the PCGS grade sticker™!
Disclaimer: The coin above has a green CAC sticker in reality, not a gold
That made my day haha! In all reality though I have thought it would be cool if they were able to holder the "david hall numismatic investment group" flips like they do the GSA holders.
I get more useful information from the “Same as four pizzas” stickers.
I wish PCGS would simply state on no grades exactly what the problem is and where to look n the coin. Just one sentence, charge me a dollar extra for "infocoin" grade...
Or do a map like they so with diamonds.
Call it the PCGS Diamond Service. (All rights and copyrights reserved!)
I love the tiny CAC sticker!
Trying to decide if I would send a vintage holder in to be wrapped in a bigger holder that I would have to stack somewhere or put in an oversized PCGS box........probably not.
But if PCGS offers the service, I'm springing for a 1st generation wrapper!
The future of coin collecting will be buying only an image with a list of opinions attached. All the actual collectible coins will be stored in a centralized coin vault with maximum security. Nobody ever sees them or touches them. You only buy & sell them.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Isn't Presidential review supposed to result in a written opinion of the coin? Or has that service been dropped?
The future of coins is like commodity futures!
No
The people truly in the business don’t need a sticker or somebody’s opinion to do a coin deal. They know how to grade, look at coins, price the deal, and be decisive. No sticker or additional service will ever replace this.
I would suggest one stick to bullion based material if other areas cause anxiety.
Grades are opinions, not fact. TPGs provide an opinion of the grade at a particular point in time. Since grading standards do not exist (only guidelines exist), that opinion will change. To have a company offer a service (i.e.. charge money) to provide an opinion of a prior opinion would be economic suicide ... unless their "affirmation service" nearly always affirmed the prior grading opinion. TPGs rely on our faith in their opinion. That faith waivers, then profits fall ... just ask ICG. It's a business, not philanthropy.
I bet the top TPGs have a "QC" process where they "validate" that graders are providing the appropriate grading opinion (in addition to the "finalizer"). It would be a prudent internal process to ensure consistence.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Your suggestion is going to be implemented soon I think...it 's 100-point grading, or maybe 100 UNC grades which would be decimal point grading as is done by some dealers who already describe an MS66 as MS66.7 for example
Then I would suggest running for the hills.
Commems and Early Type
I don’t should on myself so I find no reason to should on any others.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If I understand the premise in the OP, what @keets is essentially saying, is to provide a service to confirm gradeflation. The perception is (and sometimes true) that old holdered coins will now grade higher by a grade or a +. The perceived 'benefit' would be two fold...put the coin in the inflated grade and allow retention of the old holder. So, the 'security blanket' of slabs (that is really what TPG grading provides) has also evolved into a collection of slab generations (because so many coin collectors are not totally devoted to coins) and stickers (to aid in the lack of confidence of insecure collectors), will finally be demonstrated as an opinion (we always knew that) subject to change and business demands. Of course a regraded and CAC'd coin would also need a re-CAC just to assure the insecure collectors. I sure miss coin collecting...
Well, not personally... since I still collect the coin.... not the holder, not the sticker and not the fad..... Cheers, RickO
what I thought was a simple, innocuous sort of question based on some replies in another thread sure turned out to be a hot-button issue.
1.) at a FUN Show luncheon back around 2003 HRH is on record as having suggested that people refrain from "crack-outs" and send coins intact for cross-over/regrade.
2.) PCGS offers regrade and reconsideration services already, so it's not like they are trying to hide from the fact that standards/guidelines/perceptions change or that mistakes(under-grading) are made.
3.) collectors tend to romanticize and cherish certain holder generations, some even collecting them.
my thought simply combined the three, have a coin regraded or crossed-over and retain the original capsule. as someone mentioned, it would most likely be along the lines of the GSA and Redfield Dollars.
Like any other business, TPGs are no different. They have to come up with new and innovative ways to get the consumer open up their wallets and take advantage of those who are less than confident in their own grading skills as well as the TPG's grading skills. That is why CAC is doing such a brisk business.
Cheers
Bob
For that matter, why not holder the old holder in a larger holder with a new label denoting the graded and CACd old holder with the new grade?
@thebigeng said: "I wish PCGS would simply state on no grades exactly what the problem is and where to look n the coin. Just one sentence, charge me a dollar extra for "infocoin" grade..."
There is at least one TPGS that does this ON OCCASION. IMO, it is stupid!
It completely messes up the label while trying to inform the ignorant or blind collector what is wrong with their coin.
AU "Details" Scratch on reverse over "R". LOL! STUPID, STUPID!
That said, I have been told by a former ANACS grader that the service received hundreds of calls a month with these questions or that many folks came up to him at shows and asked something like: "Where is the HOLE on this coin?" LOL, there is no fix for... Self Edit.
@BAJJERFAN said: "Isn't Presidential review supposed to result in a written opinion of the coin? Or has that service been dropped?"
Sounds like a great service just as In-Depth-Grading was approximately thirty-eight years ago. I think it cost an extra $5 back then. I saw a copy of the form INSAB used for that service in a Numismatic News column a while back.
@astrorat said: "Grades are opinions, not fact. TPGs provide an opinion of the grade at a particular point in time. Since grading standards do not exist (only guidelines exist), that opinion will change. To have a company offer a service (i.e.. charge money) to provide an opinion of a prior opinion would be economic suicide ... unless their "affirmation service" nearly always affirmed the prior grading opinion. TPGs rely on our faith in their opinion. That faith waivers, then profits fall ... just ask ICG. It's a business, not philanthropy. I bet the top TPGs have a "QC" process where they "validate" that graders are providing the appropriate grading opinion (in addition to the "finalizer"). It would be a prudent internal process to ensure consistence."
I disagree with your statement so one of us is misinformed: "To have a company offer a service (i.e.. charge money) to provide an opinion of a prior opinion would be economic suicide ... unless their "affirmation service" nearly always affirmed the prior grading opinion." I thought this is what CAC does.
@astrorat posted: I bet the top TPGs have a "QC" process where they "validate" that graders are providing the appropriate grading opinion (in addition to the "finalizer"). It would be a prudent internal process to ensure consistence."
You win the bet! It is called QC.
Nah ... we are both informed.
I was not as clear as I could have been.
Let me clarify ... "To have a company offer a service (i.e.. charge money) to provide an opinion of it's own prior opinion would be economic suicide ... unless their "affirmation service" nearly always affirmed the prior grading opinion.
CAC, of course, provides an opinion of another company's opinion.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Your clarification makes sense. In fact, now I understand completely why I was told that a "gold" label service would not work as it would make all the coins in the normal slabs appear to be substandard!