The only thing that remains the same, is change itself. I had a long career in business, and I came to notice change as an engine to drive business....and occasionally it blew the engine. Then the mechanics and engineers rebuilt it and on we went. Cheers, RickO
@fiftysevener said:
The entire automotive industry has changed because of what liberal politicians did 10 years ago. So I assume this reorganization started a few years ago and now the effects are being felt.
In fairness, Bush bailed out Chrysler and GM with TARP money in December 2008. I'm not saying that the continued stimulus thereafter didn't help. The 2009 Chapter 11 also helped the companies financially.
In fairness to businessmen, we weather storms in spite of "who" gets elected.
Let's not bring up the ugly sides of coins here. Some go broke (businesses) and some are too big to fail.
welcome to the real world people
where things happen in a blink of a eye, and to keep current in this world one has to think beyond the box so to speak
all companies go though changes just part of the real world ,change has to happen for things to move forward and without change you are left with old tired ideas and oddly enough those ideas may of worked long ago but are outdated as of right now cause the world has moved on
i see companies change each day trying to find the right idea that works for them just like PCGS is doing trying to find the right idea to use, yeah it may take time, effort and such but down the road they will find ideas that work well for them
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
John Feigenbaum Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com) PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
I would keep the + grades IF they can tighten the standards. They can. We all knew it would not take long for that to blow up. From my point of view, a + is a "must have" . The really super high end coins do deserve to be distingusied. .
In my opinion that would help a lot if they were more accurate. A + should be like getting a gold medal for being the best in the world at something.
I think the + grade idea was brilliant.
I'm hoping a Ture-View comparing software program will make the population numbers more accurate in the future.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How do they complicate the grading process...? The + designation is one of the best things that has ever happened to the grading market.
@BJandTundra said:
I suspect some of these same comments were made when Henry left FORD and, John D left STANDARD OIL. By the way, how did those two moves work out? lol
Maybe HRH or Don can get a Secretary of State job.
Didn't Laura either post here or in a market report that she was thinking of retiring and maybe if she....well....er...um....where was I going with this post?
@fiftysevener said:
The entire automotive industry has changed because of what liberal politicians did 10 years ago. So I assume this reorganization started a few years ago and now the effects are being felt.
Who said anything about jobs. I was referring to the Flintstone style car you would be driving because of CAFE standards forced upon the auto industry which caused manufacturers to re-gear in order to compete.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
Good advice, but probably too late. Can you imagine what would happen to the prices of the "plus" coins if they were discontinued? Can you imagine every seller arguing that that his new non-plus coins are as good as the old plus coins? It could get ugly.
Then again, it's already ugly.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Several years ago, Joe Orlando was adamant that PSA, the collector card grading side of PSA would never, ever have a .5 (point 5) grading system, then a few months later proudly announced the roll out of a .5 grading system. I await the announcement of the new and improved 100 point grading system. The resubmissions will keep CU in revenue for years.
I have always thought that Don is a really nice and down to earth guy who loves coins. I hope I get to see him at a show again in the near future.
I hope that he is happy with the decisions that he is making because that is what matters!
Why would you advocate that??? I will say as one who has quit spending thousands of dollars trying to get 58's into plus grades has stopped submitting completely! PCGS's definition of a + grade is the top 30% of the grade assigned. Believe me when I say I have at least 20 PCGS 58 Barber Half's that blow away the competition and PCGS will not + them. I can also say I have seen most of the 58's out there! It's insane when you have to submit the same coin multiple times before you finally get a plus! My avatar took 5 times and I say it is one of the nicest 58+'s out there! I will agree with you for only 1 reason...which I'm sure has happened! Stop the cash cow for PCGS.
My last submission of Barber Half's was at the winter Baltimore show 1 year ago. When I received my submission of 70 or 80 coins(can't remember how many) graded straight through 10 points undergraded I said I am done! PCGS has to quit their games with the grading scale. I sold a few of them on ebay(which I hope embarrassed PCGS) with no problems for what they should have graded. The rest got the hammer and most have been sold raw.
So how many of you have seen Barber Half's with a full Liberty graded VG8? I had 8 or 10 in that submission not to mention many XF's graded VF30! On the High side I had a couple I was hoping wouldn't grade 62 or 3 but 58+ come back in 55 holders!
I know this will sound arrogant. But in the F-AU grades I think I can stand toe to toe with the best graders out there! I own or have sold over 4000 PCGS graded Barber Half's in this grade range.
I hope this comment doesn't get me kicked off the forums. But if it does it should be a message to everyone.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
PCGS has formulated grading standards that are based solely on their subjective view of a coin's quality. But a coin's market value can be drastically different from their grading model. There are many more characteristics that add to a coin's value that are not a consideration in PCGS grading standards. HRH and to a lesser extent DW espoused a very technical grading standard that was very narrowly focused and missed the ultimate objective of a grading service to establish market value consistently.
In many ways the market has determined the acceptance of PCGS as a coin grading company. While their standards have been recognized as very high, their standards overlook valuation criteria important to collectors and investors in coins. A new viewpoint was needed, and we can only anticipate improvement to their service.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
PCGS has formulated grading standards that are based solely on their subjective view of a coin's quality. But a coin's market value can be drastically different from their grading model. There are many more characteristics that add to a coin's value that are not a consideration in PCGS grading standards. HRH and to a lesser extent DW espoused a very technical grading standard that was very narrowly focused and missed the ultimate objective of a grading service to establish market value consistently.
In many ways the market has determined the acceptance of PCGS as a coin grading company. While their standards have been recognized as very high, their standards overlook valuation criteria important to collectors and investors in coins. A new viewpoint was needed, and we can only anticipate improvement to their service.
OINK
I completely and totally disagree with this viewpoint of what a grading service should be. See my post just below this one.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@JohnF said:
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
How would you handle the ones out there if it were to end, if it were your decision/business?
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
While there have been tighter periods as far as grading goes, overall there is consistency. Tell me how there isn't....
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
There will NEVER be consistency in grading. We came extremely close at the first TPGS at INSAB but it was not compatible with the commercial market that TRIED to combined a coin's eye appeal, value, and actual condition of preservation into one #. Our grading standard (formulated to ID a coin in the early 70's) remained unchanged into the mid-1980's when PCGS took control of the market from INSAB, NCI, and ANACS.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
While there have been tighter periods as far as grading goes, overall there is consistency. Tell me how there isn't....
Oh my... how long have you been around the TPGs?
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
There will NEVER be consistency in grading. We came extremely close at the first TPGS at INSAB but it was not compatible with the commercial market that TRIED to combined a coin's eye appeal, value, and actual condition of preservation into one #. Our grading standard (formulated to ID a coin in the early 70's) remained unchanged into the mid-1980's when PCGS took control of the market from INSAB, NCI, and ANACS.
Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right...
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
There will NEVER be consistency in grading. We came extremely close at the first TPGS at INSAB but it was not compatible with the commercial market that TRIED to combined a coin's eye appeal, value, and actual condition of preservation into one #. Our grading standard (formulated to ID a coin in the early 70's) remained unchanged into the mid-1980's when PCGS took control of the market from INSAB, NCI, and ANACS.
Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right...
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
There will NEVER be consistency in grading. We came extremely close at the first TPGS at INSAB but it was not compatible with the commercial market that TRIED to combined a coin's eye appeal, value, and actual condition of preservation into one #. Our grading standard (formulated to ID a coin in the early 70's) remained unchanged into the mid-1980's when PCGS took control of the market from INSAB, NCI, and ANACS.
Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right...
What is this? You respond to my post that overall there is consistency, then a few minutes later state here that there will never be consistency?!?
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@ilikemonsters said: "Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right..."
Actually, it is not as inconsistent as you may think. It only becomes inconsistent when:
The value/rarity of the coin is considered.
The desirability of the toning is considered.
**THE DATE AND MINT is considered.
Supposedly...The ownership of the coin (if known) is considered.
Additionally, I broke one of my rules in writing by using the word "NEVER." That's because TPG could become 99% consistent overnight as soon as a TPGS "fingerprints" every coin it grades so the initial grade can be assigned over and over each time it is seen in the future as long as it is not worn down further. We did not have a computer in the 1970's but our standards were so strict that precision was the norm.
Many of you here will disagree with me, like @Ronyahski , but I argue the point that pure technical grading does not reflect market value of your coin collection. The "technical standards" in our hobby do not consider. This assumed hierarchy is offensive to those of us who collect exceptionally toned specimens that are over 100 years old. When I see highly graded coins that have crud toning I know that the grading standards do not represent our hobby well. Eye appeal and attractive toning are significant grading criteria that are required to make grading standards in line with market values. Should a coin's grade not reflect market value????????
@HeatherBoyd said::
Exciting things to come! PCGS provides team building and leadership training to our staff as well as access to higher education and skill building courses.
Hope it’s about customer service and opportunities for your client base.
@joconnor said:
I'm sorry, but you cannot replace the value of knowledge and experience with simple youth and enthusiasm, regardless of how much team building and leadership training is applied.
Not sure about that relative to marketing
PCGS services .
Wonder what John Albanese is thinking ?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@Regulated said:
I'm looking forward to the next year or two - I think that the leadership at CU has an opportunity to make some bold moves, and the hobby is ready for real change. HRH, Willis, et al. did some amazing things over the years, but I have no doubt that there are some brilliant innovators waiting in the wings...
Not to knock HRH and DW or anyone else, but what was the last brilliant innovation (from the customer's perspective) that we've seen from PCGS?
That's not a rhetorical question. Let's hear some answers.
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
You may not care about innovation but it's important to others, to the hobby, to the market, and to PCGS's bottom line. The registry set was certainly a brilliant innovation. Cert verification with imaging was certainly an important innovation, even if obvious and not especially "brilliant". Someday, a completely new form of slab will be invented, something far less bulky than current slabs, and suited for storage in an reasonably compact album of some sort. And probably within the next decade or two, the innovators will bring us far more consistent grading and more sophisticated counterfeit detection via computer assisted grading.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
Very interesting read. Sounds like PCGS has really tightened up their standards.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
I have no doubt that PCGS has been tighter in recent months, but do you know why? I don't.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@cupronik said:
I wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
I have no doubt that PCGS has been tighter in recent months, but do you know why? I don't.
Comments
Change and a new ways of looking at things can be good (usually are in my opinion)!!!!
Welcome to the world of publicly traded companies. The board thinks they can make the stock great again. ;~
The only thing that remains the same, is change itself. I had a long career in business, and I came to notice change as an engine to drive business....and occasionally it blew the engine. Then the mechanics and engineers rebuilt it and on we went. Cheers, RickO
Don has more friends in the trade, than he ever could, in the position. And to "innovation"... grading is not.
In fairness to businessmen, we weather storms in spite of "who" gets elected.
Let's not bring up the ugly sides of coins here. Some go broke (businesses) and some are too big to fail.
welcome to the real world people
where things happen in a blink of a eye, and to keep current in this world one has to think beyond the box so to speak
all companies go though changes just part of the real world ,change has to happen for things to move forward and without change you are left with old tired ideas and oddly enough those ideas may of worked long ago but are outdated as of right now cause the world has moved on
i see companies change each day trying to find the right idea that works for them just like PCGS is doing trying to find the right idea to use, yeah it may take time, effort and such but down the road they will find ideas that work well for them
https://sites.google.com/view/coins-for-sale/home
I would advocate to see the end of the + grades. There was worthwhile excitement when they were introduced, but not I really don't think they enhance the hobby, and they complicate the grading process, and what we really need is more consistency in the grading room. Just my 2-cent piece on the topic of suggestions...
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Let's just say and be done with speculation, some folks have a funny way of retiring.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
john F
I would keep the + grades IF they can tighten the standards. They can. We all knew it would not take long for that to blow up. From my point of view, a + is a "must have" . The really super high end coins do deserve to be distingusied. .
In my opinion that would help a lot if they were more accurate. A + should be like getting a gold medal for being the best in the world at something.
A PCGS in the end still DOES make a difference.
I think the + grade idea was brilliant.
I'm hoping a Ture-View comparing software program will make the population numbers more accurate in the future.
My Saint Set
How do they complicate the grading process...? The + designation is one of the best things that has ever happened to the grading market.
Maybe HRH or Don can get a Secretary of State job.
Didn't Laura either post here or in a market report that she was thinking of retiring and maybe if she....well....er...um....where was I going with this post?
Who said anything about jobs. I was referring to the Flintstone style car you would be driving because of CAFE standards forced upon the auto industry which caused manufacturers to re-gear in order to compete.
I'll be in the office all day. . .
Keep an open mind, or get financially repressed -Zoltan Pozsar
Don was a friend before he went to PCGS, and I appreciated what he did when he was there. I will miss him.
.
Good advice, but probably too late. Can you imagine what would happen to the prices of the "plus" coins if they were discontinued? Can you imagine every seller arguing that that his new non-plus coins are as good as the old plus coins? It could get ugly.
Then again, it's already ugly.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Then perhaps a double plus is in order? ++
Two years later, resubmit for the holy grail, yes the treble plus designation! +++
I don't know about you, but I'm excited at the possibility.
Will we see a 100 point grading scale in the near future after all?
Hope not!
My YouTube Channel
Well, it would generate more money...
Wasn't that one of Don's threads, stating it would not happen? Given he has left..........
Several years ago, Joe Orlando was adamant that PSA, the collector card grading side of PSA would never, ever have a .5 (point 5) grading system, then a few months later proudly announced the roll out of a .5 grading system. I await the announcement of the new and improved 100 point grading system. The resubmissions will keep CU in revenue for years.
Don wasn't the say all be all of PCGS Grading. Other people surely would have a say I'm sure...
In the US, the 100 point scale would be about as successful as the metric system. After 50 years, we still trying to make that work.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I double dog dare them
I have always thought that Don is a really nice and down to earth guy who loves coins. I hope I get to see him at a show again in the near future.
I hope that he is happy with the decisions that he is making because that is what matters!
Best wishes to Don at any future endeavors.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Why would you advocate that??? I will say as one who has quit spending thousands of dollars trying to get 58's into plus grades has stopped submitting completely! PCGS's definition of a + grade is the top 30% of the grade assigned. Believe me when I say I have at least 20 PCGS 58 Barber Half's that blow away the competition and PCGS will not + them. I can also say I have seen most of the 58's out there! It's insane when you have to submit the same coin multiple times before you finally get a plus! My avatar took 5 times and I say it is one of the nicest 58+'s out there! I will agree with you for only 1 reason...which I'm sure has happened! Stop the cash cow for PCGS.
My last submission of Barber Half's was at the winter Baltimore show 1 year ago. When I received my submission of 70 or 80 coins(can't remember how many) graded straight through 10 points undergraded I said I am done! PCGS has to quit their games with the grading scale. I sold a few of them on ebay(which I hope embarrassed PCGS) with no problems for what they should have graded. The rest got the hammer and most have been sold raw.
So how many of you have seen Barber Half's with a full Liberty graded VG8? I had 8 or 10 in that submission not to mention many XF's graded VF30! On the High side I had a couple I was hoping wouldn't grade 62 or 3 but 58+ come back in 55 holders!
I know this will sound arrogant. But in the F-AU grades I think I can stand toe to toe with the best graders out there! I own or have sold over 4000 PCGS graded Barber Half's in this grade range.
I hope this comment doesn't get me kicked off the forums. But if it does it should be a message to everyone.
Where is the disagree button when you really need it........
OINK
PCGS has formulated grading standards that are based solely on their subjective view of a coin's quality. But a coin's market value can be drastically different from their grading model. There are many more characteristics that add to a coin's value that are not a consideration in PCGS grading standards. HRH and to a lesser extent DW espoused a very technical grading standard that was very narrowly focused and missed the ultimate objective of a grading service to establish market value consistently.
In many ways the market has determined the acceptance of PCGS as a coin grading company. While their standards have been recognized as very high, their standards overlook valuation criteria important to collectors and investors in coins. A new viewpoint was needed, and we can only anticipate improvement to their service.
OINK
We don't need brilliant innovation from PCGS. I don't give a rat's a$$ about brilliant innovation. We need CONSISTENCY. Consistency in grading. Perfect the grading standards as best possible, ensure the graders are well trained, grade to those standards, and DONT change them, no matter what the market says or does.
I completely and totally disagree with this viewpoint of what a grading service should be. See my post just below this one.
How would you handle the ones out there if it were to end, if it were your decision/business?
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 wrote about it before and am doing it again here: the submitters of coins have to profit overall or they will cease (or limit)
their submissions which will curtail grading revenues to PCGS (CU) and thus lower their bottom line that much more.
Guess what lower bottom lines do to the stock price of CU.
While there have been tighter periods as far as grading goes, overall there is consistency. Tell me how there isn't....
There will NEVER be consistency in grading. We came extremely close at the first TPGS at INSAB but it was not compatible with the commercial market that TRIED to combined a coin's eye appeal, value, and actual condition of preservation into one #. Our grading standard (formulated to ID a coin in the early 70's) remained unchanged into the mid-1980's when PCGS took control of the market from INSAB, NCI, and ANACS.
Oh my... how long have you been around the TPGs?
Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right...
What is this? You respond to my post that overall there is consistency, then a few minutes later state here that there will never be consistency?!?
Grading will never be consistent.
@ilikemonsters said: "Can't agree more. I wanted to say so much to the previous response, but didn't know where to start. There will never be consistency in grading. You go inside a grading room for 8+ hours for five days a week, and tell me the difference between an MS-65 and an MS-66 Morgan Dollar. Don't think you'll get them all right..."
Actually, it is not as inconsistent as you may think. It only becomes inconsistent when:
Additionally, I broke one of my rules in writing by using the word "NEVER." That's because TPG could become 99% consistent overnight as soon as a TPGS "fingerprints" every coin it grades so the initial grade can be assigned over and over each time it is seen in the future as long as it is not worn down further. We did not have a computer in the 1970's but our standards were so strict that precision was the norm.
Many of you here will disagree with me, like @Ronyahski , but I argue the point that pure technical grading does not reflect market value of your coin collection. The "technical standards" in our hobby do not consider. This assumed hierarchy is offensive to those of us who collect exceptionally toned specimens that are over 100 years old. When I see highly graded coins that have crud toning I know that the grading standards do not represent our hobby well. Eye appeal and attractive toning are significant grading criteria that are required to make grading standards in line with market values. Should a coin's grade not reflect market value????????
OINK
Hope it’s about customer service and opportunities for your client base.
Not sure about that relative to marketing
PCGS services .
Wonder what John Albanese is thinking ?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Maybe they're gonna start their own gig.
Suckup.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
You may not care about innovation but it's important to others, to the hobby, to the market, and to PCGS's bottom line. The registry set was certainly a brilliant innovation. Cert verification with imaging was certainly an important innovation, even if obvious and not especially "brilliant". Someday, a completely new form of slab will be invented, something far less bulky than current slabs, and suited for storage in an reasonably compact album of some sort. And probably within the next decade or two, the innovators will bring us far more consistent grading and more sophisticated counterfeit detection via computer assisted grading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I debated whether to post this. But it compliments your post so well I thought I would. Here is an excerpt from an email news letter blog from a well known and respected dealer here:
"We are taking what we hope will be a short hiatus from PCGS. About two or three months ago, PCGS made some changes in their grading standards that are causing many dealers problems, us included. While we admit that PCGS needed to make some corrections to their standards, what we've seen - and many other dealers have as well - is a major over correction, to the point where many of the coins we send for grading cannot be sold for a profit. We have a pretty good idea how to evaluate and grade coins, yet we've have seen a large uptick in "body bags" (coins not graded for various reasons) as well as a clear tendency to grade coins at the lowest conceivable grade...or lower. Historically, we would simply try again, but that isn't working these days. The theoretical coin we send in expecting 55 and hoping for 58, is likely to grade 50, and might just 45 the next time. It really is that bad. I can hear some of you thinking, "good for them. It's about time", or something similar. And to a degree you're right. But, only to a degree. We have hundreds - many hundreds - of coins bought under the "old rules" that now are not worth what we paid. Be clear on this point please: We are not asking for favors or special treatment. We simply want and need standards that are clear and consistent, and that do not change. Our current plan is to simply wait and let the dust settle a bit. Some sense of normalcy needs to return to the process, and when it does, we'll be ready to go."
Very interesting read. Sounds like PCGS has really tightened up their standards.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I have no doubt that PCGS has been tighter in recent months, but do you know why? I don't.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Lots of rumors flying around but only PCGS knows why!