Unfamiliar PCGS Slab

@Lakesammman
to see if he knows....

Well, I learned something here.... Thanks for the inputs from the members. Cheers, RickO

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:
I don't know if PCGS has a customer advocacy group or representative, but it's about time that us customers of PCGS demand that PCGS publish a comprehensive guide to all of the slabs, labels, and designations that they've issued over the years.
This is a prime example. The PCGS customer who slabbed the coin in this thread is likely to realize a lower resale price because no one can easily find an authoritative source to validate and interpret this certification. PCGS OWES their customers to provide references that allow collectors to know what they are getting and why it may or may not be special. This is essential to proving and showing the value of PCGS slabs, labels, and designations and it hurts their customers to keep this information hidden.

THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE GUESSING ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF A PCGS LABEL!

This is not the only instance where this is an issue. This is also an issue with designations such as "Early Issue" slabs which are not explained anywhere on PCGS website and we deserve a full public explanation that First Strike is not limited to coins released by the mint within the first 30 days but that it also applies every time the coin is re-issued in another product offering from the mint. I don't understand why PCGS is so secretive with this information which is really doing its customer base a disservice.

TLDR

please note that the other examples shown are easily verified by cert #. There is some problem, possibly legitimate, with the cert # on that coin only.

Yes, but in this case, the cert number cannot be verified on the PCGS website and PCGS has deviated from their standard of (coin number).(grade)/(cert number) because in lieu of the grade it says (89). 89 is not a code listed on https://www.pcgs.com/grades

Edited to add:
Why this is an issue is because of this, I would never consider buying this slab which is bad and sad for the seller because assuming others think the way I do, the seller will inevitably realize lower value which is entirely unnecessary if PCGS would just provide this basic information for their customers about their own products.

@Maywood said:
it's about time that us customers of PCGS demand.......................

Everyone should know the difference between a demand and a request.

And it is time to demand this, not request this because requests are falling on deaf ears. It is not a big ask. It is also not unreasonable that PCGS publish a guide for its products that the entire industry relies upon and that they supposedly stand behind. They are doing their customers and the industry a disservice by keeping this information about their products hidden and secret or otherwise impossible or difficult to obtain.

PCGS customers should demand to be able to verify and understand any and all PCGS slabs and designations without talking to customer service.

@JW77 said:

I agree the label is very attractive; but what exactly does Brilliant Uncirculated Mean.

Brilliant means it's bright and lustrous. Uncirculated means it doesn't show any wear.

@Maywood said:
I suggest you demand away and see how much progress that makes. Maybe you should start a thread here that starts out something like:
--- "We, the loyal customers of PCGS, immediately DEMAND that PCGS publishes a list of.................."

I will wait for that thread, but I won't hold my breath and I wouldn't be one to sign it, either.

First of all, I have made the requests and PCGS doesn't care. I suppose I was never talking to the right people about this either though, which is I why I asked if there was a customer panel.

Second, why don't you care? A proper guide strengthens the PCGS brand and value. Why would you support the status quo which is people wondering if valid PCGS slabs are legitimate and wondering what some designations mean?

Well, you could page da man himself... @ianrussell

@Cameonut said:
Interesting that the PCGS logo is not molded into the lower right front of the holder.

It is there. I did a screen grab on the OP slab and then messed with the coloring some to make it stand out more.

So this indignation expressed by some replies is a moot point since there's no monkey-business going on, just the machinery of a bulk submission working out at the Factory. Now I can sleep at night!!

@Maywood said:
So this indignation expressed by some replies is a moot point since there's no monkey-business going on, just the machinery of a bulk submission working out at the Factory. Now I can sleep at night!!

No. The grading code of (89) still remains unexplained in any official publication by PCGS.

@MetroD said:
I am NOT a label expert. That said, I had no idea that PCGS was using "Early Issue" in lieu of "First Strike" on certain labels. To me, the use of different terminology on contemporary items could be confusing to the customer base.

Exactly. This sows uncertainty and doubt as there are probably some potential buyers that will see this, run the cert, and then pass on it because of the inconsistency resulting in lower value for PCGS customers. While it would be best not to have the inconsistency, a simple entry on the designations web page to explain all of the nuances of the Early Issues designation would go a long way to resolving this. Again, this is not a big ask nor is it unreasonable.

Here is where it's explained, though this may not satisfy everyone. Where the grade should be it lists the code and its meaning.

@ProofCollection said:
I don't know if PCGS has a customer advocacy group or representative, but it's about time that us customers of PCGS demand that PCGS publish a comprehensive guide to all of the slabs, labels, and designations that they've issued over the years.

Such a guide would be nice, but since we're talking about them investing finite resources to do that, I'd rank it well behind improvements in turnaround, variety attribution, and customer service responsiveness.

@Maywood said:
@ProofCollection said: The grading code of (89) still remains unexplained in any official publication by PCGS

Apparently the meaning of that code is known, check the thread linked below.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1077444/code-89-what-does-this-mean

Respectfully, not everyone frequents this forum. (Only the really cool people do. )

@Maywood said:
Here is where it's explained, though this may not satisfy everyone. Where the grade should be it lists the code and its meaning.

PCGS has an existing page where they describe their "no grades". Link
So, they clearly consider a reference for these types of codes to be value-added.
As such, IMHO, it would not be unreasonable to request that they add an entry for "genuine".

I will send a request to CS via e-mail, and ask that they consider adding an entry to the "no grades" reference for "genuine". Stay tuned for their response.

@MetroD said:
[...]
PCGS has an existing page where they describe their "no grades". Link
So, they clearly consider a reference for these types of codes to be value-added.
As such, IMHO, it would not be unreasonable to request that they add an entry for "genuine".

I will send a request to CS via e-mail, and ask that they consider adding an entry to the "no grades" reference for "genuine". Stay tuned for their response.

I said that I would contact PCGS CS, and ask them to consider adding code "89" to the existing 'PCGS Grading Standards'. This is the follow-up.

It took nearly two weeks and multiple e-mail exchanges, but I have an answer. PCGS will not be adding code "89" to the grading standards, because it is "mainly used" for bulk submitters or dealers, as opposed to other customers.

Can't say that I agree with, or even understand, this policy. In my mind, 'bulk/dealer' submissions end up in the same marketplace as "Collectors Club" submissions. As such, it is rational to include all of the possible codes in the grading standards, regardless of the original submitter.

@MetroD said:

@MetroD said:
[...]
PCGS has an existing page where they describe their "no grades". Link
So, they clearly consider a reference for these types of codes to be value-added.
As such, IMHO, it would not be unreasonable to request that they add an entry for "genuine".

I will send a request to CS via e-mail, and ask that they consider adding an entry to the "no grades" reference for "genuine". Stay tuned for their response.

I said that I would contact PCGS CS, and ask them to consider adding code "89" to the existing 'PCGS Grading Standards'. This is the follow-up.

It took nearly two weeks and multiple e-mail exchanges, but I have an answer. PCGS will not be adding code "89" to the grading standards, because it is "mainly used" for bulk submitters or dealers, as opposed to other customers.

Can't say that I agree with, or even understand, this policy. In my mind, 'bulk/dealer' submissions end up in the same marketplace as "Collectors Club" submissions. As such, it is rational to include all of the possible codes in the grading standards, regardless of the original submitter.

The effort you put in is much appreciated even if the final decision is less than satisfactory.