@SIowhand said:
Operate as a not for profit in the best interest of the collector rather than a public company beholden to share holders.
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
@SIowhand said:
Operate as a not for profit in the best interest of the collector rather than a public company beholden to share holders.
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
PCGS is a very small portion of CU. PSA is the moneymaker.
@nencoin said:
PCGS: Fix your online submission system. It's essentially unusable, which is ridiculous and inexcusable.
NGC: Create a (working) online submission system.
Not sure I'm following this. I do on line submissions and then print them out. No issues.
It's good to know their online submission system works for a least some folks. For us, it is much too slow to be considered a viable option. This has been a known and acknowledged issue for quite some time.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
Most colleges are not for profit. Nonetheless, there tuition increases have outstripped inflation significantly for the past half century.
Many/Most hospitals are also not for profit.
I'm not saying that eliminating the profit might not cause a one time drop of 20%. But I really don't think there's any long term windfall heading collectors way of they were to be a not for profit.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
@MFeld said:
What one feasible change/improvement would you like to see the major grading companies make?
For many series, and some esoteric items, it seems blatantly impossible to "grade" within a couple points of accuracy. For example, can someone explain the difference between AU-53 and AU-55 for a clad quarter blank planchet? Or what makes one New Jersey farthing grade VF-20 vs VF-25?
For certain series, such fine gradations imply an impossible level of accuracy and I think simple "word grades" would suffice.
(NGC seems to have taken a bit of a lead on this idea with certification of Ancients.)
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
To echo @Boosibri: we send coins to you in one box, and it'd be nice if you'd send them back to in one box (with only one set of handling/shipping/insurance fees).
My own addition, about which I feel strongly: let us request cascading services for one coin within a single shipment. Ex: submit a coin for RECONSIDERATION or REGRADE. THEN, upgrade or no, send to VARIETY ATTRIBUTION (with optional GOLD SHIELD).
In 2022 I needed cascading service: PCGS reconsidered a coin, didn't upgrade it, and then sent it back without honoring my written request to add Attribution and TrueView. I was told to resubmit. But every shipping instance incurs cost and risk as well as delaying the realization of the customer's goals.
The two ideas above reduce the number of shipping instances with their attendant cost and risk from potentially MANY to just TWO (out and back) every time!
Epilog: the paper submission form states: "ONLY ONE TYPE OF SUBMISSION AT ONE SERVICE LEVEL IS PERMITTED PER FORM." Maybe that existed in 2022 and I didn't know that. (Mea culpa!) But my "Cascading Services" request would eliminate this constraint.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
Again, the Star is for exceptional eye appeal, not about the coin being PQ. And the two terms shouldn’t be used together because that confuses the issue.
However, on the subject of “PQ” coins, if you need a + grade to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn’t PQ.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll add to my list:
6. Deliver all services paid for. If you pay for gold shield reconsideration and it fails, they should still take an in-slab Trueview if one does not already exist. The fee is already priced into the service.
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
To echo @Boosibri: we send coins to you in one box, and it'd be nice if you'd send them back to in one box (with only one set of handling/shipping/insurance fees).
Yeah, this would be nice for sure.
My own addition, about which I feel strongly: let us request cascading services for one coin within a single shipment. Ex: submit a coin for RECONSIDERATION or REGRADE. THEN, upgrade or no, send to VARIETY ATTRIBUTION (with optional GOLD SHIELD).
A better examples is Crossover - restoration. If it crosses, then restore it.
a firm level playing field for accurate grading standards with NO leeway or exceptions!
No special treatment made for any: series, dates, mint marks, or denominations.
Just honest appraisal of condition and strike quality. A PR65 or MS65 should have identical standards for a 1838, 1938, 2025, or any year. “Black and White” grading with NO grey areas.
No exceptions for surface tampering of any kind, including dips!
It should be listed on the label if a coin has been dipped, cleaned, gently cleaned, or had the surface altered in any way. “Market acceptable” is a fancy way to say double standards. A rose by any other name…
Also, less gimmicks/distractions. All the gimmick labels seem like desperate money grabs to me (no offense intended towards those whom collect various labels, it is just not interesting to me unless as a pedigree).
What is the deal with extra costs added for reconsideration?! If a coin was graded too low the first time, why should a customer have to pay a value based premium to get the proper grade?
As an electrician, If I wired your home or business incorrectly, I would not charge you more money to fix my mistakes. You paid for a service the first time.
In a fair fairy tale world, if a coin was graded incorrectly the first time an upgrade or downgrade should be free since it was a service already paid for.
I have not submitted in a couple of years, just before Phil left. With the prices keep rising and the duration times increasing, I have kept my membership current, but may let it drop when it's renewal time.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
@jom said:
Do something to rectify the discrepancy in value between really nice high-end AU and crappy lower mint state coins. Something descriptive like AU63 or some such.
jom
AU63????
Why not F45 or VG50?
You forgot the In case your post is not a joke, a grade like AU 62 or AU-63 describes many coins exactly!
Variety attribution via official PCGS or NGC photo service, when possible.
Something along the lines of when a previously grade coin has pictures on file from the grading company, a nominal fee for the TPG to review their photos on file for said coin and enter the variety detail within the coin cert verification page. No need to ship or reslab,....
Give a reason for Details grade when it's not obvious. I have a few coins with 'cleaned' or 'repaired' and I cannot for the life of me see where, even under a microscope. A couple of these are thousand+ dollar swings. I sometimes consider cracking them out and resubmitting for a second opinion.
Get rid of the physical magazines and instead run a Discord.
Sell merch.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
I would like to see their reasoning for either denying authenticity, unseen details grades and cleaning signs. This alone would benefit early collectors greatly. As they paid already and did not get what they had thought they would, I do not see a reason for a fee. Now if a submitter wants information regarding grade, then charge extra. In this day of computers, the grader could speak a sentence into a microphone and have it stored with the grade sequence. So time would not be a killer, my opinion. It could simply show up on the certification page. I feel any benefit to a beginning collector would be a benefit to both collector and grading company. As the collector became more proficient quicker, perhaps they would submit more coins without the worry of rejection. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Consistent labeling.
For example, why are the first two Trade dollars labeled with the problem noted (and chopmarked on one) yet the third doesn't state the problem, simply chopmarked.
I would love to see them drop prefixes. No VG, AU, etc. I'm sick of the AU vs MS arguments when people should just be talking about how nice the coin is.
Start paying people with either cash or grading vouchers for the return of labels from cracked out coins. Then remove those coins from their population statistics. I think PCGS may have done this in the past?
@neildrobertson said:
I would love to see them drop prefixes. No VG, AU, etc. I'm sick of the AU vs MS arguments when people should just be talking about how nice the coin is.
The AU vs. MS issue is a tricky one when dealing with a steam pressed coin like a Capped Bust Half dollar, where not only do you look for luster breaks, but you need to know the variety type to help make the determination. I've seen some AUs in MS 63 holders.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@neildrobertson said:
I would love to see them drop prefixes. No VG, AU, etc. I'm sick of the AU vs MS arguments when people should just be talking about how nice the coin is.
The AU vs. MS issue is a tricky one when dealing with a steam pressed coin like a Capped Bust Half dollar, where not only do you look for luster breaks, but you need to know the variety type to help make the determination. I've seen some AUs in MS 63 holders.
Steam powered coin presses were introduced to the US Mint in 1836 so weren't most capped bust half dollars struck by a screw press?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Cladiator said:
Start paying people with either cash or grading vouchers for the return of labels from cracked out coins. Then remove those coins from their population statistics. I think PCGS may have done this in the past?
Not sure what was done in the past.
That said, as of APR-2025, the "bounty" for a returned label was a $0.50 account credit.
@neildrobertson said:
I would love to see them drop prefixes. No VG, AU, etc. I'm sick of the AU vs MS arguments when people should just be talking about how nice the coin is.
The AU vs. MS issue is a tricky one when dealing with a steam pressed coin like a Capped Bust Half dollar, where not only do you look for luster breaks, but you need to know the variety type to help make the determination. I've seen some AUs in MS 63 holders.
Steam powered coin presses were introduced to the US Mint in 1836 so weren't most capped bust half dollars struck by a screw press?
You're right, CBHs were made with the screw press. Haven't looked at one of them for awhile.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@neildrobertson said:
I would like holders to be smaller in size, similar to the old ANACs holders.
Agree but then there wouldn't be enough room for stickers.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Improve coin imaging/photography. Not just a slab shot but also a decent obverse and reverse shot.
One of the TPG's has done that, and I'm impressed.
I recently sent in a batch of ungraded CC GSA's to CACG. For $5 extra using economy (regular is included), you get hi-res photos of the slab front & back, 2 dual shots, obverse & reverse close-ups, and two slab shots in JPEG. (8 pics total)
Not bad! ⇊
Comments
A fantastic idea. Not sure how they would pay any overhead costs or salaries, but I’m sure their hundreds of employees would love that - highly skilled graders would be flocking to those unpaid positions. All companies should be nonprofits in the best interest of their customers!!
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Not for profit doesn't mean everything is free. It means that any fees received are used for operations only (read: salaries), rather than passing excess earnings to the company owner(s).
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
A non-profit would end up costing about the same, not to mention the serious reductions in grading skills as a lot of top graders are paid with shares of the company.
Not only do you have to worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc.
I'm not arguing in favor of this, just correcting a misconception...however, you are extraordinarily wrong that pricing to the consumer would be about the same.
If a non-profit, you would indeed have to "worry about salaries for the graders, receivers, encapsulators, etc. you also have to put money aside for buybacks, insurance, materials, etc." What about everything leftover? You know, the very large profits made by the PCGS private equity owners? I don't know what the profit margin for CU currently is but I bet it's even higher than this:
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
No more CAC!
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
PCGS is a very small portion of CU. PSA is the moneymaker.
It's good to know their online submission system works for a least some folks. For us, it is much too slow to be considered a viable option. This has been a known and acknowledged issue for quite some time.
Which it what I was referring to, a la the reply thread here. Premium Quality Eye Appeal perhaps. The proposal was a scale of 1-10. Something like a star really shouldn't warrant general market premiums, but alert the potential buyer to focus some attention to see if it aesthetically is exceptional for their collecting pursuits.
Most colleges are not for profit. Nonetheless, there tuition increases have outstripped inflation significantly for the past half century.
Many/Most hospitals are also not for profit.
I'm not saying that eliminating the profit might not cause a one time drop of 20%. But I really don't think there's any long term windfall heading collectors way of they were to be a not for profit.
If you need a star to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn't PQ.
http://ProofCollection.Net
For many series, and some esoteric items, it seems blatantly impossible to "grade" within a couple points of accuracy. For example, can someone explain the difference between AU-53 and AU-55 for a clad quarter blank planchet? Or what makes one New Jersey farthing grade VF-20 vs VF-25?
For certain series, such fine gradations imply an impossible level of accuracy and I think simple "word grades" would suffice.
(NGC seems to have taken a bit of a lead on this idea with certification of Ancients.)
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
@PCGS_Moderator, PCGS workflow and process changes can make BIG differences in the user experience.
In 2022 I needed cascading service: PCGS reconsidered a coin, didn't upgrade it, and then sent it back without honoring my written request to add Attribution and TrueView. I was told to resubmit. But every shipping instance incurs cost and risk as well as delaying the realization of the customer's goals.
The two ideas above reduce the number of shipping instances with their attendant cost and risk from potentially MANY to just TWO (out and back) every time!
Epilog: the paper submission form states: "ONLY ONE TYPE OF SUBMISSION AT ONE SERVICE LEVEL IS PERMITTED PER FORM." Maybe that existed in 2022 and I didn't know that. (Mea culpa!) But my "Cascading Services" request would eliminate this constraint.
My (infrequently updated) hobby website Groovycoins.com
Again, the Star is for exceptional eye appeal, not about the coin being PQ. And the two terms shouldn’t be used together because that confuses the issue.
However, on the subject of “PQ” coins, if you need a + grade to tell you that a coin is PQ, maybe it isn’t PQ.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll add to my list:
6. Deliver all services paid for. If you pay for gold shield reconsideration and it fails, they should still take an in-slab Trueview if one does not already exist. The fee is already priced into the service.
Yeah, this would be nice for sure.
A better examples is Crossover - restoration. If it crosses, then restore it.
http://ProofCollection.Net
turnaround time
especially paying for quicker service and sometimes not getting it
Accurate variety attribution,
accurate Full Steps designation,
a firm level playing field for accurate grading standards with NO leeway or exceptions!
No special treatment made for any: series, dates, mint marks, or denominations.
Just honest appraisal of condition and strike quality. A PR65 or MS65 should have identical standards for a 1838, 1938, 2025, or any year. “Black and White” grading with NO grey areas.
No exceptions for surface tampering of any kind, including dips!
It should be listed on the label if a coin has been dipped, cleaned, gently cleaned, or had the surface altered in any way. “Market acceptable” is a fancy way to say double standards. A rose by any other name…
Also, less gimmicks/distractions. All the gimmick labels seem like desperate money grabs to me (no offense intended towards those whom collect various labels, it is just not interesting to me unless as a pedigree).
What is the deal with extra costs added for reconsideration?! If a coin was graded too low the first time, why should a customer have to pay a value based premium to get the proper grade?
As an electrician, If I wired your home or business incorrectly, I would not charge you more money to fix my mistakes. You paid for a service the first time.
In a fair fairy tale world, if a coin was graded incorrectly the first time an upgrade or downgrade should be free since it was a service already paid for.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Lower prices, and more new member specials.
Cut the cost to grade the coins in half.
Or, keep costs the same and simplify the forms and cut the grading time down.
peacockcoins
I have not submitted in a couple of years, just before Phil left. With the prices keep rising and the duration times increasing, I have kept my membership current, but may let it drop when it's renewal time.
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,...
You forgot the
In case your post is not a joke, a grade like AU 62 or AU-63 describes many coins exactly!
Sorry, this discussion was back on page one.
Recognize and acknowledge superior eye appeal
They already do... right on the label
Variety attribution via official PCGS or NGC photo service, when possible.
Something along the lines of when a previously grade coin has pictures on file from the grading company, a nominal fee for the TPG to review their photos on file for said coin and enter the variety detail within the coin cert verification page. No need to ship or reslab,....
Give a reason for Details grade when it's not obvious. I have a few coins with 'cleaned' or 'repaired' and I cannot for the life of me see where, even under a microscope. A couple of these are thousand+ dollar swings. I sometimes consider cracking them out and resubmitting for a second opinion.
Numerical grade with DETAILS.
Get rid of the physical magazines and instead run a Discord.
Sell merch.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
I would like to see their reasoning for either denying authenticity, unseen details grades and cleaning signs. This alone would benefit early collectors greatly. As they paid already and did not get what they had thought they would, I do not see a reason for a fee. Now if a submitter wants information regarding grade, then charge extra. In this day of computers, the grader could speak a sentence into a microphone and have it stored with the grade sequence. So time would not be a killer, my opinion. It could simply show up on the certification page. I feel any benefit to a beginning collector would be a benefit to both collector and grading company. As the collector became more proficient quicker, perhaps they would submit more coins without the worry of rejection. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I recently sent a couple of 50C toners in for a cross, with instructions to not holder unless they'd straight-cross.
Both DNC, and one of them they gave the reason why.
So, while fairly disappointed with my unsuccessful bid to cross (and $200 poof), I was pleased with them telling me why-(QC) on the 1964-D, FWIW.
Display the date the coin was graded on the Certification page. Why hide it?
Dave
Consistency.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Consistent labeling.
For example, why are the first two Trade dollars labeled with the problem noted (and chopmarked on one) yet the third doesn't state the problem, simply chopmarked.
peacockcoins
Isn't the "92" code for cleaning?
I would love to see them drop prefixes. No VG, AU, etc. I'm sick of the AU vs MS arguments when people should just be talking about how nice the coin is.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Start paying people with either cash or grading vouchers for the return of labels from cracked out coins. Then remove those coins from their population statistics. I think PCGS may have done this in the past?
The AU vs. MS issue is a tricky one when dealing with a steam pressed coin like a Capped Bust Half dollar, where not only do you look for luster breaks, but you need to know the variety type to help make the determination. I've seen some AUs in MS 63 holders.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Steam powered coin presses were introduced to the US Mint in 1836 so weren't most capped bust half dollars struck by a screw press?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Not sure what was done in the past.
That said, as of APR-2025, the "bounty" for a returned label was a $0.50 account credit.
Reference: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13893562/#Comment_13893562
Yes. Just as code 95 is for a scratched coin. Doesn't answer why the first two are labeled with the problem noted and the third one is not.
peacockcoins
Develop a process for through screening of coins for PVC.
You're right, CBHs were made with the screw press. Haven't looked at one of them for awhile.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I would like holders to be smaller in size, similar to the old ANACs holders.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Agree but then there wouldn't be enough room for stickers.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
One of the TPG's has done that, and I'm impressed.
I recently sent in a batch of ungraded CC GSA's to CACG. For $5 extra using economy (regular is included), you get hi-res photos of the slab front & back, 2 dual shots, obverse & reverse close-ups, and two slab shots in JPEG. (8 pics total)
Not bad! ⇊