PCGS....I THINK WE WOULD LIKE A STATEMENT!

ScarsdaleCoin · August 29, 2006 12:53AM

I think that it would be very helpful for PCGS to make a statement regarding MOC and his magically ability to tone coins in the holder....even word that they are looking into this would imho help calm the waters....your thoughts

Longacre · August 29, 2006 1:03AM

You just might be the next one banned.

segoja · August 29, 2006 1:04AM

Why would one be banned for seeking the truth????

airplanenut · August 29, 2006 1:05AM

Actually, I'd like PCGS to find a way to seal these, and do it for free (or at least shipping costs). There's a prestige of having a first generation holder, and this would make them even safer/more stable. It would be like the old PCGS 2 quick fix, but this time with better materials at their disposal.

Jeremy

keets · August 29, 2006 1:10AM

it's quite unreasonable for PCGS to be expected to make any kind of statement about this whole affair since they have already addressed problems with the first generation holders by radically changing them many years ago. as to making them airtight in some fashion, that's unrealistic.

poorguy · August 29, 2006 1:10AM

Why would one be banned for seeking the truth????

You're joking right? You didn't see what happened to Coinguy? Oh yea, he used the f-word.

saintguru · August 29, 2006 1:12AM

I am certain that this is being addressed as we speak.

The question is, how will they handle coins that were artificially toned while in the holder? This does relieve them of having to guarantee the coins and opens the door for civil suits.

eyoung429 · August 29, 2006 1:13AM

<< Actually, I'd like PCGS to find a way to seal these, and do it for free (or at least shipping costs). There's a prestige of having a first generation holder, and this would make them even safer/more stable. It would be like the old PCGS 2 quick fix, but this time with better materials at their disposal.

Jeremy >>

Unfortunately I would think that this would pose a very viable issue. Most collectors do examine the holder of a coin that they are purchasing. Unless there is a way that cannot be duplicated, the holder would appear tampered with.

1. you would not want to glue the edges
2. if you use a cover on the edges, this would give more freedom to tampering with the slab if the cover can be duplicated outside of PCGS unless it was somehow embossed with the coins serial number that would be viewable from the clear plastic edge

Cladiator · August 29, 2006 1:16AM

Since the problem here resides with the Rattler holders would it not be fathomable to AT a coin in a Rattler like MOC has done. Then send the coin into PCGS to be re-holdered for $5 and placed into the newest style holder. As far as I know only coins in Rattlers are susceptible to this type of AT and PCGS will re-holder any Rattler without reviewing the coin or grade. Having the AT'd coin in out of the rattler and into the new holder would eliminate it from the instant suspicion it would have in the Rattler.

Danger Will Robinson, danger...

edited for the spelling nazis.

Gemineye · August 29, 2006 1:40AM

In spite of the recent events I think it would be impossible for PCGS to be responsible in any way.Even the U.S. mint coins or currency can be duplicatet to pass as real so how can they be held liable.Tampering with a slab would be childs play in comparison....JMO

Leiana · August 29, 2006 1:43AM

I should think that it would be in PCGS's best interests to put out a "Consumer Advisory Alert" stating that it has recently come to its attention that coins can be toned inside the OGHs and for people to buy with caution.

But what do I know?

-Amanda

ziggy29 · August 29, 2006 1:44AM

Maybe we need to have PCGS slab the slab.

Bochiman · August 29, 2006 1:53AM

Jon, I think you are asking for too much.
Aside from the cold administrative scythe holding hand cutting people's CU_board lifelines if they get TOOOO far out of step, when is the last time you saw someone with coin "knowledge" come from PCGS to enter a thread or chat with people (or even the Q&no A board?

The priority of people on this board, and the daily machinations, are one of the last priorities....

FatMan · August 29, 2006 1:57AM

<< Since the problem here resides with the Rattler holders would it not be fathomable to AT a coin in a Rattler like MOC has done. Then send the coin into PCGS to be re-holdered for $5 and placed into the newest style holder. As far as I know only coins in Rattlers are susceptible to this type of AT and PCGS will re-holder any Rattler without reviewing the coin or grade. Having the AT'd coin in out of the rattler and into the new holder would eliminate it from the instant suspicion it would have in the Rattler.

Danger Will Robinson, danger... >>

This is the greatest concern and may answer the question as to how some blatant AT'd coins can be found in current holders. I hope PCGS has already instituted the policy of reviewing all rattler re-holders.

ss350camaro · August 29, 2006 1:59AM

Wolf359 · August 29, 2006 2:00AM

I can't see why PCGS would need to make a statement...by all accounts this
is an isolated incident.

elwood · August 29, 2006 2:07AM

Why would they need to make a statement?

There's no liability here.

The only thing they will need to look out for is if people start sending rattlers in for reholdering. Then instead of reholdering they may need to regrade coins in rattler holders, if they look suspicious.

BlindedByEgo · August 29, 2006 2:25AM

I suspect that PCGS will remain silent on this.

In another week we'll be back to grading XF/AU Barber Halves and marvelling at another Russ View™ photograph.

Cladiator · August 29, 2006 2:28AM

I'd like to see an article written up in CoinWord, NN, Coins magazine or any of the other major numismatic publications. I'd like to see this little experience make it out of the secluded world of the forums.

Steve27 · August 29, 2006 2:45AM

" I think that it would be very helpful for PCGS to make a statement..."

True, but it isn't going to happen.

Bochiman · August 29, 2006 2:53AM

<< I can't see why PCGS would need to make a statement...by all accounts this
is an isolated incident. >>

Actually Wolf, by all accounts we don't KNOW how isolated this is. If 1 person could do it, can you honestly think that others can't/haven't?
If MOC was truthful when he said that he learned how to do it on these boards, then why couldn't others? (likely learned some portions of it and then experimented).

I am still reserving my judgement on all of this but would hope that there is a meeting going on at PCGS (and potentially NGC as well since people may have these and attempt a NGC crossover) about all this. Though, it will screw over some NT and some honest people thanks to this.

ziggy29 · August 29, 2006 3:03AM

<< Why would they need to make a statement? >>

Because they want to restore faith in the quality and integrity of their product?

In some ways, this isn't much different than when those bottles of Tylenol were being laced with poison. THIS particular situation was an "isolated incident" which happened outside of the factory.

But rather than stick their heads in the sand and say it's not their problem because it happened AFTER it left their factories, Johnson and Johnson very proactively and publicly acknowledged the issue, recognized the impact it had on consumer trust in their product, and went above and beyond to get to the bottom of the problem and restore the public's faith in their products.

So while people aren't dying and getting sick here, I think the principle is the same. Whether PCGS is liable or not, the net effect is that a lot of people will now have reduced faith in their product; namely, less faith that a toner in PCGS plastic really exhibits natural toning. So yes, PCGS should be very concerned about this just as Johnson and Johnson was. Whether that comes in the form of a "statement" or not is a side-issue. Also, I think there are a lot more people getting doctored coins into PCGS holders than there are people lacing Tylenol with cyanide. And as a more widespread problem, the TPGs should be even that much more concerned.

19Lyds · August 29, 2006 3:17AM

<< I should think that it would be in PCGS's best interests to put out a "Consumer Advisory Alert" stating that it has recently come to its attention that coins can be toned inside the OGHs and for people to buy with caution.

But what do I know?

-Amanda >>

I think this is a great idea! Has anybody posted to the Q & A Forum on this subject matter??

mozin · August 29, 2006 3:30AM

It would not solve the entire problem, but I would like to see PCGS offer to reholder all first generation holdered coins free of charge. Any of these submitted coins determined by PCGS to have AT should be bought by PCGS. It should not cost PCGS much to train one person to inspect all first generation holdered coins for AT before they reholder them. Still questionable AT coins could be run through an official grader, at PCGS expense.

PCGS long ago realized their first generation holder had design flaws. Now it is time for PCGS to pay up for the design flaws that allowed this artificial toning to take place in the holder.

I have already reholdered all my older style PCGS coins, along with all the scratched holders.

Longacre · August 29, 2006 4:00AM

Has scarsdalecoin been banned yet?

Elcontador · August 29, 2006 4:10AM

I have an interesting dilemma on this one. I have a 28S Stander in FH 5 in a rattler. It was part of a roll of them which was sold at the 1988 ANA. Five or six years ago, I tried to upgrade the coin in holder, and was told the "color was too thick." Many people who looked at the coin told me to hold onto it, as it's clearly nicer than most 5s I've seen of the series.

If you like originally toned coins, you'll fall in love with this SLQ. Coins like this one in rattlers have a substantial premium on them, so for this reason, I have not attempted to upgrade the coin again (the coin would lose a good several hundred dollars of value, if not more, if it came back in a new slab at the same grade).

Now I read about the gassing of coins inside of old rattlers. As the toning on this coin IMO cannot be duplicated, I am inclined to do nothing. What do you think? No, I don't have a pic, and even if I did, there's no way it could show all of the detail re the coin's color.

ScarsdaleCoin · August 29, 2006 4:13AM

Thank you ziggy29 for putting in words what I am trying to say..... my feelings are that PCGS needs to be proactive to calm the fears that people will have have the best product on the market!

tmot99 · August 29, 2006 4:16AM

I highly doubt we'll see any response from PCGS. The ostrich in the sand thing.

ILikeMercs · August 29, 2006 4:17AM

<< Since the problem here resides with the Rattler holders would it not be fathomable to AT a coin in a Rattler like MOC has done. Then send the coin into PCGS to be re-holdered for $5 and placed into the newest style holder. As far as I know only coins in Rattlers are susceptible to this type of AT and PCGS will re-holder any Rattler without reviewing the coin or grade. Having the AT'd coin in out of the rattler and into the new holder would eliminate it from the instant suspicion it would have in the Rattler.

Danger Will Robinson, danger...

edited for the spelling nazis. >>

maybe a little more scrutiny when rattlers come in for a regrade, from now on.

UncleWiggly · August 29, 2006 4:52AM

<< I should think that it would be in PCGS's best interests to put out a "Consumer Advisory Alert" stating that it has recently come to its attention that coins can be toned inside the OGHs and for people to buy with caution.

But what do I know?

-Amanda >>

Actually, you know alot. This is a good idea.

Jerry

Bochiman · August 29, 2006 5:13AM

Again, I ask.....has anyone with any "clout" with HRH/Ron Guth/PCGS in general picked up the phone and called them about this?

mercurydimeguy · August 29, 2006 5:17AM

...wrong thread...sorry.

millennium · August 29, 2006 5:40AM

The answer?....Be responsible for your own actions. Don't depend on someone else to look out for you. If you are NOT confident in buying toned coins, then stay away from them. Simple as that.

damoeda · August 29, 2006 6:31AM

Why would one be banned for seeking the truth????

The truth? We cannot handle the truth!

BigD5 · August 29, 2006 6:58AM

<< it's quite unreasonable for PCGS to be expected to make any kind of statement about this whole affair since they have already addressed problems with the first generation holders by radically changing them many years ago. as to making them airtight in some fashion, that's unrealistic. >>

Exactly!

They recognized a design flaw and attempted to rectify it. They can't be held accountable because someone figured out how to tarnish the coins in that type of holder.

ms70 · August 29, 2006 7:02AM

The place for this is the Q&A Forum.

JRocco · August 29, 2006 8:21AM

I can't see PCGS making any kind of a statement. Buyer beware. If you are going to drop serious money on a coin - then know the coin. Either its normal color or its normal characteristics.
PCGS should not be made liable for a slab that has been altered or tampered with, so the buyer has to use caution. I know this does not answer all questions and you could shoot holes through it, but it is what it is.

ksteelheader · August 29, 2006 8:34AM

<< Again, I ask.....has anyone with any "clout" with HRH/Ron Guth/PCGS in general picked up the phone and called them about this? >>

Because this is much more widespread and known that anyone wants to admit. It is really commonplace if you just listen to things said at coin shows and coinshops.

And, like supercarcoins said, you know but don't tell because some of these people will do dumb things to you and/or your family. After all, you're messing with their very lucrative business.

ABC123 · August 29, 2006 8:36AM

Any Statement will be made on a need to know basis, and you have no need to know--Don Rumsfeld

deansmint · August 29, 2006 9:01AM

PCGS needs to do something to instil a future sense of confidence in their product. The argument that this only pertains to coins in old rattlers has already been dispeled by the argument that these coins can be sent in for a reholder and put in new "good" plastic. This isn't about their financial liability, it is miniscule compared to the value of their business model and the value of their good name. You can state that the buyer needs to beware, but I garauntee that a larger part of this hobby doesn't contain the knowledge that the majority in the forum do. And if you think that this current coin economy can be sustained with the loss of the confidence in PCGS that so many reley on outside of this forum, you are surely mistaken. Just watch the value of your collection drop as the market is flooded with coins by those who aren't as knowledgable as those that claim to be. I for one would be surely upset if PCGS doesn't counteract this negative publicity in some way to help their perception in the market place, and the value of my coins.

FatMan · August 29, 2006 9:09AM

We'll get a statement on this right after the statement on the "First Strike" issue.

ksteelheader · August 29, 2006 9:31AM

Come on fellows, how in the world is PCGS gonna contact everyone that owns PCGS holders???

Sometimes I think you all get a sense of amnesia when you spend too much time over here patting each other on the back.

tmot99 · August 29, 2006 9:32AM

<< The place for this is the Q&A Forum. >>

There are no answers within the Q&A forum. It has become useless. When someone finally does decide to answer a question, no one will be looking and then they'll complain that no one seemed to read the answers.

majorbigtime · August 29, 2006 10:35AM

As long as we are asking for a statement--HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT ABOUT RECOURSE UNDER THE SO-CALLED GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY???????????????

It's long overdue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ziggy29 · August 29, 2006 10:38AM

<< As long as we are asking for a statement--HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT ABOUT RECOURSE UNDER THE SO-CALLED GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY??????????????? >>

Now it's time to trot out that "beating a dead horse" emoticon...

Russ · August 29, 2006 10:39AM

<< HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT ABOUT RECOURSE UNDER THE SO-CALLED GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY??????????????? >>

Dumbass.

Russ, NCNE

ER · August 29, 2006 10:41AM

<< 

<< As long as we are asking for a statement--HOW ABOUT A STATEMENT ABOUT RECOURSE UNDER THE SO-CALLED GUARANTEE OF AUTHENTICITY??????????????? >>

Now it's time to trot out that "beating a dead horse" emoticon... >>

lava · August 29, 2006 2:05PM

bump for David Hall's benefit

Conder101 · August 30, 2006 6:18AM

<< it's quite unreasonable for PCGS to be expected to make any kind of statement about this whole affair since they have already addressed problems with the first generation holders by radically changing them many years ago. as to making them airtight in some fashion, that's unrealistic >>

I don't think it is unreasonable at all to expect them to make a statement. If they don't and it becomes known that it is possible to tone them in the slabs and PCGS hasn't made a statement about what they plan to do, EVERY toned coin in a PCGS slab becomes suspect. If some coins can be toned how do you KNOW that any other coin hasn't been toned in the slab? Sure some have said that the toning on the piece we have seen is obvious, but what about one that isn't obvious? How do you PROVE that it hasn't been toned in the slab? We can't prove for sure if a raw coin is AT or NT. How do you expect them to do it with a coin IN a slab?

<< They recognized a design flaw and attempted to rectify it. They can't be held accountable because someone figured out how to tarnish the coins in that type of holder. >>

No, they can't be HELD accountable, but for the reputation of their company they do need to try and do something about it. They couldn't be held responsible for the counterfeit slabs that came out in 1989 either. But they knew that if they didn't offer to buy them and get them off the market it would have cast a shadow of doubt over all of the genuine slabs and seriously hurt their business. They could have the same problems with these.

majorbigtime · August 30, 2006 10:26AM

As long as we're asking HRH to speak, how about a statement on recourse for a "bad" coin under the so-called PCGS "Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity" and a statement as to when and how the Guarantee will be reworded!!!

Russ · August 30, 2006 10:29AM

<< how about a statement on recourse for a "bad" coin under the so-called PCGS "Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity" >>

Dumbass.

Russ, NCNE

PCGS....I THINK WE WOULD LIKE A STATEMENT!

Comments

Leave a Comment