"We've also made a change in how we handle the guarantee of color for copper coins. The fact is that color for copper can change depending upon where a coin is stored. The villain is humidity, and if you have mint red copper coins stored in Hawaii or Florida, for example, there's a good chance that the environmental factors can alter the color of the coins. This is obviously beyond our control so consequently we will not be guaranteeing the color of cooper coins graded or sold after January 1, 2010."
so, if you buy a copper coin after jan 1, 2010, the original color guarantee is voided?
I am not a lawyer, but if you bought a coin with a lifetime color guarantee that was transferable, and the guarantee is declared voided by PCGS upon sale, and this is done without the agreement with the current owner, it seems that PCGS would be liable for damages.
Will they now date their new slabs so the lack of guarantee will be obvious?
Interestingly enough, the PCGS guarantee (as articulated here) includes no terms such as "PCGS reserves the right to change this guarantee at any time".
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Keep the guarentee for current coins! Change the label on 1/1/10 and put new 'no guarentee' in place then. >>
I can certainly understand why you and so many others advocate that, and I really hope and think you deserve to get it. But here is the main reason why I don't think PCGS will do that. Since they are doing away with the guarantee in order to reduce liability, starting the clock on January 1, 2010, rather than retroactively, addresses only a small portion of their concern. In other words, I believe that the large majority of the value and liability for such coins is encompassed by coins that have already been graded and encapsulated.
<< <i>Keep the guarentee for current coins! Change the label on 1/1/10 and put new 'no guarentee' in place then. >>
I can certainly understand why you and so many others advocate that, and I really hope and think you deserve to get it. But here is the main reason why I don't think PCGS will do that. Since they are doing away with the guarantee in order to reduce liability, starting the clock on January 1, 2010, rather than retroactively, addresses only a small portion of their concern. In other words, I believe that the large majority of the value and liability for such coins is encompassed by coins that have already been graded and encapsulated. >>
It is worth noting they took the grading fees with the guarantee (and liability) in place.
Let's also remember PCGS is sitting on $16M+ in cash, along with their 60% GP, so it's not like the business is bleeding (at least from my interpretation of their numbers).
Given the above, how can PCGS justify going back on its word? It's (apparently) not revenue/profit driven -- the business is solid.
What's liability is too large next? Puttied gold? AT coins? Counterfeits?
Once a TPG's word comes into question, what's left?
These are the questions I'm asking myself, and I have to believe the same questions are going through others' minds.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? What if they had labeled silver; Silver, Silver/black, black as that would be silly and invite doctoring. It is no different for copper and red copper will turn color in time, no if and or buts. The fact that PCGS compounded the problem by adding Reg values for color which compounded the price differences doesn't help their case but it is a necessary step for their company that was a long time coming. Now I would be surprised if a class action lawsuit wasn't forthcoming & filed to protect a very tangible loss in perceived value facilitated by a stupid promise by PCGS. I personal think they should drop all color references from their grading standards and compensate at some level be it through free submissions. You didn't need pcgs to tell you a coin is red or brown but since they did what did they think would happen. The market would have added value for original mint color without it being noted on the label.
In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Rick, the part that you omitted above, is that there are probably a lot of collectors who HAVE taken charge of their own actions and examined their purchases CAREFULLY in-person, but who will STILL suffer the consequences of copper that turns in the holder.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Rick, the part that you omitted above, is that there are probably a lot of collectors who HAVE taken charge of their own actions and examined their purchases CAREFULLY in-person, but who will STILL suffer the consequences of copper that turns in the holder. >>
As well as the impact of this decision by PCGS on the price these coins fetch (now without any color guarantee) when/if it's time to sell.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
I tend to think a 64 RD moved to a 65 RB is a bigger problem coin if it is undeserving of the 65 grade. In no way referencing your specific 09s as I am sure if you say 65 it was, I think even in the best of circumstances the color modifier is insignificant to the numerical grade at a 85% to 15% ratio and an at-a-boy bump to the numerical grade would over state the importance of the color grade. While I don't collect copper I think of it as a blast white silver dollar at 64(original or dipped) is almost always less of a coin then a molten toned 65. I see no reason for copper to be different, eye appeal should be factored into the grade and color is part of that but only part.
<< <i>I am collecting cents for a submission. I was torn between PCGS and NGC. PCGS has (had) a better GG but I do not like NO GRADE "Genuine" slabs. NGC does "Details" grading on problem coins. Now They will go to NGC. It is as simple as that. This is how you lose market share. One customer at a time. >>
Yep I too have some coins that I was debating on which service to use, thanks pcgs for making that decision easy for me ATS for all my submissions.
<< <i>?? if the slabs were truly sealed to air, which they are not currently, then would it not matter where or how they were stored??? >>
Lester, you have a whole lot more faith in the guys in the receiving and sealing room than I do! I have seen so many coins come back from PCGS with spittle/ body oil on them that I KNOW was not there when I sent them.
No, I can't prove that the sonic guy is responsible (although I would dearly love to do some DNA analysis), the alternative is that the graders handle my coins carelessly, which i just can not accept.
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit guarantee.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee. Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems. On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin. For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Well said. I'll go a bit farther. I have always focused on brown copper and have only bought one RB large cent which I recently posted in the Doily thread. To me, brown is the natural color of old copper and all red copper will eventually get there unless something is done to isolate it. If you doubt this ask yourself what color you think RD copper will be in 1000 yrs, 5000 yrs? You know it will eventually turn BN, you just don't know when. Any naturally red 150+ year old copper has been indeed isolated from the world around it. Unless PCGS is making some sort of claim that their holder is designed to isolate the copper from natural toning elements around it, then I guess I don't understand how they can guarantee a color. And I don't think that is what they are saying. So my thinking is that paying extra for RD or RB copper is really just paying rent on the color until it turns it's natural BN.
So if I had an RD coin turn RB, I would just call that expected progression and I couldn't call PCGS and ask for money in good conscience.
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit guarantee. >>
What makes you think thay would treat the counterfeit quarantee any different?? As outlined in the email most of their biggest payouts have come from missed counterfits and or grading mistakes. If thay no longer have any confidence in their ability to identify doctored copper can their ability to detect counterfits and other doctoring be far behind?? As I see it this is basicly an addmisson by pcgs that their graders are not up to snuff, can anyone really feel good about pcgs plastic?
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee. Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems. On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin. For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
... Unless PCGS is making some sort of claim that their holder is designed to isolate the copper from natural toning elements around it, then I guess I don't understand how they can guarantee a color....
--jerry >>
Jerry, my guess is that PCGS felt that the extra (submissions) revenue and goodwill which would be derived from their copper guarantee would make up for the losses they would incur in honoring that guarantee.
<< <i>What makes you think thay would treat the counterfeit quarantee any different?? >>
Why would anyone submit to PCGS or purchase their coins if there were no counterfeit guarantee? That is one of the cornerstones of their franchise. Furthermore, it would affect all coins, not just a subset of the market.
I'm not saying they won't rescind the counterfeit guarantee, just that I find it unlikely in the extreme. It is a liability over which they ultimately have control, unlike the future color of copper.
Why should any entity be responsible for the care of someone else's coins ? Things change, temps change, lives change. If we need a guarantee past tomorrow , we have meteorologists. Metal is going to change due to TIME. Everything will change in time. If this were a Weather Forum, and the weatherman was wrong, would he have to pay you for your laundry because you didn't take an umbrella because he didn't predict rain ? Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ?
PCGS just happens to be on the leading edge of having some common cents (pun) as much as this place is on the cutting edge of creating drama in numismatics (not such a pun). Iit's time I shuddup, but some things need to be said to some people who refuse to put up... ... with change.
So anyway, on to simpler thoughts.... It was my impression that the only smart business maneuver was to guarantee the grade and the coin's authenticity. Nothing more, nothing less. However, (Men in Charge), a NET grade would be best inside a "genuine" holder, too. This will protect the dealers, satisfy the collectors, and ensure the stability in pricing levels in the market.
Don't hire me, I'm just an unpaid thinker and typist during a snow storm.
<< <i>Why should any entity be responsible for the care of someone else's coins ? Things change, temps change, lives change. If we need a guarantee past tomorrow , we have meteorologists. Metal is going to change due to TIME. Everything will change in time. If this were a Weather Forum, and the weatherman was wrong, would he have to pay you for your laundry because you didn't take an umbrella because he didn't predict rain ? Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ? .... >>
What you appear to be missing the fact that they (and NGC) chose to guarantee copper, knowing that is susceptible to change. And that certain submitters and/or buyers of copper coins relied upon those guarantees. I can certainly understand why a grading company wouldn't want to guarantee copper, but that was and is their decision to make.
It's a really tough situation and I am sympathetic to owners of copper coins, as well as the grading companies - if you make a decision that you later feel was the wrong one, how long do you stick with it and suffer the consequences? And, what are the consequences of changing it? Either way, someone is bound to suffer the consequences unfairly.
Seriously, no one can be "happy" when a perceived benefit they had yesterday is taken away tomorrow. But, the economics of our times often dictate that businesses start to do business a little differently than they did in the past (in many cases for their own survival). We have recently seen this all throughout the US... with banks, insurers, etc.
If you think about it... PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) .
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Why should any entity be responsible for the care of someone else's coins ? Things change, temps change, lives change. If we need a guarantee past tomorrow , we have meteorologists. Metal is going to change due to TIME. Everything will change in time. If this were a Weather Forum, and the weatherman was wrong, would he have to pay you for your laundry because you didn't take an umbrella because he didn't predict rain ? Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ?
PCGS just happens to be on the leading edge of having some common cents (pun) as much as this place is on the cutting edge of creating drama in numismatics (not such a pun). Iit's time I shuddup, but some things need to be said to some people who refuse to put up... ... with change.
So anyway, on to simpler thoughts.... It was my impression that the only smart business maneuver was to guarantee the grade and the coin's authenticity. Nothing more, nothing less. However, (Men in Charge), a NET grade would be best inside a "genuine" holder, too. This will protect the dealers, satisfy the collectors, and ensure the stability in pricing levels in the market.
Don't hire me, I'm just an unpaid thinker and typist during a snow storm. >>
This place reminds me of the Chicken Run movie. But of course, they eventually came to their senses.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>..If you think about it... PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) .
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, how, if at all, do you think that such a move would impact the current copper guarantee for coins graded prior to January 1, 2010?
Mark: First, of course, PCGS did not elect to remove the color designation from holders moving forward so everything we are discussing from here is purely hypothetical.
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Jerry, my guess is that PCGS felt that the extra (submissions) revenue and goodwill which would be derived from their copper guarantee would make up for the losses they would incur in honoring that guarantee. >>
Makes sense, I'm always looking at it in the basic logical scientific sense. --Jerry
<< <i>Mark: First, of course, PCGS did not elect to remove the color designation from holders moving forward so everything we are discussing from here is purely hypothetical.
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
Are there other attributes of the coin listed on the slab that are currently not guaranteed? DMPL, Cameo, Full Bell Lines, Full Steps, Mint State, Proof, etc. I think that every other way that PCGS uses to describe a coin is either guaranteed or subject to reslabbing if a typographical error is made (such as the wrong date).
<< <i>PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) . Wondercoin >>
To me that's what makes sense but it may not be the best business decision. PCGS has to make that decision.
Old holders do not have CAM or DCAM designations and collectors/dealers make their own decisions but then try to get them into a designated holder.
My guess is that leaving the color designation off would result in significant lost business to other TPGs who do designate color.
<< <i>Mark: First, of course, PCGS did not elect to remove the color designation from holders moving forward so everything we are discussing from here is purely hypothetical.
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
Thanks Mitch. At first impression, at least, I really like your idea of a non-color designation for copper. It seems practical and sensible, considering the known reactivity of copper. In fact, I prefer it to the change that is apparently going to be implemented. That said, I realize that your hypothetical concept would not accomplish what the latter will.
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit guarantee. >>
I used to believe that PCGS would keep its word, too. Used to.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Mark: 10-15 years ago, that is probably what I would have told PCGS when I was still practicing business law (if they had asked me). "Practical and sensible" - yes, I would have gladly traded that for the (possible) lost revenue (but told them to make their own business decision accordingly). But, what business ever took the "practical and sensible" suggestions of their advisors? In fact, some of the greatest companies made it big by taking the opposite approach in their business plans!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
For PCGS guarantee purposes, what is the difference between a copper that naturally tones brown and one that has been doctored and turns brown? I guess the PCGS guarantee will no longer be protecting the collector from doctored copper coins like they have in the past.
<< <i>For PCGS guarantee purposes, what is the difference between a copper that naturally tones brown and one that has been doctored and turns brown? I guess the PCGS guarantee will no longer be protecting the collector from doctored copper coins like they have in the past. >>
That's the way I interpreted the statement.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
For those of you who claim that you will now only buy RD copper from NGC, please be aware of the following:
I have seen hundreds, possibly a thousand plus Unc. Large and Half Cents in person. PCGS coins are usually more attractive for the grade. Ie., cleaner surfaces, fewer spots, better eye appeal, etc. Re RD designated coins, those designated by PCGS usually have a little add'l eye appeal than their NGC counterparts, especially when you reach MS 65 and above. Up to this point, the pricing of these coins reflected this fact.
Personally, I'm a fan of RB copper, as the huge price jump in old copper is between RB and RD. Practically speaking, the money isn't to be made in RB type copper, so I'd think if you have a coin which colorwise, was a no-brainer RB (ie., 40% or more RD), one should be okay. The only RB copper I have in 5 RB is a Classic Half Cent, a Braided Hair Large and Half Cent.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>For PCGS guarantee purposes, what is the difference between a copper that naturally tones brown and one that has been doctored and turns brown? I guess the PCGS guarantee will no longer be protecting the collector from doctored copper coins like they have in the past. >>
If the coin was RD, they could have just labeled it RB because that's where it would end up anyway. No more RD designations! How bad could that be? If the coin is red than so be it. Does the fortunate collector who finds and wants to own such a coin really need someone to christian the blessed thing? I think not! Just be careful with it's value, that the color might not be stable. All we need now is for someone to come up with the battery operated dehumidifier slab.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
I like it! If you can't tell what color a coin is, perhaps you shouldn't be in this game. If you can't tell that the color is pretty, the same holds. I've seen lots of silver in MS67 holders that is quite beautiful, and some that is quite ugly. Obvious to many collectors is the fact that there is a difference in value. So why should a fully lusterous and wonderfully toned "BN" copper coin be worth less than an equivalently graded and completely untoned "RD" copper coin? The answer is that in almost every circle of collectors, it ISN'T. Only in the PCGS Price Guide will you find heavy penalties in value for coins labeled as "BN", regardless of the fact that often collectors will pay multiples of the equivalently graded "RD" coin for such a beautifully toned specimen. I've heard it said that for copper, the "BN" price is more a reflection of the value of the copper that has turned an ordinary "chocolate or dark" brown. That is why spectacularly toned coppers, and even silvers do not affect the Price Guide when they sell for multiples of the price of their untoned counterparts.
I think that we've gone beyond expecting coins with fantastic eye appeal to sell for the same price as their more run-of-the-mill numerical counterparts. I know we have with silver. Perhaps now, it is time to do so with copper as well.
1. Just about all plastics offgas over time. the materials that the slabs and gaskets are made of need to be carefully controlled. Gaskets being softer means they are more likely t be unstable. vacuum packing would INCREASE the level of offgasing and thus could increase toning rather than decrease it. Sealing nitrogen in would help more but still would not prevent the plastics from offgasing (see temperature discussion below).
PCGS has a problem with the slabbing process that suffers from the gist ofthis statement. However there is one more component to this puzzle. With coins of silver and copper, the slabbing process ionizes the coin itself and causes an attraction for the gases that are trapped inside]Causing them to tone and milkspot. If a coin is sealed correctly humidity should not be a problem of any kind. I have a complete set of gold eagles (that have a copper content) both in PCGS & NGC and to a coin the PCGS coins are all toning and the NGC's to a coin are all bright and pretty. I have them stored in a dehumidified safe so there is no question of a humidity problem. PCGS knows they have a problem on coins with copper and silver content and yet they do nothing but revise the guarantee.[/bDont misunderstand here, PCGS grading is as good as anyones but they do have a slabbing problem that needs to be addressed.
Hosspower is just plain "FUN". A Spade is a Spade. We all want mo Money. And everybody wanna go to Heaven, but nobody wanna Die !!
<< <i>I used to believe that PCGS would keep its word, too. Used to. >>
I agree, Mike. PCGS has been the company with the finest integrity and class for all of these years. An ironclad guarantee means just that. This very shortsighted move will cause irreparable harm unless they change their decision quickly. A Tiger Woods analogy comes to mind. They can do anything they want after 1/1/2010, but should leave earlier-graded coins alone.
<< <i> Gaskets being softer means they are more likely t be unstable. >>
I tested the PCGS soft gasket and they contain no PVC.
I once took a handful of the PCGS gaskets and put them around a single red copper cent 5 years ago and after 3 years nothing happened to the red cent.
It is not the PCGS soft gaskets based on my tests and observation.
I did have a control to compare my results to which turned the very next copper cent from the same roll to RB. That is; I used lots of cardboard paper, yellow mailing envelope and placed the coin in a 2x2 flip.
<< <i>PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) . Wondercoin >>
To me that's what makes sense but it may not be the best business decision. PCGS has to make that decision.
Old holders do not have CAM or DCAM designations and collectors/dealers make their own decisions but then try to get them into a designated holder.
My guess is that leaving the color designation off would result in significant lost business to other TPGs who do designate color.
--Jerry >>
Its my opioion that pcgs will lose significant business anyway.
Here's more of my brilliant thinking. Since there won't be anymore RD, RB or BN designations or they're not guaranteed anymore, how will the copper coins be graded without adding any points for old copper that's still red? Will we see the BN coppers graded as high as the RD coppers given their conditions are the same, of course?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
It's a huge drag on CLCT's stock price to have $18 billion in slabs in the marketplace with a "forever" guarantee. Since 100% of copper EVENTUALLY turns brown (if you are LUCKY...the unlucky end up with blue-green copper salts) how does the market calculate the risk? Seems like you are still covered forever on exisiting coins as long as the coin is not resold after Jan 1, 2010.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
I find it interesting that in their email newsletter that they just sent out, they talk about their spiffy new web site design, but ZERO mention of this rather significant policy change... certainly wouldn't want people to actually know when rules are changed...
We have offered wild and crazy ideas (myself included) as well as mumbling and groaning but no common agreed upon alternative to PCGS's new policy.
What would make the most sense that PCGS would consider as an alternative?
Here is my idea:
PCGS would extend coverage of their guarantee which will henceforth be 2 years on any red copper coins being sold to the next owner after 12/31/2009 only after the coin is submitted to PCGS for a guarantee review and acceptance or rejection and payment of a special guarantee review fee, typically $75 (but not to exceed 10% of the coin's market value).
Possible discussion here of PCGS renewing such guarantee on a yearly basis as long as the coin is submitted to PCGS for an annual guarantee review and payment of the same guarantee review fee. Of course, it is entirely up to PCGS to accept or reject such extension of the guarantee.
This would allow for a more orderly phaseout of the PCGS guarantee program and not leave current owners of such red copper in the lurch.
It is not the boldest way to save the old guarantee program but an idea I believe PCGS might consider especially in light of the reality that many sales transactions after 12/31/2009 will be "backdated"
Of course, the original lifetime guarantee for the old red copper coins will still remain in force until the owner of any pre 1/1/2010 graded red copper decides to sell in which case the above would be necessary for the owner to offer the potential buyer a possible extended guarantee as outlined above since the original lifetime guarantee is not transferrable.
Comments
so, if you buy a copper coin after jan 1, 2010,
the original color guarantee is voided?
I am not a lawyer,
but if you bought a coin with a lifetime color guarantee that was transferable,
and the guarantee is declared voided by PCGS upon sale,
and this is done
without the agreement with the current owner,
it seems that PCGS would be liable for damages.
Will they now date their new slabs so the lack of guarantee will be obvious?
<< <i>Keep the guarentee for current coins! Change the label on 1/1/10 and put new 'no guarentee' in place then.
I can certainly understand why you and so many others advocate that, and I really hope and think you deserve to get it. But here is the main reason why I don't think PCGS will do that. Since they are doing away with the guarantee in order to reduce liability, starting the clock on January 1, 2010, rather than retroactively, addresses only a small portion of their concern. In other words, I believe that the large majority of the value and liability for such coins is encompassed by coins that have already been graded and encapsulated.
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep the guarentee for current coins! Change the label on 1/1/10 and put new 'no guarentee' in place then.
I can certainly understand why you and so many others advocate that, and I really hope and think you deserve to get it. But here is the main reason why I don't think PCGS will do that. Since they are doing away with the guarantee in order to reduce liability, starting the clock on January 1, 2010, rather than retroactively, addresses only a small portion of their concern. In other words, I believe that the large majority of the value and liability for such coins is encompassed by coins that have already been graded and encapsulated. >>
It is worth noting they took the grading fees with the guarantee (and liability) in place.
Let's also remember PCGS is sitting on $16M+ in cash, along with their 60% GP, so it's not like the business is bleeding (at least from my interpretation of their numbers).
Given the above, how can PCGS justify going back on its word? It's (apparently) not revenue/profit driven -- the business is solid.
What's liability is too large next? Puttied gold? AT coins? Counterfeits?
Once a TPG's word comes into question, what's left?
These are the questions I'm asking myself, and I have to believe the same questions are going through others' minds.
Now I would be surprised if a class action lawsuit wasn't forthcoming & filed to protect a very tangible loss in perceived value facilitated by a stupid promise by PCGS. I personal think they should drop all color references from their grading standards and compensate at some level be it through free submissions. You didn't need pcgs to tell you a coin is red or brown but since they did what did they think would happen. The market would have added value for original mint color without it being noted on the label.
with the OP
"What's liability is too large next? Puttied gold? AT coins? Counterfeits?"
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different?
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Rick, the part that you omitted above, is that there are probably a lot of collectors who HAVE taken charge of their own actions and examined their purchases CAREFULLY in-person, but who will STILL suffer the consequences of copper that turns in the holder.
<< <i>
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Rick, the part that you omitted above, is that there are probably a lot of collectors who HAVE taken charge of their own actions and examined their purchases CAREFULLY in-person, but who will STILL suffer the consequences of copper that turns in the holder. >>
As well as the impact of this decision by PCGS on the price these coins fetch (now without any color guarantee) when/if it's time to sell.
then would it not matter where or how they were stored???
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee.
Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems.
On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin.
For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
I tend to think a 64 RD moved to a 65 RB is a bigger problem coin if it is undeserving of the 65 grade. In no way referencing your specific 09s as I am sure if you say 65 it was, I think even in the best of circumstances the color modifier is insignificant to the numerical grade at a 85% to 15% ratio and an at-a-boy bump to the numerical grade would over state the importance of the color grade. While I don't collect copper I think of it as a blast white silver dollar at 64(original or dipped) is almost always less of a coin then a molten toned 65. I see no reason for copper to be different, eye appeal should be factored into the grade and color is part of that but only part.
<< <i>I am collecting cents for a submission. I was torn between PCGS and NGC. PCGS has (had) a better GG but I do not like NO GRADE "Genuine" slabs. NGC does "Details" grading on problem coins. Now They will go to NGC. It is as simple as that. This is how you lose market share. One customer at a time. >>
Yep I too have some coins that I was debating on which service to use, thanks pcgs for making that decision easy for me ATS for all my submissions.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>?? if the slabs were truly sealed to air, which they are not currently,
then would it not matter where or how they were stored??? >>
Lester, you have a whole lot more faith in the guys in the receiving and sealing room than I do! I have seen so many coins come back from PCGS with spittle/ body oil on them that I KNOW was not there when I sent them.
No, I can't prove that the sonic guy is responsible (although I would dearly love to do some DNA analysis), the alternative is that the graders handle my coins carelessly, which i just can not accept.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
If you want to unload that risky 1877, PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in
that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit
is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they
can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty
upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a
business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided
that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit
guarantee.
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee. Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems. On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin. For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
Well said. I'll go a bit farther. I have always focused on brown copper and have only bought one RB large cent which I recently posted in the Doily thread. To me, brown is the natural color of old copper and all red copper will eventually get there unless something is done to isolate it. If you doubt this ask yourself what color you think RD copper will be in 1000 yrs, 5000 yrs? You know it will eventually turn BN, you just don't know when. Any naturally red 150+ year old copper has been indeed isolated from the world around it. Unless PCGS is making some sort of claim that their holder is designed to isolate the copper from natural toning elements around it, then I guess I don't understand how they can guarantee a color. And I don't think that is what they are saying. So my thinking is that paying extra for RD or RB copper is really just paying rent on the color until it turns it's natural BN.
So if I had an RD coin turn RB, I would just call that expected progression and I couldn't call PCGS and ask for money in good conscience.
--jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in
that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit
is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they
can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty
upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a
business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided
that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit
guarantee. >>
What makes you think thay would treat the counterfeit quarantee any different?? As outlined in the email most of their biggest payouts have come from missed counterfits and or grading mistakes. If thay no longer have any confidence in their ability to identify doctored copper can their ability to detect counterfits and other doctoring be far behind?? As I see it this is basicly an addmisson by pcgs that their graders are not up to snuff, can anyone really feel good about pcgs plastic?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>
<< <i>In the past, I placed little value in the PCGS Guarantee on copper when deciding to buy a coin. I buy the coin, not the holder and advise my clients to do the same. By doing so, I think I have insulated myself and my clients who took my advice from the negative affects of dropping this guarantee. Sure, it is nice to have a guarantee, but people need to take charge of their own actions. If you buy red copper without careful in-person examination, you are setting yourself up for problems. On the other hand, I have made use of the guarantee in the past though. For example, I bought a 1909-S Indian in a 64RD holder in an auction that was clearly RB, but I thought it was a 65RB. I sent it to PCGS and they changed the grade to 65 and the color to RB. There was no additional compensation. It was now a very desirable coin, not a problem coin. For the real problem coins, where the coins are clearly RB or even BN in RD holders, PCGS should still continue to take these off the market, possibly by upgrading the grade and lowering the color designation with no compensation. Whether it is a stated guarantee, or not, it is in their best interest to take care of problem coins in their slabs. >>
... Unless PCGS is making some sort of claim that their holder is designed to isolate the copper from natural toning elements around it, then I guess I don't understand how they can guarantee a color....
--jerry >>
Jerry, my guess is that PCGS felt that the extra (submissions) revenue and goodwill which would be derived from their copper guarantee would make up for the losses they would incur in honoring that guarantee.
<< <i>What makes you think thay would treat the counterfeit quarantee any different?? >>
Why would anyone submit to PCGS or purchase their coins if there were no counterfeit guarantee?
That is one of the cornerstones of their franchise. Furthermore, it would affect all coins, not just a
subset of the market.
I'm not saying they won't rescind the counterfeit guarantee, just that I find it unlikely in the extreme.
It is a liability over which they ultimately have control, unlike the future color of copper.
What's liability is too large next? Puttied gold? AT coins? Counterfeits?>>
Maybe they'll do away with their grade guarantees on coins that are MS67 and higher. Too much risk...
Who is John Galt?
Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ?
PCGS just happens to be on the leading edge of having some common cents (pun) as much as this place is on the cutting edge of creating drama in numismatics (not such a pun).
Iit's time I shuddup, but some things need to be said to some people who refuse to put up...
... with change.
So anyway, on to simpler thoughts.... It was my impression that the only smart business maneuver was to guarantee the grade and the coin's authenticity. Nothing more, nothing less. However, (Men in Charge), a NET grade would be best inside a "genuine" holder, too.
This will protect the dealers, satisfy the collectors, and ensure the stability in pricing levels in the market.
Don't hire me, I'm just an unpaid thinker and typist during a snow storm.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Why should any entity be responsible for the care of someone else's coins ? Things change, temps change, lives change. If we need a guarantee past tomorrow , we have meteorologists. Metal is going to change due to TIME. Everything will change in time. If this were a Weather Forum, and the weatherman was wrong, would he have to pay you for your laundry because you didn't take an umbrella because he didn't predict rain ?
Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ? .... >>
What you appear to be missing the fact that they (and NGC) chose to guarantee copper, knowing that is susceptible to change. And that certain submitters and/or buyers of copper coins relied upon those guarantees. I can certainly understand why a grading company wouldn't want to guarantee copper, but that was and is their decision to make.
It's a really tough situation and I am sympathetic to owners of copper coins, as well as the grading companies - if you make a decision that you later feel was the wrong one, how long do you stick with it and suffer the consequences? And, what are the consequences of changing it? Either way, someone is bound to suffer the consequences unfairly.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If you think about it... PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) .
Wondercoin
<< <i>Why should any entity be responsible for the care of someone else's coins ? Things change, temps change, lives change. If we need a guarantee past tomorrow , we have meteorologists. Metal is going to change due to TIME. Everything will change in time. If this were a Weather Forum, and the weatherman was wrong, would he have to pay you for your laundry because you didn't take an umbrella because he didn't predict rain ?
Am I seeing this with clouded eyes ? Am I missing something ?
PCGS just happens to be on the leading edge of having some common cents (pun) as much as this place is on the cutting edge of creating drama in numismatics (not such a pun).
Iit's time I shuddup, but some things need to be said to some people who refuse to put up...
... with change.
So anyway, on to simpler thoughts.... It was my impression that the only smart business maneuver was to guarantee the grade and the coin's authenticity. Nothing more, nothing less. However, (Men in Charge), a NET grade would be best inside a "genuine" holder, too.
This will protect the dealers, satisfy the collectors, and ensure the stability in pricing levels in the market.
Don't hire me, I'm just an unpaid thinker and typist during a snow storm. >>
This place reminds me of the Chicken Run movie. But of course, they eventually came to their senses.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>..If you think about it... PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) .
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, how, if at all, do you think that such a move would impact the current copper guarantee for coins graded prior to January 1, 2010?
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>Jerry, my guess is that PCGS felt that the extra (submissions) revenue and goodwill which would be derived from their copper guarantee would make up for the losses they would incur in honoring that guarantee. >>
Makes sense, I'm always looking at it in the basic logical scientific sense. --Jerry
<< <i>Mark: First, of course, PCGS did not elect to remove the color designation from holders moving forward so everything we are discussing from here is purely hypothetical.
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
Are there other attributes of the coin listed on the slab that are currently not guaranteed? DMPL, Cameo, Full Bell Lines, Full Steps, Mint State, Proof, etc. I think that every other way that PCGS uses to describe a coin is either guaranteed or subject to reslabbing if a typographical error is made (such as the wrong date).
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) . Wondercoin >>
To me that's what makes sense but it may not be the best business decision. PCGS has to make that decision.
Old holders do not have CAM or DCAM designations and collectors/dealers make their own decisions but then try to get them into a designated holder.
My guess is that leaving the color designation off would result in significant lost business to other TPGs who do designate color.
--Jerry
<< <i>Mark: First, of course, PCGS did not elect to remove the color designation from holders moving forward so everything we are discussing from here is purely hypothetical.
I would think that the two concepts (future grading of copper coins & future guarantee of copper coins) are distinct in nature. PCGS could continue the guarantee (or not) while at the same time continuing to apply color designations (or not). Notwilight said a very compelling thing earlier today; namely that we as buyers of copper coins are "renting" the color red. If this is true, then why shouldn't a grading service steer clear of assigning a color to a holder, especially if it wants to provide a meaningful guarantee to its customers? What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
Thanks Mitch. At first impression, at least, I really like your idea of a non-color designation for copper. It seems practical and sensible, considering the known reactivity of copper. In fact, I prefer it to the change that is apparently going to be implemented. That said, I realize that your hypothetical concept would not accomplish what the latter will.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>While I see the copper collectors point about promises I have to say did you ever really think that PCGS could counter nature? >>
I expected for PCGS to deliver on their written guarantee, and build into their business case the ability to account for the liability.
They can't counter milkspots, but are making good on that promise.
They couldn't identify the micro-O as a counterfeit, but are making good on that promise.
They (in instances) can't identify putty, but are making good on that promise.
How is copper any different? >>
Well, actually, red copper isn't really analogous to the examples you cite, except perhaps for milk spots, in
that environmental factors (out of their subsequent control) can cause the coin to lose value. The counterfeit
is a mistake on their part. Not seeing the putty is a mistake on their part.
To counter the milk spot issue, they stopped handing out 70s on ASEs with any frequency. For copper, they
can either stop designating color, or decide not to guarantee it. They chose the latter.
I don't collect (red) copper, so this isn't a big deal to me. I do understand that a lot of people are pretty
upset about it, but I think you overstate the argument that PCGS can no longer be trusted. They made a
business decision with the full realization that it would have some negative consequences, and decided
that those would be outweighed by the decreased liability going forward.
I do believe that they would assess that balance quite differently in the case of, say, their counterfeit
guarantee. >>
I used to believe that PCGS would keep its word, too. Used to.
Wondercoin
<< <i>For PCGS guarantee purposes, what is the difference between a copper that naturally tones brown and one that has been doctored and turns brown? I guess the PCGS guarantee will no longer be protecting the collector from doctored copper coins like they have in the past. >>
That's the way I interpreted the statement.
I have seen hundreds, possibly a thousand plus Unc. Large and Half Cents in person. PCGS coins are usually more attractive for the grade. Ie., cleaner surfaces, fewer spots, better eye appeal, etc. Re RD designated coins, those designated by PCGS usually have a little add'l eye appeal than their NGC counterparts, especially when you reach MS 65 and above. Up to this point, the pricing of these coins reflected this fact.
Personally, I'm a fan of RB copper, as the huge price jump in old copper is between RB and RD. Practically speaking, the money isn't to be made in RB type copper, so I'd think if you have a coin which colorwise, was a no-brainer RB (ie., 40% or more RD), one should be okay. The only RB copper I have in 5 RB is a Classic Half Cent, a Braided Hair Large and Half Cent.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>For PCGS guarantee purposes, what is the difference between a copper that naturally tones brown and one that has been doctored and turns brown? I guess the PCGS guarantee will no longer be protecting the collector from doctored copper coins like they have in the past. >>
If the coin was RD, they could have just labeled it RB because that's where it would end up anyway. No more RD designations! How bad could that be? If the coin is red than so be it. Does the fortunate collector who finds and wants to own such a coin really need someone to christian the blessed thing? I think not! Just be careful with it's value, that the color might not be stable. All we need now is for someone to come up with the battery operated dehumidifier slab.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>What do you think.... do you like the concept of removing color from the grading process all together?
Wondercoin >>
I like it! If you can't tell what color a coin is, perhaps you shouldn't be in this game. If you can't tell that the color is pretty, the same holds. I've seen lots of silver in MS67 holders that is quite beautiful, and some that is quite ugly. Obvious to many collectors is the fact that there is a difference in value. So why should a fully lusterous and wonderfully toned "BN" copper coin be worth less than an equivalently graded and completely untoned "RD" copper coin? The answer is that in almost every circle of collectors, it ISN'T. Only in the PCGS Price Guide will you find heavy penalties in value for coins labeled as "BN", regardless of the fact that often collectors will pay multiples of the equivalently graded "RD" coin for such a beautifully toned specimen. I've heard it said that for copper, the "BN" price is more a reflection of the value of the copper that has turned an ordinary "chocolate or dark" brown. That is why spectacularly toned coppers, and even silvers do not affect the Price Guide when they sell for multiples of the price of their untoned counterparts.
I think that we've gone beyond expecting coins with fantastic eye appeal to sell for the same price as their more run-of-the-mill numerical counterparts. I know we have with silver. Perhaps now, it is time to do so with copper as well.
Empty Nest Collection
PCGS has a problem with the slabbing process that suffers from the gist ofthis statement. However there is one more component to this puzzle. With coins of silver and copper, the slabbing process ionizes the coin itself and causes an attraction for the gases that are trapped inside]Causing them to tone and milkspot. If a coin is sealed correctly humidity should not be a problem of any kind. I have a complete set of gold eagles (that have a copper content) both in PCGS & NGC and to a coin the PCGS coins are all toning and the NGC's to a coin are all bright and pretty. I have them stored in a dehumidified safe so there is no question of a humidity problem. PCGS knows they have a problem on coins with copper and silver content and yet they do nothing but revise the guarantee.[/bDont misunderstand here, PCGS grading is as good as anyones but they do have a slabbing problem that needs to be addressed.
A Spade is a Spade.
We all want mo Money.
And everybody wanna go to Heaven,
but nobody wanna Die !!
Ol' Hank !!!
<< <i>I used to believe that PCGS would keep its word, too. Used to. >>
I agree, Mike. PCGS has been the company with the finest integrity and class for all of these years. An ironclad guarantee means just that. This very shortsighted move will cause irreparable harm unless they change their decision quickly. A Tiger Woods analogy comes to mind. They can do anything they want after 1/1/2010, but should leave earlier-graded coins alone.
<< <i> Gaskets being softer means they are more likely t be unstable. >>
I tested the PCGS soft gasket and they contain no PVC.
I once took a handful of the PCGS gaskets and put them around a single red copper cent 5 years ago and after 3 years nothing happened to the red cent.
It is not the PCGS soft gaskets based on my tests and observation.
I did have a control to compare my results to which turned the very next copper cent from the same roll to RB. That is; I used lots of cardboard paper, yellow mailing envelope and placed the coin in a 2x2 flip.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS could have just as easily decided to no longer place ANY color designation on the holders after 1/1/10 and simply let the marketplace determine the value of a coin by the marketplace's perceived view on the coin's true color... in fact... there is logic to this stance in my view (although this is not what PCGS elected to do) . Wondercoin >>
To me that's what makes sense but it may not be the best business decision. PCGS has to make that decision.
Old holders do not have CAM or DCAM designations and collectors/dealers make their own decisions but then try to get them into a designated holder.
My guess is that leaving the color designation off would result in significant lost business to other TPGs who do designate color.
--Jerry >>
Its my opioion that pcgs will lose significant business anyway.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
We have offered wild and crazy ideas (myself included) as well as mumbling and groaning but no common agreed upon alternative to PCGS's new policy.
What would make the most sense that PCGS would consider as an alternative?
Here is my idea:
PCGS would extend coverage of their guarantee which will henceforth be 2 years on any red copper coins being sold to the next owner after 12/31/2009 only after the coin is submitted to PCGS for a guarantee review and acceptance or rejection and payment of a special guarantee review fee, typically $75 (but not to exceed 10% of the coin's market value).
Possible discussion here of PCGS renewing such guarantee on a yearly basis as long as the coin is submitted to PCGS for an annual guarantee review and payment of the same guarantee review fee. Of course, it is entirely up to PCGS to accept or reject such extension of the guarantee.
This would allow for a more orderly phaseout of the PCGS guarantee program and not leave current owners of such red copper in the lurch.
It is not the boldest way to save the old guarantee program but an idea I believe PCGS might consider especially in light of the reality that many sales transactions after 12/31/2009 will be "backdated"
Of course, the original lifetime guarantee for the old red copper coins will still remain in force until the owner of any pre 1/1/2010 graded red copper decides to sell in which case the above would be necessary for the owner to offer the potential buyer a possible extended guarantee as outlined above since the original lifetime guarantee is not transferrable.