In short, this + program is really an extension of the flight to quality program. There is a huge demand for top coins right now, but only the right ones. As more an more are designated + or PQ or * or CAC it will push the prices/demand down for the lesser tier coins. In reality there are too many coins competing for the same dollar. By removing a portion of the market, this ensures survival of the best coins though at the expense of the lesser quality coins. The same thing happened in 1989-96 as the supply of certified coins grew and grew. When the supply was thin, price soared. The same thing is happening in the collector car market, antiques, collectibles of all sorts, etc. The money is out there. But only for the most superb quality. Bifurcation is going ballistic.
no more gradeflation - good
Not exactly. Every + coin will be tried harder to get an upgrade. Only those that go through the "secure-plus" program will be more immune to tampering. So that probably leaves the vast majority of coins uncovered. I'd suspect that any plus coins will be tried for upgrades at NGC first. And if those are achieved then a potential cross. Worst that can happen is that the coins don't cross or that "secure-plus" picks up on a change in the coin. Still, the coin gets returned to the owner and can be still be sold as an NGC upgrade. Every collector can now be engaged in the upgrade game since they will assume a + sign is a decent candidate. This reduces the gap between crack-out artists and newbies. Plus coins will be tried and tried until they upgrade. A double plus would level the field even more. Joe Six Pack now has access to upgradeable coins -assuming they can be bought for a strong enough discount from the next grade up.
no more doctored coins in Secure Plus holders - good
Only if they were doctored after being graded earlier. For a first time coin coming through there is the potential for a doctored coin to get slabbed.
pricing for PQ coins - good
Yes. But not all PQ+ coins are alike. The grades of MS65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9 still exist in top grader's skill sets. Not all PQ coins can or should be priced alike - no different than having 2 MS65's with the same price. Downside is that non- plused coins will contract somewhat in price.
the return of sight-unseen bidding - not good, since it will fuel another 90's style price run-up, which will lead to the inevitable crash in 10 years.
I don't agree. The current changes doesn't define coin values or grades any better than before. The addition of a single plus sign won't help knowledgeable buyers/bidders. It will however help a less skillfull buyer know that a + coin will cost them more money. And in most cases they will get a PQ coin. This will eliminate those sellers who claim an inventory of 90% PQ or top 5-10% for the grade coins. Without a + sign, no average collector or investor will pay the extra money. Sight-unseen bidding can work for just the + coins as it has been working for CAC as well. But a large part of the market is still left out of the picture. So what happens when a + coin is cracked out and resubmitted yet comes back w/o the +....or can't get the + back next time it's reviewed under that program?
Agree that sight-unseen bidding for say common date MS65+ Morgan dollars or Walkers will proliferate. No one would really care if the coins are 65.6 or 65.8. But on common date MS65+ RED Indian cents you can be sure there can not be an effective sight-unseen bidding program....unless it was some gratuitous amount like 10-15% over "bid."
It may be slowed down, but it is done by completely artificial means. Gradeflation in fact becomes easier in a +grade system, and the only reason it's not here is because resubmissions will be strongly presumed to be graded correctly the first time; not because they'll be graded the same the second time if truly graded the second time.
<< <i>no more doctored coins in Secure Plus holders - good >>
This may actually be a partial good, I'll admit (and I say very few good things about slabs). It would, however, sound to me that a coin already needs to make it in the new holder before doctoring is detected; if we take a a coin doctored say, six months ago and submit it for the new holders, if the doctoring is not detected it may still go in the holder. Only when a coin in the new holder is doctored and re-submitted for a (new) new holder, will it be detected. And this is assuming the new system works as they say it works, something I am not convinced either way as of yet.
As far as the good coin doctors go, I'd use the old football saying about how to deal with the star player on the other team: "You can't stop them; you can only hope to contain them."
I think I used the Express and Walkthrough service tiers maybe 5 times in 16 years, so I doubt this will have any effect on my collecting/buying/selling efforts.
"Here I stand, Broken hearted. Paid my dime, And only farted. Burma Shave"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>That's correct! Seems like they'd lose money on the deal. >>
Strictly from a marketing and finance perspective, it sounds to me like a tradeoff between short-term revenue and long-term revenue.
In the short term this could result in a rush of resubmissions (and spiked revenue), but in the long run it could hurt the bottom line because of fewer crack out resubmissions. >>
Yes, but in the long, long term, this stands to add a great deal of stability to the market place, which could expand the hobby and in turn draw even more revenue.
How many people here got burnt out coins due to the shenanigans going on before TPGs, that were later redrawn to it because of the stability they provided? Likewise, I have read countless posts here by serious collectors who were getting out of one thing or another, because they just did not trust what they were buying even with TPGs... these people were afraid of lasered proof gold, puttied gold, etc.
A flaw with the original TPG business model, is that it essentially created environment where people were rewarded for doctoring or simply resubmitting nice coins for upgrades - the inevitable result of this that a.) original coins got doctored & somewhat lost to history, or b.) only bottom-standard for the grade coins remain in their holders, while the nicer ones go on to define the bottom standard for the next grade up.
I think this new scanning / database system really stands to change this model - it will make upgrades harder to get (although not impossible in truly deserving circumstances...) and if the technology works, it might greatly reduce the motive for doctoring altogether.
With respect to doctoring, one potential heartache I can envision is this: say you buy a nice NGC graded coin - you then try to cross to PCGS, only to learn the coin has been doctored! Yikes - I guess from now on the on the only way to avoid this scenario is to... buy only PCGS... that is genius.
Not sure what I think of the + / - idea - for all the doom & gloom speculation about a 100 point scale, this effectively gives us a 210 point scale.
Lastly, for all those worried about their current crop of PCGS coins suddenly becoming second tier, I think that by and large most people will take the evolving market into account when looking at older holders - to a lesser extent, I also see a lot of opportunity in cherrypicking nice older holders with respect to getting the coins into the new system.
So all the coins that were graded before today just became worth how much less? Or how do we know if it is PG or "+" if it is in a ratler holder or a OGH. Seems like we are still going to have to look at that darn coin some of the time.
<< <i>So this will make upgrades virtually impossible? If a coin scans in at MS64 is cracked out and resubmitted it'll pop up as a MS64 in the system before the graders even look at it? >>
That's correct! Seems like they'd lose money on the deal. >>
That is not correct. Watch the video.
The possibilities start to get limited though.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Also, why would someone steal PCGS graded coins, crack them out then resubmit them to the same company? The only way that security feature would work is if someone stole coins, cracked them out, and submitted them to say ANACS or something, THEN proceeded to sell them to someone and that someone submitted to PCGS..IF that would even happen. The coins could be gone for years before the original owner is contacted - if ever. >>
You are assuming that a thief would even know about this much less consider it. Remembering that most reputable TPG companies (which command decent money for their slabs) require registration of some type prior to granting submission priviledges.
While not totally out of the question, I find this scenario highly unlikely.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Comments
no more gradeflation - good
Not exactly. Every + coin will be tried harder to get an upgrade. Only those that go through the "secure-plus" program will be more immune to tampering. So that probably leaves the vast majority of coins uncovered. I'd suspect that any plus coins will be tried for upgrades at NGC first. And if those are achieved then a potential cross. Worst that can happen is that the coins don't cross or that "secure-plus" picks up on a change in the coin. Still, the coin gets returned to the owner and can be still be sold as an NGC upgrade. Every collector can now be engaged in the upgrade game since they will assume a + sign is a decent candidate. This reduces the gap between crack-out artists and newbies. Plus coins will be tried and tried until they upgrade. A double plus would level the field even more. Joe Six Pack now has access to upgradeable coins -assuming they can be bought for a strong enough discount from the next grade up.
no more doctored coins in Secure Plus holders - good
Only if they were doctored after being graded earlier. For a first time coin coming through there is the potential for a doctored coin to get slabbed.
pricing for PQ coins - good
Yes. But not all PQ+ coins are alike. The grades of MS65.6, 65.7, 65.8, 65.9 still exist in top grader's skill sets. Not all PQ coins can or should be priced alike - no different than having 2 MS65's with the same price. Downside is that non- plused coins will contract somewhat in price.
the return of sight-unseen bidding - not good, since it will fuel another 90's style price run-up, which will lead to the inevitable crash in 10 years.
I don't agree. The current changes doesn't define coin values or grades any better than before. The addition of a single plus sign won't help knowledgeable buyers/bidders. It will however help a less skillfull buyer know that a + coin will cost them more money. And in most cases they will get a PQ coin. This will eliminate those sellers who claim an inventory of 90% PQ or top 5-10% for the grade coins. Without a + sign, no average collector or investor will pay the extra money. Sight-unseen bidding can work for just the + coins as it has been working for CAC as well. But a large part of the market is still left out of the picture. So what happens when a + coin is cracked out and resubmitted yet comes back w/o the +....or can't get the + back next time it's reviewed under that program?
Agree that sight-unseen bidding for say common date MS65+ Morgan dollars or Walkers will proliferate. No one would really care if the coins are 65.6 or 65.8. But on common date MS65+ RED Indian cents you can be sure there can not be an effective sight-unseen bidding program....unless it was some gratuitous amount like 10-15% over "bid."
roadrunner
<< <i>no more gradeflation - good >>
It may be slowed down, but it is done by completely artificial means. Gradeflation in fact becomes easier in a +grade system, and the only reason it's not here is because resubmissions will be strongly presumed to be graded correctly the first time; not because they'll be graded the same the second time if truly graded the second time.
<< <i>no more doctored coins in Secure Plus holders - good >>
This may actually be a partial good, I'll admit (and I say very few good things about slabs). It would, however, sound to me that a coin already needs to make it in the new holder before doctoring is detected; if we take a a coin doctored say, six months ago and submit it for the new holders, if the doctoring is not detected it may still go in the holder. Only when a coin in the new holder is doctored and re-submitted for a (new) new holder, will it be detected. And this is assuming the new system works as they say it works, something I am not convinced either way as of yet.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>So if we feel PCGS missed the boat grading the coin the first time, we're screwed now. Great. >>
And might that drive some business to another TPG?
Lance.
Broken hearted.
Paid my dime,
And only farted.
Burma Shave"
<< <i>
<< <i>That's correct! Seems like they'd lose money on the deal. >>
Strictly from a marketing and finance perspective, it sounds to me like a tradeoff between short-term revenue and long-term revenue.
In the short term this could result in a rush of resubmissions (and spiked revenue), but in the long run it could hurt the bottom line because of fewer crack out resubmissions. >>
Yes, but in the long, long term, this stands to add a great deal of stability to the market place, which could expand the hobby and in turn draw even more revenue.
How many people here got burnt out coins due to the shenanigans going on before TPGs, that were later redrawn to it because of the stability they provided? Likewise, I have read countless posts here by serious collectors who were getting out of one thing or another, because they just did not trust what they were buying even with TPGs... these people were afraid of lasered proof gold, puttied gold, etc.
A flaw with the original TPG business model, is that it essentially created environment where people were rewarded for doctoring or simply resubmitting nice coins for upgrades - the inevitable result of this that a.) original coins got doctored & somewhat lost to history, or b.) only bottom-standard for the grade coins remain in their holders, while the nicer ones go on to define the bottom standard for the next grade up.
I think this new scanning / database system really stands to change this model - it will make upgrades harder to get (although not impossible in truly deserving circumstances...) and if the technology works, it might greatly reduce the motive for doctoring altogether.
With respect to doctoring, one potential heartache I can envision is this: say you buy a nice NGC graded coin - you then try to cross to PCGS, only to learn the coin has been doctored! Yikes - I guess from now on the on the only way to avoid this scenario is to... buy only PCGS... that is genius.
Not sure what I think of the + / - idea - for all the doom & gloom speculation about a 100 point scale, this effectively gives us a 210 point scale.
Lastly, for all those worried about their current crop of PCGS coins suddenly becoming second tier, I think that by and large most people will take the evolving market into account when looking at older holders - to a lesser extent, I also see a lot of opportunity in cherrypicking nice older holders with respect to getting the coins into the new system.
>>>My Collection
Or how do we know if it is PG or "+" if it is in a ratler holder or a OGH.
Seems like we are still going to have to look at that darn coin some of the time.
<< <i>
<< <i>So this will make upgrades virtually impossible? If a coin scans in at MS64 is cracked out and resubmitted it'll pop up as a MS64 in the system before the graders even look at it? >>
That's correct! Seems like they'd lose money on the deal. >>
That is not correct. Watch the video.
The possibilities start to get limited though.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Also, why would someone steal PCGS graded coins, crack them out then resubmit them to the same company? The only way that security feature would work is if someone stole coins, cracked them out, and submitted them to say ANACS or something, THEN proceeded to sell them to someone and that someone submitted to PCGS..IF that would even happen. The coins could be gone for years before the original owner is contacted - if ever. >>
You are assuming that a thief would even know about this much less consider it. Remembering that most reputable TPG companies (which command decent money for their slabs) require registration of some type prior to granting submission priviledges.
While not totally out of the question, I find this scenario highly unlikely.
The name is LEE!
Thanks.
>>>My Collection
you should turn on your PM feature.
Ill be out of the fray for awhile, while everyone freaks about there slabs
not matching, etc...............
does "buy the coin, not the plastic" still apply in anyones mind ????