Hot Topics- The PCGS Secure Plus Holder- UPDATED
Justacommeman
Posts: 22,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Walker Proof Digital Album
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
0
Comments
It will take awhile for collectors and dealers a like to get used to and understand what PCGS determines a + to be.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If it's inconsistent with unit divisions, what makes anyone think it will improve by using 0.5 divisions? Doing the same thing over and over will not change results.
Ignore it when it doesn't.
JJ
Edited to add: When I first heard about the PCGS Secure Plus program, I immediately thought of selling all my NON-MS70/PR70 coins. There's too many variables going forward to sell your coins... OGHs must not be PQ because they haven't sent them in for regrade... dreck! the current holders must not be PQ because they aren't in Secure Plus holders... dreck! a Secure Plus holder without a + IS dreck! My #1 registry set is now #2 because someone got two + on their existing coins. Now I have to invest $65 times 42 to submit all my coins to see how many get a +... and hope I can sell the dreck that didn't get the + in the future. Now I have to look at all 42 coins in the population report to see if and when any receive a + to add to my Buy List. Too many variables... where'd the fun go?
I generally like what she says and agree with most of it, but in this case, I agree with about a third and the rest is just complete whining.
She overuses "dreck", she is wrong on a few accounts, and she does have a vested interest in cac. So her pulpit is a bit moldy and she shouldn't stand on it too long
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>So long as a coin is CAC'd, there is no reason not to buy it. >>
It's amazing that people can actually think this way.
That woman ain't afraid to speak her mind and put it in writing. I admire her for it.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>The 5 coins were ALL high end and what we were told was a key ingredient to a +: EYE APPEALING. >>
From what I understood, the majority of the + derives from high for the grade, not eye appeal, although that is part of it.
<< <i>So now, we have coins that are unquestionably gorgeous and are undiusputed the "best of the best" and they are now ranked like a piece of dreck. >>
now she counts non-plus coins as dreck?
Gorgeous sounds like eye appeal again. It is high for the grade, with a little eye appeal mixed in.
So, she'd take a MS65+ over a MS66 ?? And this is because a MS66 is dreck compared to a MS65+ ????
<< <i>They are stuck in this purgetory hell forever due to the new fingerprinting. >>
It was made clear that grades can still be questioned, even with secure plus.
<< <i>My version of ANY + coin is still, VERY high end for the grade and VERY eye appealing. To me, its black and white. Apparently not so with this new 700 point scale. >>
Now, this sounds more like it, although I think simply eye appealing would do. They made it seem like eye appeal was a lesser part of it and the "high for the grade" was most of it.
Also, she expects all subjectivity to be removed?
<< <i>Your biggest trick though, is now to avoid the dreck in the non + holders. >>
take that with this previous statement:
<< <i>...at the very least 5 (realisitically many more) coins well deserved a +. >>
indirectly she is saying the rest of the collection is dreck. Nice! I'm sure her collector will be pleased!
<< <i>As I have been saying overall, basically NOTHING IN THE MARKET HAS CHANGED. >>
Will it ever? You need to buy what you think is good.
And she is already calling non-plus coins dreck, telling people to avoid them, and all the while saying they aren't grading some plus coins as plus.
As always, Laura makes some good points, ruffles some feathers, and gets us thinking and discussing a complex issue. One can beat the issue to death, but it all does come down to 1) whether or not you like the coin for your collection; 2) whether or not the coin has an obscure or hidden problem that might bother you if you learned about it later; 3) whether or not you can afford it or agree on a fair price.
(Most people do not like to discuss #2
Forget all this slab nonsense and dealer whining.
It should just be about the coins.
If you are spending so much that liquidity and market acceptance and PCGS have to affect your buying decisions, then maybe you are spending too much.
Laura if you see this look here it the pcgs guide for eye appeal.
It states that a coin with a grade of ms/pr 66 or lower only needs to have average eye appeal to qualify for a +.
I can see how someone might not think thats how it should be but that is what pcgs has decided.
<< <i>She doesn't mention how this will thwart the coindocs which is what she has been pounding the table for years on. All she talked about was she didn't get the grades she wanted. >>
Her second sentence says "I think PCGS has done a fantastic bold move in the war against coin doctors and gradeflation." I'm not sure what else she can say about how it will thwart the coin doctors, unless or until she sees or hears about it.
Also, I am confused by the 700 point grade scale mentioned. Has it changed from a 70 point? Did I miss something?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I don't mean to put down CU dealers, just don't happen to know about them like I know of Laura.
<< <i>I have seen numerous coins that well deserved a + not get one, and of course I saw other coins that I do not understand how they did. Its not like I saw an entire middle range that was ok either (even the PCGS chatroom room chatted about a 1936 PR Walker that was clearly typically dull yet was a +). >>
So I assume all the folks that talked about the Walker saw it in person, and their opinion was not from an image. I see in this reference the "chatroom" is not called weenies. Interesting.
Of course...(see my signature line)
The "plus" only means xx.7, xx.8, xx.9 and has nothing whatsoever to do with eye appeal or "PQ-ness".
Look, we've all seen eye appealing 65s that have technical issues that should have kept it out of that holder. We have also seen fugly 65s that are technically as good or better than most 66s.
Take the latter coin. Let's say that technically the coin grades 66.4, but is deducted a half point for poor eye appeal or ugly toning. Should that coin be called a 65+? I think that is what PCGS is saying.
Now take the first coin. It has "WOW" eye appeal, but hits in non-focal points that limit the grade. Technically a 64.3, but the coin graded 65 under the old system. The new system only gets it up to 65.3 (with a full point added for positive eye appeal). No matter how good it looks, it's still not a "plus" coin.
You people are getting too hung up on the plus. All it means it that it's a "just-missed-the-next-grade" coin, regardless of its attributes.
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>No one loves coins with the coveted "+" more than Longacre, but I think coin collecting will go retro and go back to actually looking at the coins themselves. Essentially the market will dictate the value of the coins, no matter whether it has a + or a sticker.
Also, I am confused by the 700 point grade scale mentioned. Has it changed from a 70 point? Did I miss something? >>
For the last six months PCGS has had its graders use a 700 point scale (in reality it's still a 70 point scale with one decimal place). They then looked for consistency between the graders and found they couldn't find agreement down to that level, so they decided to give a "+" for any grade where the graders agreed it was a 7, 8, or 9. For example, a coin graded 657, 659, and 657 would receive a slab grade of 65+.
<< <i>It is not a 700 pt system. it is a 70 pt system with a binary flag which amounts to a 140 pt system. --Jerry >>
It's a 42 point system, unless I have miscounted.
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
45+
50
50+
53
53+
55
55+
58
58+
60
61
62
62+
63
63+
64
64+
65
65+
66
66+
67
67+
68
68+
69
70
<< <i>HERE'S WHAT EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE MISSING (except for Mark Feld):
The "plus" only means xx.7, xx.8, xx.9 and has nothing whatsoever to do with eye appeal or "PQ-ness".
Look, we've all seen eye appealing 65s that have technical issues that should have kept it out of that holder. We have also seen fugly 65s that are technically as good or better than most 66s.
Take the latter coin. Let's say that technically the coin grades 66.4, but is deducted a half point for poor eye appeal or ugly toning. Should that coin be called a 65+? I think that is what PCGS is saying.
Now take the first coin. It has "WOW" eye appeal, but hits in non-focal points that limit the grade. Technically a 64.3, but the coin graded 65 under the old system. The new system only gets it up to 65.3 (with a full point added for positive eye appeal). No matter how good it looks, it's still not a "plus" coin.
You people are getting too hung up on the plus. All it means it that it's a "just-missed-the-next-grade" coin, regardless of its attributes. >>
I appreciate the plug, but think a number of other people get it too. (edited to add: After reading some other replies in this thread, now I'm not at all sure that I get it either).
For the record, to me, at least, "PQ" IS mostly about quality and NOT eye-appeal - they are not the same thing. For example, the NGC star is about eye-appeal, but not (premium) QUALITY. A very low end coin can have a star. In fact, a coin might have been bumped from an otherwise lower grade, due to its eye-appeal, and received the star, as well.
The new "plus", on the other hand, is not for low end or mid-range coins, regardless of how much eye appeal they might possess. It is for coins, which, for whatever reason(s), just miss the next grade up. They need not be gorgeous or NGC star-worthy.
Usually when we have a spectacular coin which many dealers, collectors and even ex graders for either PCGS or NGC say is definitely an upgrade; What happens ??? It is sent in for regrade, once, twice, three times or more and then one day it upgrades, MAYBE.
I guess it is worth it in the long run, if you have a proof 1909 $10 in a 66 OGH which becomes a 67, but why all the regrades ???, especially when you have an ex pcgs grader friend telling you it is an upgrade.
I see this definetly happening with secure plus. But now it is costing even more for multiple regrades.
So I, for one, am even more against sending in any of my coins for regrade, even though I have a lot of great coins in the old green holders. A lot of them should receive the secure + on the holder, ( like Laura thought ), or even upgrade, but it is and always has been a gamble. I for one would be much happier having a machine grade my coins CONSISTENTLY. Until that day I have better uses for my money.
<< <i>It is not a 700 pt system. it is a 70 pt system with a binary flag which amounts to a 140 pt system. --Jerry >>
No, grading is a 700 point system, the resulting grade is one of 43 grades (the old system used 30 values of which 13 are now eligible for a plus).
In fact, this could provide an excellent opportunity for PCGS to keep the dreck out. Imagine that you send a regrade coin in for Secure Plus, and they return the coin back to you, in the original holder, along with a refund and a note that says, "We are sorry. This coin is a "D" quality coin and not eligible for Secure Plus status and holdering."
<< <i>It is not a 700 pt system. it is a 70 pt system with a binary flag which amounts to a 140 pt system. --Jerry >>
Isn't the + awarded to only a subset of the 70 grades (actually there are less than 70 -- see below), so the number is something less than 140.
Let's see....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,53,55,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
That's 30 normal grades.
For the plus service there are....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30,35,40, 45, 45+, 50, 50+, 53, 53+, 55, 55+, 58, 58+, 60, 61, 62, 62+, 63, 63+, 64, 64+, 65, 65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68, 68+, 69, 70.
By my count that makes 42 grades for the plus service.
Have I missed anything?
[edited to correct the mistake of including 18 and 40+ -- thanks guys!]
<< <i>
<< <i>It is not a 700 pt system. it is a 70 pt system with a binary flag which amounts to a 140 pt system. --Jerry >>
Isn't the + awarded to only a subset of the 70 grades (actually there are less than 70 -- see below), so the number is something less than 140.
Let's see....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,18,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,53,55,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
That's 31 normal grades.
For the plus service there are....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,18,20,25,30,35,40,40+, 45, 45+, 50, 50+, 53, 53+, 55, 55+, 58, 58+, 60, 61, 62, 62+, 63, 63+, 64, 64+, 65, 65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68, 68+, 69, 70.
By my count that makes 44 grades.
Have I missed anything? >>
There is no 18 and no 40+ (IIRC).
<< <i>
<< <i>It is not a 700 pt system. it is a 70 pt system with a binary flag which amounts to a 140 pt system. --Jerry >>
Isn't the + awarded to only a subset of the 70 grades (actually there are less than 70 -- see below), so the number is something less than 140.
Let's see....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,18,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,53,55,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
That's 31 normal grades.
For the plus service there are....
1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,18,20,25,30,35,40,40+, 45, 45+, 50, 50+, 53, 53+, 55, 55+, 58, 58+, 60, 61, 62, 62+, 63, 63+, 64, 64+, 65, 65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68, 68+, 69, 70.
By my count that makes 44 grades.
Have I missed anything? >>
Yes, there is no 18.
It is a 700 point system internally and displayed externally as a 70 point system with a binary flag for a certain number of the grades (45, 50, 53, 55, 58, 62-68) to indicate at the top end of the grade (xx.7, xx.8. xx.9). The grades are distributed across each grade in a Bell curve fashion (according to Don Willis in the Q&A thread) such that only about 15%-20% of the coins in any grade will meet the plus criteria. If it were a true Bell curve, the grades xx.0, xx.1, xx.2 (the minus grades, some would call these dreck) would take up 15%-20% and xx.7, xx.8. xx.9 (the + grades) would take up 15%-20% and xx.3, xx.4, xx.5, xx.6 would take up 60%-70% of the distribution.
I am a numbers guy to so this does not confuse me either. On the other hand, when you guys start talking about die pairings and VAM numbers and such, I am totally lost. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses I guess.
Link to PCGS + grades
<< <i>I appreciate the plug, but think a number of other people get it too.
For the record, to me, at least, "PQ" IS mostly about quality and NOT eye-appeal - they are not the same thing. For example, the NGC star is about eye-appeal, but not (premium) QUALITY. A very low end coin can have a star. In fact, a coin might have been bumped from an otherwise lower grade, due to its eye-appeal, and received the star, as well.
The new "plus", on the other hand, is not for low end or mid-range coins, regardless of how much eye appeal they might possess. It is for coins, which, for whatever reason(s), just miss the next grade up. They need not be gorgeous or NGC star-worthy. >>
See, I actually thought that that was what I was saying
Empty Nest Collection
"EF-45 Detail is complete with some high points flat"
"EF-45+ Detail is complete with a few high points flat. Superior eye appeal."
The oddness being this -- I thought the + was for "good for the grade" and not "eye appeal" as the description of the 45+ grade alludes to -- because the way this is written I got the impression that the NGC * and PCGS + were synonymous, whereas posts on this forum have led me to believe that it was "good for the grade" that earned the +, and not necessarily good eye appeal.
What am I missing?
Thanks in advance...Mike
I am left with the impression that that she would be happier with certain coins in 65+ holders than in 66.
What was IGWT's phrase again? The Power of the Plus™ !
Amazing.
16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.
Still a bit confused by the descriptions.....MIke
I would like to buy those dreck peace dollars at the big dicounted prices she claims dreck sells for.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
What was once labeled “Size 10 is, in some places, a “Size 6.” Size 14 is now Size 10, etc. The clothing is the same only the label is different.
Men's clothing says "Big or Tall" instead of "Fat or Tall."
All she has to do is shut down Legend Numismatics and The CAC. She would then be free to go to work for PCGS as a grader. (graders can not be coin dealers)
Heck, with her experience she might even be offered a job as a FINALIZER
Then she could teach them "GOOD OLD BOYS" in the grading room how things are done
JMHO, GrandAm
<< <i> "So now, we have coins that are unquestionably gorgeous and are undiusputed the 'best of the best' and they are now ranked like a piece of dreck. . . . Sadly, what PCGS has now done is make coins like our set of Peace Dollars no better than dreck." >>
So, for example, if there are only two PCGS MS68 Peace Dollars, can't they still be the "best of the best" without receiving the "plus"? Of course they can. Can't they also still be considered much better than dreck? Of course they can. Either someone doesn't get it, or they are having a bad overreaction.
65.7, 65.8, 65.9 get a 65+ if deemed PQ with eye appeal. Same applies to other assignable "Plus" grades. Not that complex.
For those who missed the Coin World article please look in the April 12, 2010 edition. Secure Plus articles are on Pg. 1 & Pg. 30.