<< <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 day, week, or whatever. >>
That analysis might work for MS68 Peace dollars but not MS65 Saints.
<< <i>That woman ain't afraid to speak her mind and put it in writing. I admire her for it. >>
You find being opinionated to be a positive trait?
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
I agree but if someone wanted to call it a 140 pt system I wouldn't quibble because it is a 70 pt scale plust a binary so mathematically, there are 140 grades available. PCGS chooses to use 42 of them and that is good by me. --Jerry
i find this all so amusing. please carry on while i hide in the back ground reading about these constant tempests in a teapot revolving around collecting coins. it is all about money.. the coins and the biz!
<< <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". >>
For the record, the + does use eye appeal as a determining factor. This is from the PCGS website: "With decimal grading, we are able to identify those coins we believe are superior for a grade both technically and in eye appeal. If PCGS designates a coin as a Plus, it has in our opinion multiple characteristics that place it in the top 10-15% of all coins in its grade."
In my mind it boils down to this:
NGC * = great eye appeal. Who cares what the grade is or if the coin is high or low end within the grade, it's got eye appeal. CAC = the coin is the grade the holder says. If it has eye appeal that's great, but CAC is concerned with technical grade PCGS + = a combo of the above two with more weight on the technical side. The coin has to be in the top part of the grade AND have positive eye appeal. This explains why only "10-15%" meet the criteria while in theory it should be 30%.
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
<< <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. >>
When I attended the announcement of the big one DH sure did talk about eye appeal....alot.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>NGC * = great eye appeal. Who cares what the grade is or if the coin is high or low end within the grade, it's got eye appeal. CAC = the coin is the grade the holder says. If it has eye appeal that's great, but CAC is concerned with technical grade PCGS + = a combo of the above two with more weight on the technical side. The coin has to be in the top part of the grade AND have positive eye appeal. This explains why only "10-15%" meet the criteria while in theory it should be 30%. >>
Don't forget about CAC gold beans!! Those are the ones that jump out in poke you in the nose!!!
It is not exactly cheating, I prefer to consider it creative problem solving!!!
There is no article attached to the link in the OP.... not sure why. However, as interesting as I am sure the article may be, this whining, regurgitation and petty hairsplitting (including the much vaunted Laura) is getting sickening. First of all, it is PCGS's program, they have explained it. Either use it or do not. If you don't like the results (and many did not like the results before this expanded system), either resubmit or shut up. You submitted your coins for grades - AND PAID FOR THEM!! Don't like it, don't submit. Can we please get on with collecting coins? (At least some of us are collectors... let the dealers get another venue to whine on). Cheers, RickO
<< <i>There is no article attached to the link in the OP.... not sure why. However, as interesting as I am sure the article may be, this whining, regurgitation and petty hairsplitting (including the much vaunted Laura) is getting sickening. First of all, it is PCGS's program, they have explained it. Either use it or do not. If you don't like the results (and many did not like the results before this expanded system), either resubmit or shut up. You submitted your coins for grades - AND PAID FOR THEM!! Don't like it, don't submit. Can we please get on with collecting coins? (At least some of us are collectors... let the dealers get another venue to whine on). Cheers, RickO >>
The link worked earlier. Maybe the Legend page can't handle all of the volume this thread has generated.
I really didn't get her beef. She complains about coin docs for years, then when PCGS comes out with a way to thwart them, she says 3 kind words about that and another 1000 complaining about the grades she didn't get.
<< <i>There is no article attached to the link in the OP.... not sure why. However, as interesting as I am sure the article may be, this whining, regurgitation and petty hairsplitting (including the much vaunted Laura) is getting sickening. First of all, it is PCGS's program, they have explained it. Either use it or do not. If you don't like the results (and many did not like the results before this expanded system), either resubmit or shut up. You submitted your coins for grades - AND PAID FOR THEM!! Don't like it, don't submit. Can we please get on with collecting coins? (At least some of us are collectors... let the dealers get another venue to whine on). Cheers, RickO >>
I really didn't get her beef. She complains about coin docs for years, then when PCGS comes out with a way to thwart them, she says 3 kind words about that and another 1000 complaining about the grades she didn't get. >>
I think the Peace set she is referring to is the Simpson set. Perhaps it is a set she helped assemble? Maybe this set had some cac coins, maybe not when sent in? People with 500,000.00 registry sets get bumped up or down by someone getting a "plus" or not, they get a little sensitive. My set is only worth around 100K and I am not in number 1 contention, so I can remain mellow about this topic and wait to play my cards--------BigE
<< <i>That woman ain't afraid to speak her mind and put it in writing. I admire her for it. >>
You find being opinionated to be a positive trait? >>
We all got opinions, brother. Most of the time we keep them to ourselves, Laura don't. Like it or not she is in the heart of the numismatic field. She knows whats going on and I admire her for letting the rest of us know.
<< <i>I have to disagree with Mark on this issue. Clearly, the PCGS + is not only
inthe top 10 - 15% of the grade, but it is also ranked high as to its aesthetic
beauty as a coin. Thus it represents both the characteristics of the bean and
the star.Since the bean is only solid for the grade, the star is now a superior
combination of the star and green bean. >>
Clearly, it is not really clear Some of the coins with the "plus" might very well be in the top 10-15% for the grade, but aren't necessarily of great aesthetic beauty, at least to some of us. And it's not surprising, since both numerical grading and eye-appeal are both at least somewhat subjective.
Laura and her client got walloped, or at least that is their perception, and other dealers are expressing some of the same concerns as Laura. If you think that Laura and the other dealers are just being cry babies keep in mind that they are business people. What happens to a collector-dealer relationship when a collector sends in his coins for Secure Plus grading expecting to get a plethora of plus grades on the coins for which he paid premium prices, but instead the coins come back without upgrades or pluses? Is that collector going to continue to pay high markups from his favorite (or perhaps now formerly favorite) dealer who got him into those coins that now officially rank as “ordinary” or “mid-grade”?
PCGS is promoting the plus grade as a way for collectors to reap the premium value of their premium coins when it comes time to sell by establishing new pricing levels for plus coins. By the same token the plus system should make it easier for dealers to realize premium prices for premium coins by having the plus sign to back up their claims that their inventory is PQ. Getting coins back without the plus will cause a lot of collectors and dealers great angst and will leave some wondering whether they even have a clue about grading. So, while I was considering sending in few coins to test Secure Plus, I am now thinking that it might be better to first examine some coins that have earned the plus and hopefully get a better idea of what PCGS considers a plus coin.
<< <i>Correction Mark, I meant to say + and not star. The error has now been corrected.
It is true that the Green bean may very well be a .6, .7, .8 or .9. However you do not
know for sure as a collector and thus, the full value may not be fixed to the coin. It is
easy to complain about the new Protection Plus System, it takes a little patience to see
how the new system actually works out. >>
Regardless of the plus designations and/or the stars and/or the CAC stickers, I believe that among knowledgeable collectors and dealers, the coins will sell themselves (or not), depending on their quality and aesthetics. And that's how it should be - it's just that sometimes many of us forget that minor point.
<< <i>Laura and her client got walloped, or at least that is their perception, and other dealers are expressing some of the same concerns as Laura. If you think that Laura and the other dealers are just being cry babies keep in mind that they are business people. What happens to a collector-dealer relationship when a collector sends in his coins for Secure Plus grading expecting to get a plethora of plus grades on the coins for which he paid premium prices, but instead the coins come back without upgrades or pluses? Is that collector going to continue to pay high markups from his favorite (or perhaps now formerly favorite) dealer who got him into those coins that now officially rank as “ordinary” or “mid-grade”?
PCGS is promoting the plus grade as a way for collectors to reap the premium value of their premium coins when it comes time to sell by establishing new pricing levels for plus coins. By the same token the plus system should make it easier for dealers to realize premium prices for premium coins by having the plus sign to back up their claims that their inventory is PQ. Getting coins back without the plus will cause a lot of collectors and dealers great angst and will leave some wondering whether they even have a clue about grading. So, while I was considering sending in few coins to test Secure Plus, I am now thinking that it might be better to first examine some coins that have earned the plus and hopefully get a better idea of what PCGS considers a plus coin. >>
I agree, with the additional thought that PCGS is trying to make additional grading fee income with this as collectors decide to "spin the wheel" (pay a premium grading fee) in the hopes of getting a + on a big coin. I'm going to see how my Collectors Club freebie goes, and compare that result with those of others to hopefully get a better handle on what it takes to get a +.
It is great that PCGS set starter values for the plus coins in the price guide. You need at least 3 sale results at a minimum to kind of get an idea of what Secure Plus coins will be bringing in the marketplace. Say there is only 50 65's graded for a given series, if All OF THE 50 are sent in for Secure Plus only 20% will make the "+", so you would have a pool of 10 coins of which MAYBE 3 will trade. We should all be HAVING FUN WATCHING THESE EXCITING EVENTS play out in the series we each collect.---------BigE
Laura has removed her article. She is confused and frustrated with the new Secure Plus system. She will have a new article up soon.
Let me clarify a couple points that I think need it.
1) For a coin to earn the + designation it has to be in the top 10-20% of that grade. We aren't talking eye appeal, although that is considered as part of it. The coin has to meet all the technical criteria such as strike, luster, contact marks as well as eye appeal. Not just a pretty coin, but a coin thats "all there" and may have been referred to as "a liner" in the past. Almost the next grade but not quite. A + is not an eye appeal designation. A + does not indicate "properly graded". A + is something a step above.
2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade.
3) We will never comment on someone's grading results. That's their business. However I would advise anyone interested to take a look at the PCGS Registry and in particular the Simpson sets, if they want to see some beautiful + coins.
<< <i>I have to disagree with Mark on this issue. Clearly, the PCGS + is not only
inthe top 10 - 15% of the grade, but it is also ranked high as to its aesthetic
beauty as a coin. Thus it represents both the characteristics of the bean and
the star.Since the bean is only solid for the grade, the star is now a superior
combination of the star and green bean. >>
Clearly, it is not really clear Some of the coins with the "plus" might very well be in the top 10-15% for the grade, but aren't necessarily of great aesthetic beauty, at least to some of us. And it's not surprising, since both numerical grading and eye-appeal are both at least somewhat subjective. >>
I have to agree with about that....I saw a coin that was a pcgs 66 and given the plus.....I was totally unimpressed with the eye appeal.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Laura has removed her article. She is confused and frustrated with the new Secure Plus system. She will have a new article up soon.
Let me clarify a couple points that I think need it.
1) For a coin to earn the + designation it has to be in the top 10-20% of that grade. We aren't talking eye appeal, although that is considered as part of it. The coin has to meet all the technical criteria such as strike, luster, contact marks as well as eye appeal. Not just a pretty coin, but a coin thats "all there" and may have been referred to as "a liner" in the past. Almost the next grade but not quite. A + is not an eye appeal designation. A + does not indicate "properly graded". A + is something a step above.
2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade.
<< <i>
Fair enough. But listing some of the factors as an example in the PCGS grading scale, it states: "AU-58+ Full detail with the barest trace of friction on the highest points. Superior eye appeal." "MS/PR-63+ Average number of marks/hairlines, strike will be close to average. Good eye appeal for grade." "MS/PR-66+ Very few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, very good strike with superior eye appeal" "MS/PR-68+ Virtually as struck with very slight imperfections, the strike must be virtually full. Eye appeal must be very good."
I wonder what the criteria is for having differing "eye appeal" qualifications per grade?
Battles are won and battles are lost...it is who wins the war. The 2nd Protects the 1st.
<< <i>2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade. >>
Thanks for saying that, Don- it needed to be said.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Cal Gold summed up the net effects very well. Nicely done.
About retail dealers grading better than PCGS, suffice to say there are very few such dealers who fit that bill and many of them just "happen" to be former TPG graders.
<< <i>About retail dealers grading better than PCGS, suffice to say there are very few such dealers who fit that bill and many of them just "happen" to be former TPG graders. >>
Yup. And a few are a legend in their own mind.
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
<< <i>2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade. >>
Thanks for saying that, Don- it needed to be said. >>
It needed to be said, for whom? With no disrespect intended for Don, didn't almost everyone already know that
"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?" -
Hi there,
I dunno, been wondering the same thing - but I think I know where some green went and is going to go. I have been wondering of what value the new product is for new submissions is when relatively small numbers of coins have been scanned thus far. Wouldn't PCGS have to have seen the coin at least once before for the systrem to kick ion beyond them gathering data? I have also been wondering why one should be charged extra to contribute to a database one will then have to pay to access? I dunno - I probably got this all wrong.
I just got called by the Goldberg's,of the six finest green beans in my box of twenty that we thought would make a +, only one made it. The 1918 FH MS-65 got a +, the other 5 did not. They are being very strict and that is good.
I can say with a tinge of a compliment that PCGS is at least taking a measured approach with the plus + grading and the secure plus holder to give the coin hobby/market a chance to get used to it.
I am sure that in some issues such as the 1931-S and 1955 DDO cents, the plus + grades will not mean a whole lot in the circulated or low uncirculated grades but could mean a bit more in the MS-64RD and MS-65RD grades.
The market will eventually determine the need for the plus + grades and the next month or two will be too soon to figure it all out.
I seriously think ya'll are thinking way to hard about this new Secure + grading. It's not going to make your other non secure + coins go up or down in value. No, just because your coin doesn't have a + and/or CAC doesn't mean your coin is dreck. Most coins haven't ever been sent to CAC or sent to pcgs for the + designation. I plan on trying to get a + or two when the fees for secure-plus drops to around the standard grading fees.
I think ya'll are putting way to much empathise on the holder and not looking at the metal disk inside.
Yes, thank goodness the coins themselves don't change! The rest I really don't care so much. O read in a post thet the new grading system actually increases the value of coins as you may have a "+" worth some money - but I disagree. It changes the perception][i] of the coins value. In the end, unless plastic sticker zombies are doing the bidding, the coin should bring the premium it deserves if any based on its merits. As it always has. Good stuff generally sells well. Look at a lot of coins - but the best you can afford that meet your own criteria.[i] The interesting part may be the pricing - PCGS MS60, PCGS MS60+ (oops cant have that) PCGS MS60 CAC, NGC MS60, NGC MS60* and so on. This is all scenery, I'll just admire the view.
<< <i>Correction Mark, I meant to say + and not star. The error has now been corrected.
It is true that the Green bean may very well be a .6, .7, .8 or .9. However you do not
know for sure as a collector and thus, the full value may not be fixed to the coin. It is
easy to complain about the new Protection Plus System, it takes a little patience to see
how the new system actually works out. >>
Regardless of the plus designations and/or the stars and/or the CAC stickers, I believe that among knowledgeable collectors and dealers, the coins will sell themselves (or not), depending on their quality and aesthetics. And that's how it should be - it's just that sometimes many of us forget that minor point. >>
Ding Ding Ding Ding
I think this is a really nice new service offered by PCGS They are obviously the leader in the TPG world and therefore their new Plus system will surely add value to a coin in that holder. Better yet, I love their new fingerprinting system that will help with some high end pieces remaining as original tomorrow as they are today. Bravo.
And what Mark said is spot on. A plus coin will sell for a premium whether in a Plus holder, a green bean holder, a star holder, or raw to a knowledgeable collector/dealer.
I have heard from a really reliable source that Mark (who I have never met) can look at a coin and in about 3 seconds tell you its grade and in addition, it's high and low points. I am sure Don Willis could and would do the same. Now a middling collector like myself would/should put a lot more faith in a Mark Feld or Don Willis telling me coin A was a stronger coin for the grade than coin B regardless of the slab it might be in. Use the slab grade as a very good professional opinion, but then use your own eye, or the eye of a real coin grader like Mark or Don to finalize a coin value before writing the check.
<< <i>It needed to be said, for whom? With no disrespect intended for Don, didn't almost everyone already know that
Mark, well apparently not everyone! >>
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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 day, week, or whatever. >>
That analysis might work for MS68 Peace dollars but not MS65 Saints.
I feel the same way, but I don't feel capable of grading on a 700 point scale.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>That woman ain't afraid to speak her mind and put it in writing. I admire her for it. >>
You find being opinionated to be a positive trait?
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
<< <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 >>
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 agree but if someone wanted to call it a 140 pt system I wouldn't quibble because it is a 70 pt scale plust a binary so mathematically, there are 140 grades available. PCGS chooses to use 42 of them and that is good by me. --Jerry
about these constant tempests in a teapot revolving around collecting coins.
it is all about money.. the coins and the biz!
<< <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".
>>
For the record, the + does use eye appeal as a determining factor. This is from the PCGS website: "With decimal grading, we are able to identify those coins we believe are superior for a grade both technically and in eye appeal. If PCGS designates a coin as a Plus, it has in our opinion multiple characteristics that place it in the top 10-15% of all coins in its grade."
In my mind it boils down to this:
NGC * = great eye appeal. Who cares what the grade is or if the coin is high or low end within the grade, it's got eye appeal.
CAC = the coin is the grade the holder says. If it has eye appeal that's great, but CAC is concerned with technical grade
PCGS + = a combo of the above two with more weight on the technical side. The coin has to be in the top part of the grade AND have positive eye appeal. This explains why only "10-15%" meet the criteria while in theory it should be 30%.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
When I attended the announcement of the big one DH sure did talk about eye appeal....alot.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>NGC * = great eye appeal. Who cares what the grade is or if the coin is high or low end within the grade, it's got eye appeal.
CAC = the coin is the grade the holder says. If it has eye appeal that's great, but CAC is concerned with technical grade
PCGS + = a combo of the above two with more weight on the technical side. The coin has to be in the top part of the grade AND have positive eye appeal. This explains why only "10-15%" meet the criteria while in theory it should be 30%.
>>
Don't forget about CAC gold beans!! Those are the ones that jump out in poke you in the nose!!!
<< <i>This reminds me of women’s clothing manufacturers changes in dress sizes.
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." >>
FatE
<< <i>There is no article attached to the link in the OP.... not sure why. However, as interesting as I am sure the article may be, this whining, regurgitation and petty hairsplitting (including the much vaunted Laura) is getting sickening. First of all, it is PCGS's program, they have explained it. Either use it or do not. If you don't like the results (and many did not like the results before this expanded system), either resubmit or shut up. You submitted your coins for grades - AND PAID FOR THEM!! Don't like it, don't submit. Can we please get on with collecting coins? (At least some of us are collectors... let the dealers get another venue to whine on). Cheers, RickO >>
The link worked earlier. Maybe the Legend page can't handle all of the volume this thread has generated.
Let the drama begin.
I really didn't get her beef. She complains about coin docs for years, then when PCGS comes out with a way to thwart them, she says 3 kind words about that and another 1000 complaining about the grades she didn't get.
<< <i>There is no article attached to the link in the OP.... not sure why. However, as interesting as I am sure the article may be, this whining, regurgitation and petty hairsplitting (including the much vaunted Laura) is getting sickening. First of all, it is PCGS's program, they have explained it. Either use it or do not. If you don't like the results (and many did not like the results before this expanded system), either resubmit or shut up. You submitted your coins for grades - AND PAID FOR THEM!! Don't like it, don't submit. Can we please get on with collecting coins? (At least some of us are collectors... let the dealers get another venue to whine on). Cheers, RickO >>
Go Here Then!!
Email Laura...... lsperber1@hotmail.com
inthe top 10 - 15% of the grade, but it is also ranked high as to its aesthetic
beauty as a coin. Thus it represents both the characteristics of the bean and
the star.Since the bean is only solid for the grade, the + is now a superior
combination of the star and green bean.
Camelot
<< <i>I think it was taken down
Let the drama begin.
I really didn't get her beef. She complains about coin docs for years, then when PCGS comes out with a way to thwart them, she says 3 kind words about that and another 1000 complaining about the grades she didn't get. >>
I think the Peace set she is referring to is the Simpson set. Perhaps it is a set she helped assemble? Maybe this set had some cac coins, maybe not when sent in? People with 500,000.00 registry sets get bumped up or down by someone getting a "plus" or not, they get a little sensitive. My set is only worth around 100K and I am not in number 1 contention, so I can remain mellow about this topic and wait to play my cards--------BigE
<< <i>
<< <i>That woman ain't afraid to speak her mind and put it in writing. I admire her for it. >>
You find being opinionated to be a positive trait? >>
We all got opinions, brother. Most of the time we keep them to ourselves, Laura don't. Like it or not she is in the heart of the numismatic field. She knows whats going on and I admire her for letting the rest of us know.
Yes, I find her opinions to be a positive trait.
<< <i>I have to disagree with Mark on this issue. Clearly, the PCGS + is not only
inthe top 10 - 15% of the grade, but it is also ranked high as to its aesthetic
beauty as a coin. Thus it represents both the characteristics of the bean and
the star.Since the bean is only solid for the grade, the star is now a superior
combination of the star and green bean. >>
Clearly, it is not really clear
PCGS is promoting the plus grade as a way for collectors to reap the premium value of their premium coins when it comes time to sell by establishing new pricing levels for plus coins. By the same token the plus system should make it easier for dealers to realize premium prices for premium coins by having the plus sign to back up their claims that their inventory is PQ. Getting coins back without the plus will cause a lot of collectors and dealers great angst and will leave some wondering whether they even have a clue about grading. So, while I was considering sending in few coins to test Secure Plus, I am now thinking that it might be better to first examine some coins that have earned the plus and hopefully get a better idea of what PCGS considers a plus coin.
CG
It is true that the Green bean may very well be a .6, .7, .8 or .9. However you do not
know for sure as a collector and thus, the full value may not be fixed to the coin. It is
easy to complain about the new Protection Plus System, it takes a little patience to see
how the new system actually works out. I am inclined to give it the full benefit of the doubt
with a strong nudge towards optimistic.
Camelot
<< <i>Correction Mark, I meant to say + and not star. The error has now been corrected.
It is true that the Green bean may very well be a .6, .7, .8 or .9. However you do not
know for sure as a collector and thus, the full value may not be fixed to the coin. It is
easy to complain about the new Protection Plus System, it takes a little patience to see
how the new system actually works out. >>
Regardless of the plus designations and/or the stars and/or the CAC stickers, I believe that among knowledgeable collectors and dealers, the coins will sell themselves (or not), depending on their quality and aesthetics. And that's how it should be - it's just that sometimes many of us forget that minor point.
IF I DID KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING, I WOULD BE RICH INSTEAD OF
LIVING ON A PENSION!
Camelot
<< <i>Laura and her client got walloped, or at least that is their perception, and other dealers are expressing some of the same concerns as Laura. If you think that Laura and the other dealers are just being cry babies keep in mind that they are business people. What happens to a collector-dealer relationship when a collector sends in his coins for Secure Plus grading expecting to get a plethora of plus grades on the coins for which he paid premium prices, but instead the coins come back without upgrades or pluses? Is that collector going to continue to pay high markups from his favorite (or perhaps now formerly favorite) dealer who got him into those coins that now officially rank as “ordinary” or “mid-grade”?
PCGS is promoting the plus grade as a way for collectors to reap the premium value of their premium coins when it comes time to sell by establishing new pricing levels for plus coins. By the same token the plus system should make it easier for dealers to realize premium prices for premium coins by having the plus sign to back up their claims that their inventory is PQ. Getting coins back without the plus will cause a lot of collectors and dealers great angst and will leave some wondering whether they even have a clue about grading. So, while I was considering sending in few coins to test Secure Plus, I am now thinking that it might be better to first examine some coins that have earned the plus and hopefully get a better idea of what PCGS considers a plus coin. >>
I agree, with the additional thought that PCGS is trying to make additional grading fee income with this as collectors decide to "spin the wheel" (pay a premium grading fee) in the hopes of getting a + on a big coin. I'm going to see how my Collectors Club freebie goes, and compare that result with those of others to hopefully get a better handle on what it takes to get a +.
Let me clarify a couple points that I think need it.
1) For a coin to earn the + designation it has to be in the top 10-20% of that grade. We aren't talking eye appeal, although that is considered as part of it. The coin has to meet all the technical criteria such as strike, luster, contact marks as well as eye appeal. Not just a pretty coin, but a coin thats "all there" and may have been referred to as "a liner" in the past. Almost the next grade but not quite. A + is not an eye appeal designation. A + does not indicate "properly graded". A + is something a step above.
2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade.
3) We will never comment on someone's grading results. That's their business. However I would advise anyone interested to take a look at the PCGS Registry and in particular the Simpson sets, if they want to see some beautiful + coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to disagree with Mark on this issue. Clearly, the PCGS + is not only
inthe top 10 - 15% of the grade, but it is also ranked high as to its aesthetic
beauty as a coin. Thus it represents both the characteristics of the bean and
the star.Since the bean is only solid for the grade, the star is now a superior
combination of the star and green bean. >>
Clearly, it is not really clear
I have to agree with about that....I saw a coin that was a pcgs 66 and given the plus.....I was totally unimpressed with the eye appeal.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
But then again NGC is up to a 7000 point system with their old * in addition to the new + for them.
<< <i>Laura has removed her article. She is confused and frustrated with the new Secure Plus system. She will have a new article up soon.
Let me clarify a couple points that I think need it.
1) For a coin to earn the + designation it has to be in the top 10-20% of that grade. We aren't talking eye appeal, although that is considered as part of it. The coin has to meet all the technical criteria such as strike, luster, contact marks as well as eye appeal. Not just a pretty coin, but a coin thats "all there" and may have been referred to as "a liner" in the past. Almost the next grade but not quite. A + is not an eye appeal designation. A + does not indicate "properly graded". A + is something a step above.
2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade.
<< <i>
Fair enough. But listing some of the factors as an example in the PCGS grading scale, it states:
"AU-58+ Full detail with the barest trace of friction on the highest points. Superior eye appeal."
"MS/PR-63+ Average number of marks/hairlines, strike will be close to average. Good eye appeal for grade."
"MS/PR-66+ Very few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, very good strike with superior eye appeal"
"MS/PR-68+ Virtually as struck with very slight imperfections, the strike must be virtually full. Eye appeal must be very good."
I wonder what the criteria is for having differing "eye appeal" qualifications per grade?
<< <i>Gelt, nur ein wenig Gold. >>
Genau!
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Silly humans.
<< <i>2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade. >>
Thanks for saying that, Don- it needed to be said.
About retail dealers grading better than PCGS, suffice to say there are very few such dealers who fit that bill and many of them just "happen" to be former TPG graders.
roadrunner
<< <i>About retail dealers grading better than PCGS, suffice to say there are very few such dealers who fit that bill and many of them just "happen" to be former TPG graders. >>
Yup. And a few are a legend in their own mind.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>2) Coins that do not earn the + designation are not dreck. 80-90% of all coins in every grade will not earn the +. They are not dreck at all. There is nothing wrong with a coin that grades 65.5 - it's solid for the grade and that's fine. It's just not quite a +. To assume that something is wrong with a coin that does not have a + is completely missing the point. I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade. >>
Thanks for saying that, Don- it needed to be said. >>
It needed to be said, for whom? With no disrespect intended for Don, didn't almost everyone already know that
Hi there,
I dunno, been wondering the same thing - but I think I know where some green went and is going to go. I have been wondering of what value the new product is for new submissions is when relatively small numbers of coins have been scanned thus far. Wouldn't PCGS have to have seen the coin at least once before for the systrem to kick ion beyond them gathering data? I have also been wondering why one should be charged extra to contribute to a database one will then have to pay to access? I dunno - I probably got this all wrong.
Best,
Eric
Edited for spelling
my box of twenty that we thought would make a +, only one made it.
The 1918 FH MS-65 got a +, the other 5 did not. They are being very strict
and that is good.
Camelot
Mark, well apparently not everyone!
<< <i>It needed to be said, for whom? With no disrespect intended for Don, didn't almost everyone already know that
Mark, well apparently not everyone! >>
Don, quit picking on Laura.
I am sure that in some issues such as the 1931-S and 1955 DDO cents, the plus + grades will not mean a whole lot in the circulated or low uncirculated grades but could mean a bit more in the MS-64RD and MS-65RD grades.
The market will eventually determine the need for the plus + grades and the next month or two will be too soon to figure it all out.
I think ya'll are putting way to much empathise on the holder and not looking at the metal disk inside.
Best,
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>Correction Mark, I meant to say + and not star. The error has now been corrected.
It is true that the Green bean may very well be a .6, .7, .8 or .9. However you do not
know for sure as a collector and thus, the full value may not be fixed to the coin. It is
easy to complain about the new Protection Plus System, it takes a little patience to see
how the new system actually works out. >>
Regardless of the plus designations and/or the stars and/or the CAC stickers, I believe that among knowledgeable collectors and dealers, the coins will sell themselves (or not), depending on their quality and aesthetics. And that's how it should be - it's just that sometimes many of us forget that minor point.
Ding Ding Ding Ding
I think this is a really nice new service offered by PCGS
They are obviously the leader in the TPG world and therefore their new Plus system will surely add value to a coin in that holder.
Better yet, I love their new fingerprinting system that will help with some high end pieces remaining as original tomorrow as they
are today. Bravo.
And what Mark said is spot on.
A plus coin will sell for a premium whether in a Plus holder, a green bean holder, a star holder, or raw to a knowledgeable collector/dealer.
I have heard from a really reliable source that Mark (who I have never met) can look at a coin and in about 3 seconds tell you its grade and in addition, it's high and low points. I am sure Don Willis could and would do the same.
Now a middling collector like myself would/should put a lot more faith in a Mark Feld or Don Willis telling me coin A was a stronger coin for the grade than coin B regardless of the slab it might be in. Use the slab grade as a very good professional opinion, but then use your own eye, or the eye of a real coin grader like Mark or Don to finalize a coin value before writing the check.
<< <i>It needed to be said, for whom? With no disrespect intended for Don, didn't almost everyone already know that
Mark, well apparently not everyone! >>
<< <i> I think there is a firm that puts little stickers on coins that are solid for the grade.
>>
Don, If I am allowed to put this in my signature I would be eternally grateful.
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