<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO
Also as mentioned here earlier, I believe that it is the intent of PCGS to eventually scan most coins whether submitted under the secure service or not. To what degree they have progressed towards this end is uncertain. I would think that expensive coins would be automatically considered for scanning even now. BTW anyone know about how much the subject coin is worth?
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
>>
Boiled down, this is the most important issue brought forth in this thread. It naturally follows that it is the least discussed.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
>>
Boiled down, this is the most important issue brought forth in this thread. It naturally follows that it is the least discussed. >>
I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
The back door through regular submission has been discussed many times before. It was, in fact, raised during the Big One Q&A.
The impression I got back then was that PCGS would like to shut this door but felt it was wise to proceed cautiously with SP until the effort was understood and the process honed. Lance.
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder. >>
It's been booked, fingerprinted, and mugshot, before the crackout and regular submission. At least, that's my understanding. As such, it should be capable of being identified as the same coin.
<< <i>I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is. >>
That indeed is true but the question that remains is does PCGS have the ability to identify the now raw coins on behalf of the proper owner in case they are ever located?
The concern that is brought up is if PCGS is/will be doing any cross referencing of raw submissions to secure plus coins previously slabbed?
Certainly, a minimum dollar threshold of around $5000 or so per coin is a good start?
This is not a criticism of PCGS by any means, just hashing out the nitty gritty details of a program with great promise.
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO >>
I don;t think there is any responsibility involvement here since the coin was submitted for "regular" grading which does not get the "Secure Plus" scan. Only "Secure Plus" submissions get the scan which is the root of the problem and the OP.
I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post.
At the Boston ANA, he was told that variety attribution was NOT available for Secure Plus grading. I think the PCGS rep meant Variety Attribution was not available for "Secure Plus Show Grading" (read 1 day turn around) since Stewart did spend $125 to get it graded. Standard 1 day grading usually excludes grading "options" such as variety attributions. From that statement, I can "presume" that Stewart thouht variety attribution would never be available with Secure Plus grading so he cracked the coin out simply to get the Variety Attribution on a Regular Submission.
The Root Cause of this ENTIRE post is based in bad communications based upon assumptions.
Do I fault Stewart for making the post? Absolutely not since it's a post that was bound to happen until everybody FULLY understands the roles played by the sniffer, the scanner and their relationship to the Secure Plus grading level.
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> Remember the early silver coin (I don't remember which one) with re-etched stars? IIRC it was a VF or so coin with smooth stars and someone had etched lines on the stars that weren't at all like the original raised ridges but because the detail matched and stars aren't a device that is generally mentioned in the grading standards, the graders missed it, the dealer who sold it missed it, the buyer missed it, and most who viewed it missed it. >>
It was a draped bust quarter or half dollar that was MADE WITH FLAT STARS. There was ABSOLUTELY no excuse for that.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was?
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is. >>
Continue the scenario. You go into the pawn shop and buy the cracked out, raw coin, and now you want it in PCGS plastic. Do you go the SP submission route? After having read this thread, that's taking a big chance. Don't you think?
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed. >>
A SP recognition scan and photograph will not catch tooling that took place before submission. A human does that.
After a second SP scan, a rescan will recognize the coin and the human can use the coin and past photograph, and I guess even current photograph to determine if it was tooled, etc.
I can't wait to see the results from a third submission.
MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder. 2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed. 3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution. 4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome?
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder. 2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed. 3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution. 4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
Unlike some, I am sympathetic to Stuart's plight. But I'm guessing that there WAS another option, that being a variety attribution re-submission through means other than a one day submission.
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder. 2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed. 3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution. 4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
#3 is the reason I would think there would not be a check... he didn't crack the coin out just to get variety attribution... it appears he was trying to get around the SecurePlus scanner in an effort for a higher grade. If all he wanted was variety attribution, it didn't need to be cracked out before sending to PCGS.
I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted.
My understanding of the secure plus service is that once the coin has been thru secure plus once, if it goes thru that service a second time or a third time or any number of times in the future, the system will identify the coin if it is am exact match. In this case, if Stewart now cracks the genuine holdered coin out and submits it raw for SECURE PLUS service, PCGS will automatically go thru the process of confirming. Am I wrong? Steve
<< <i>My understanding of the secure plus service is that once the coin has been thru secure plus once, if it goes thru that service a second time or a third time or any number of times in the future, the system will identify the coin if it is am exact match. In this case, if Stewart now cracks the genuine holdered coin out and submits it raw for SECURE PLUS service, PCGS will automatically go thru the process of confirming. Am I wrong? Steve >>
That sounds about right, but I wouldn't crack the coin out of the Genuine holder. If Secure Plus is what it's cracked up to be (pun, unintended), he wants the service to identify the coin while it's in the Genuine holder.
<< <i>My understanding of the secure plus service is that once the coin has been thru secure plus once, if it goes thru that service a second time or a third time or any number of times in the future, the system will identify the coin if it is am exact match. In this case, if Stewart now cracks the genuine holdered coin out and submits it raw for SECURE PLUS service, PCGS will automatically go thru the process of confirming. Am I wrong? Steve >>
If it submitted under SP service, PCGs will go through the SP process again.
I am thinking that considering this coin's value and all the fuss will likely get looked at very, very carefully no matter the submission type the next time around.
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible.
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO >>
I don;t think there is any responsibility involvement here since the coin was submitted for "regular" grading which does not get the "Secure Plus" scan. Only "Secure Plus" submissions get the scan which is the root of the problem and the OP.
I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post.
At the Boston ANA, he was told that variety attribution was NOT available for Secure Plus grading. I think the PCGS rep meant Variety Attribution was not available for "Secure Plus Show Grading" (read 1 day turn around) since Stewart did spend $125 to get it graded. Standard 1 day grading usually excludes grading "options" such as variety attributions. From that statement, I can "presume" that Stewart thouht variety attribution would never be available with Secure Plus grading so he cracked the coin out simply to get the Variety Attribution on a Regular Submission.
The Root Cause of this ENTIRE post is based in bad communications based upon assumptions.
Do I fault Stewart for making the post? Absolutely not since it's a post that was bound to happen until everybody FULLY understands the roles played by the sniffer, the scanner and their relationship to the Secure Plus grading level. >>
FWIW, I agree with the above synopsis. Well said, sir.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder. 2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed. 3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution. 4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
Not compensation. It was cracked out. They can't guarantee a grade on a cracked out coin.
It can be regraded. Maybe it will grade higher, lower, the same or BB again.
Re: #2. I am not sure of all the facts. Was it some peculiarity with show grading? Did some PCGS employee make a mistake?
Who cracks out a coin looking only for a variety attribution? Why crack it out?
As said above, many thigs can happen to a coin once outside of a holder. There is no way PCGS or anyone can guarantee a grade on a cracked out coin. That is totally impossible.
Now that he has cracked it out and it is in a 98 holder, if he wants it looked at again, he's going to have to pay for regrading. He should have talked with cust. service before the crack out and should not have cracked it out in the first place.
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible. >>
I agree that all bets are and should be off, once a coin is cracked out of the holder. However, in this case, I doubt that Stuart tooled the coin after cracking it out, and before resubmitting it. And if he didn't (and the coin was, in fact, deemed to have been tooled), one time or another, it appears that a major mistake was made in evaluating it.
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible.
But asking them to decide if tooling or altered surfaces took place since it was last photographed is certainly not impossible. And if that is the case....Lucy....splain!
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was? >>
A lot of what people think PCGS should do in this situation is based upon misconceptions about the SP service.
Let me go get a SP graded coin, crack it out, then take some tools and do a really poor job of giving it FBL or FS or FSB or FH or whatever. The I can rub it down with silver polish.
People expect me to then be able to resubmit it under secure plus and get the same grade again?
This is totally unrealistic.
I am not saying Stewart Blay did any of these things, but it does highlight that ANYTHING can happen to a cracked out coin. Who can guarantee a grade???
There are some distinct possibilities here. -I think the accident possibility is slim, although possible. I mention it a lot because it won't upset either side and get a thread locked or me booted off. -Without accusing anyone, and I know nothing about Stewart, but going with that "lack of knowledge" I can suggest that tooling post-crackout is a possibility few have discussed here. I am not saying he did. No one will know that hasn't seen all the data and isn't an expert in tooling and other code 98 matters. I am no expert. -I think PCGS could have made a mistake on either SP submission or the regular submission, or who knws... both (maybe they missed some AS or something) Humans still do the grading work and make the code 98 and other code calls. Who knows, maybe there was tooling missed the first time by both SP and Stweart.
What should PCGS do as "fair" ??
Did someone tell him to crack it out for a variety attribution resubmission?
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible. >>
I agree that all bets are and should be off, once a coin is cracked out of the holder. However, in this case, I doubt that Stuart tooled the coin after cracking it out, and before resubmitting it. And if he didn't (and the coin was, in fact, deemed to have been tooled), one time or another, it appears that a major mistake was made in evaluating it. >>
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed. >>
A SP recognition scan and photograph will not catch tooling that took place before submission. A human does that.
After a second SP scan, a rescan will recognize the coin and the human can use the coin and past photograph, and I guess even current photograph to determine if it was tooled, etc.
I can't wait to see the results from a third submission. >>
If PCGS is adamant that the resubmitted coin is indeed tooled and a rescan is an identical/exact match to the first scan, then by default the coin was tooled when it was submitted the first time and the PCGS graders simply blew it. No doubt it was probably in a TPG holder before submission to SP; anyone know which holder? FWIW the scanner doesn't know a tool mark from a bag mark.
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was? >>
On the other hand, now that word is out that this got BB'd, perhaps the pressure is on PCGS to stand by their newly given and publically known ruling of 98 ??
Who knows.
I just hope they go for the right determination that fits the coin and not succumb to any pressure.
<< <i>A lot of what people think PCGS should do in this situation is based upon misconceptions about the SP service.
Let me go get a SP graded coin, crack it out, then take some tools and do a really poor job of giving it FBL or FS or FSB or FH or whatever. The I can rub it down with silver polish.
People expect me to then be able to resubmit it under secure plus and get the same grade again?
This is totally unrealistic.
I am not saying Stewart Blay did any of these things, but it does highlight that ANYTHING can happen to a cracked out coin. Who can guarantee a grade???
There are some distinct possibilities here. -I think the accident possibility is slim, although possible. I mention it a lot because it won't upset either side and get a thread locked or me booted off. -Without accusing anyone, and I know nothing about Stewart, but going with that "lack of knowledge" I can suggest that tooling post-crackout is a possibility few have discussed here. I am not saying he did. No one will know that hasn't seen all the data and isn't an expert in tooling and other code 98 matters. I am no expert. -I think PCGS could have made a mistake on either SP submission or the regular submission, or who knws... both (maybe they missed some AS or something) Humans still do the grading work and make the code 98 and other code calls. Who knows, maybe there was tooling missed the first time by both SP and Stweart.
What should PCGS do as "fair" ??
Did someone tell him to crack it out for a variety attribution resubmission?
What do you think PCGS should do? >>
Rescan the coin to assure themselves that there have been no physical alterations to the coin's surface since it was previously scanned. I believe that it would be possible to recolor or tone the coin with no physical changes. If after scanning they are still convinced it is tooled then they missed something in the past and some compensation is due since they holdered a coin which shouldn't have been holdered. Your opinion may vary.
I do believe this is a very interesting and valuable discussion.
IMHO - the coin should be rescanned under SP and the two scans compared for determination of whether the purported tooling occurred before or after the original submission to SP. In the event the two scans are identical or at least show no material variance between the two in the area of the purported tooling; I believe the two parties should sit down around the table and hash out a reasonable settlement. I do believe that PCGS should bear some responsibility for having holdered a tooled coin initially, however, Stewart should also bear a large share of the loss as well since in the end he was the purchaser of said piece, and merely asked PCGS for their opinion on it.
That being said, I agree with Ms. Morrisine in that once cracked...all guarantees are void. PCGS's responsibility here is only in terms of the PR exposure of having holdered a tooled coin. Unfortunately, I don't believe the public would have access to the scans in order to evaluate the similarities or differences in two scans. If PCGS believes the coin was tooled between scans...and that fact is evidenced by the scans...they should be buying full page ads in every numismatic publication they can touting that "SecurePlus works."
It seems that SP negates the reason to void the guarantee on a cracked out coin if it still matches the original scan (i.e. wasn't tooled post crackout OR was tooled prior to original SP slabbing).
At the very least PCGS needs to make the comparison,
and either
admit error if tooled prior to original SP holdering and compensate Stewart accoringly,
OR
state it doesn't match the original SP scan and assert it WAS tooled post crackout (and THEN state - or at least clarify - the official policy going forward for cracked out coins sent in under SP service).
Of course I personally have NO DOUBT that Stewart DID NOT mess with the coin in ANY WAY.
"I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post."
....i believe the complete opposite :
the coin was submitted under regular submission so it wouldn't be scanned , there by possibly getting a higher grade then the orig. Secure + grade , without being cross checked to the original fingerprinting
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder. 2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed. 3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution. 4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
..................because the President of PCGS has stated so .........?
<< <i>Rescan the coin to assure themselves that there have been no physical alterations to the coin's surface since it was previously scanned. I believe that it would be possible to recolor or tone the coin with no physical changes. If after scanning they are still convinced it is tooled then they missed something in the past and some compensation is due since they holdered a coin which shouldn't have been holdered. Your opinion may vary. >>
I don't know the quality of a recognition scan and if it would catch all changes over the entire coin's surface.
They do have a photo of the coin from the SP submission.
To me, it would be a judgment call to base a grade guarantee for a cracked out coin on a photo-to-coin comparison. I would have it under some special review process, and honor the old grade should it appear unaltered to the human eye. But it is a judgment call and based upon a photo-to-coin comparison.
It would help knowing how much of the surface is scanned with the SP recognition scan. The finer the detail, the more likely a "matching determination" could be made. If it were fine enough, and they matched, I think I would honor the grade guarantee.
IMO, (and as mentioned by prior posters), one answer to this conundrum is to have all coins above a certain price level be subject to SP review. Said a bit differently, SP becomes a requirement for all coins above a certain value. I believe this would fill the hole that Stewart fell into (and a potential end-around that doctors could exploit), while brining the value of SP to a wider group of coins and ultimately the market. Unfortunately, it would mean either higher prices and/or lower margins for PCGS.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Nobody is perfect, PawPaul. Not you, not me, not Stewart, not PCGS -- none of us.
Making assumptions about what he did or didn't know (i.e. to suggest he was trying to pull one over on PCGS) is uncallled for, IMO.
I once found a coin that had a spot removed by tooling. It got past PCGS & it got past the dealer who sold it to me. Does it make them any less trustworthy, or does it make them human and imperfect?
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
yes , you are right Mike , and believe me - it was not my intent to suggest Mr. Stewart was trying to pull anything on anyone ;
quite the contrary .........if that were the case and it made it into a secure + holder( tooled) ; then nobody aware of that fact in their right mind would crack it out !
I'm a big boy , And will willingly admit it if found wrong ............
I hoping now the coin was NOT tooled and that a big mistake was made ,by somebody , somewhere, somehow .......
Maybe I have a different view here, but it is collectors like Stewart that force PCGS to get better at their product and services. They should thank him. It's obvious that this is something that will need to be addressed. Customer feedback is a very important tool.
seems like many here are also assuming that the latest assessment by PCGS of calling the coin "Genuine - Tooled" is the correct assessment vs. the previous assessment of MS65. isn't it possible that they were right the first time around and got it wrong the second time in?? or it's also possible that the latest time in (or even the first time in) there was a "mechanical error" in printing the label?
In our opinion a couple of small spots were tooled off the surfaces. Either we missed the tooling first time through (when it was submitted via Secure Plus), or the tooling was done after the coin was cracked out of the Secure Plus holder. Occasionally we do make mistakes - so I am not making any accusations - only pointing out that these are the only possibilities. We should be able to determine what happened if we get the coin back and send it through Secure Plus again.
That is the only way this issue can be factually resolved.
If PCGS made a mistake we will cover it with our guarantee - which is the best in the business.
The coin was originally submitted through Secure Plus, cracked out and resubmitted through the Standard service. Today, coins of this value submitted through the Standard service are normally not scanned.
Variety attribution is not offered at shows. Only on office submissions. It is standard procedure for Customer Service to advise submitters at shows that they need to send their coins to the office for Variety attribution. The coin could have been submitted to the office through either service as Variety attribution is offered in both Standard and Secure Plus submmissions.
All secondary services such as varieties, first strike, etc. offered on Standard submissions are offered on Secure Plus.
Don Willis - Would you be willing to state how many graders determined a few small spots were tooled off this coin ? I would like to correct you that IF a few small spots were tooled off this coin
it was missed AT LEAST TWICE because the coin was graded MS 65 in a PCGS holder before it was submitted for Secure grading. Please don't even suggest the coin was tooled after it was cracked out
because it was in MY possession at ALL TIMES after it was cracked out.
I agree that the PCGS guarantee is the BEST in the business. As you may know ALL my copper coins are in PCGS holders. This coin has a value of $5,000 + which is substantial but not a fortune. Normally a coin like this
is graded naked eye without a loup. I wondered if these so called tooling marks are visable to the naked eye ?
This coin is a part of my core collection. I am a very passionate collector of copper coins. Yes I am a copper weenie. Therefore please do the right thing !
FYI I did not even get the coin back as I am not home. I will be home next week.
Comments
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO
Just in case.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
>>
Boiled down, this is the most important issue brought forth in this thread. It naturally follows that it is the least discussed.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
>>
Boiled down, this is the most important issue brought forth in this thread. It naturally follows that it is the least discussed. >>
I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is.
The impression I got back then was that PCGS would like to shut this door but felt it was wise to proceed cautiously with SP until the effort was understood and the process honed.
Lance.
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder. >>
It's been booked, fingerprinted, and mugshot, before the crackout and regular submission. At least, that's my understanding. As such, it should be capable of being identified as the same coin.
<< <i>I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is. >>
That indeed is true but the question that remains is does PCGS have the ability to identify the now raw coins on behalf of the proper owner in case they are ever located?
The concern that is brought up is if PCGS is/will be doing any cross referencing of raw submissions to secure plus coins previously slabbed?
Certainly, a minimum dollar threshold of around $5000 or so per coin is a good start?
This is not a criticism of PCGS by any means, just hashing out the nitty gritty details of a program with great promise.
<< <i>
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO >>
I don;t think there is any responsibility involvement here since the coin was submitted for "regular" grading which does not get the "Secure Plus" scan. Only "Secure Plus" submissions get the scan which is the root of the problem and the OP.
I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post.
At the Boston ANA, he was told that variety attribution was NOT available for Secure Plus grading. I think the PCGS rep meant Variety Attribution was not available for "Secure Plus Show Grading" (read 1 day turn around) since Stewart did spend $125 to get it graded. Standard 1 day grading usually excludes grading "options" such as variety attributions. From that statement, I can "presume" that Stewart thouht variety attribution would never be available with Secure Plus grading so he cracked the coin out simply to get the Variety Attribution on a Regular Submission.
The Root Cause of this ENTIRE post is based in bad communications based upon assumptions.
Do I fault Stewart for making the post? Absolutely not since it's a post that was bound to happen until everybody FULLY understands the roles played by the sniffer, the scanner and their relationship to the Secure Plus grading level.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Remember the early silver coin (I don't remember which one) with re-etched stars? IIRC it was a VF or so coin with smooth stars and someone had etched lines on the stars that weren't at all like the original raised ridges but because the detail matched and stars aren't a device that is generally mentioned in the grading standards, the graders missed it, the dealer who sold it missed it, the buyer missed it, and most who viewed it missed it. >>
It was a draped bust quarter or half dollar that was MADE WITH FLAT STARS. There was ABSOLUTELY no excuse for that.
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy
results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was?
<< <i>I doubt your average thief is going to crack coins, spend money sending them into PCGS and waiting a month plus to recieve them back so they can sell them. The more likely scenario is that they will crack them for crack, selling them to the nearest pawn shop for whatever the offer is. >>
Continue the scenario. You go into the pawn shop and buy the cracked out, raw coin, and now you want it in PCGS plastic. Do you go the SP submission route? After having read this thread, that's taking a big chance. Don't you think?
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed. >>
A SP recognition scan and photograph will not catch tooling that took place before submission. A human does that.
After a second SP scan, a rescan will recognize the coin and the human can use the coin and past photograph, and I guess even current photograph to determine if it was tooled, etc.
I can't wait to see the results from a third submission.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder.
2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed.
3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution.
4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome?
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder.
2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed.
3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution.
4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
Unlike some, I am sympathetic to Stuart's plight. But I'm guessing that there WAS another option, that being a variety attribution re-submission through means other than a one day submission.
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder.
2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed.
3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution.
4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
#3 is the reason I would think there would not be a check... he didn't crack the coin out just to get variety attribution... it appears he was trying to get around the SecurePlus scanner in an effort for a higher grade. If all he wanted was variety attribution, it didn't need to be cracked out before sending to PCGS.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>My understanding of the secure plus service is that once the coin has been thru secure plus once, if it goes thru that service a second time or a third time or any number of times in the future, the system will identify the coin if it is am exact match. In this case, if Stewart now cracks the genuine holdered coin out and submits it raw for SECURE PLUS service, PCGS will automatically go thru the process of confirming. Am I wrong? Steve
That sounds about right, but I wouldn't crack the coin out of the Genuine holder. If Secure Plus is what it's cracked up to be (pun, unintended), he wants the service to identify the coin while it's in the Genuine holder.
<< <i>My understanding of the secure plus service is that once the coin has been thru secure plus once, if it goes thru that service a second time or a third time or any number of times in the future, the system will identify the coin if it is am exact match. In this case, if Stewart now cracks the genuine holdered coin out and submits it raw for SECURE PLUS service, PCGS will automatically go thru the process of confirming. Am I wrong? Steve
If it submitted under SP service, PCGs will go through the SP process again.
I am thinking that considering this coin's value and all the fuss will likely get looked at very, very carefully no matter the submission type the next time around.
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay >>
I might be wrong, but my understanding of the scanning by their "Securing" machine is that the coin has been scanned for identifying marks that make each coin unique. They do take photos during the Secure Plus operations that might be used to detect any changes to the coin after the "crack-out". If the coin matches the photos and can be identified as the same coin, then I think that PCGS might bear some responsibility for not catching the "problem" before. JMHO >>
I don;t think there is any responsibility involvement here since the coin was submitted for "regular" grading which does not get the "Secure Plus" scan. Only "Secure Plus" submissions get the scan which is the root of the problem and the OP.
I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post.
At the Boston ANA, he was told that variety attribution was NOT available for Secure Plus grading. I think the PCGS rep meant Variety Attribution was not available for "Secure Plus Show Grading" (read 1 day turn around) since Stewart did spend $125 to get it graded. Standard 1 day grading usually excludes grading "options" such as variety attributions. From that statement, I can "presume" that Stewart thouht variety attribution would never be available with Secure Plus grading so he cracked the coin out simply to get the Variety Attribution on a Regular Submission.
The Root Cause of this ENTIRE post is based in bad communications based upon assumptions.
Do I fault Stewart for making the post? Absolutely not since it's a post that was bound to happen until everybody FULLY understands the roles played by the sniffer, the scanner and their relationship to the Secure Plus grading level. >>
FWIW, I agree with the above synopsis. Well said, sir.
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder.
2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed.
3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution.
4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
Not compensation. It was cracked out. They can't guarantee a grade on a cracked out coin.
It can be regraded. Maybe it will grade higher, lower, the same or BB again.
Re: #2. I am not sure of all the facts. Was it some peculiarity with show grading? Did some PCGS employee make a mistake?
Who cracks out a coin looking only for a variety attribution? Why crack it out?
As said above, many thigs can happen to a coin once outside of a holder. There is no way PCGS or anyone can guarantee a grade on a cracked out coin. That is totally impossible.
Now that he has cracked it out and it is in a 98 holder, if he wants it looked at again, he's going to have to pay for regrading. He should have talked with cust. service before the crack out and should not have cracked it out in the first place.
<< <i>
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible. >>
I agree that all bets are and should be off, once a coin is cracked out of the holder. However, in this case, I doubt that Stuart tooled the coin after cracking it out, and before resubmitting it. And if he didn't (and the coin was, in fact, deemed to have been tooled), one time or another, it appears that a major mistake was made in evaluating it.
But asking them to decide if tooling or altered surfaces took place since it was last photographed is certainly not impossible.
And if that is the case....Lucy....splain!
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy
results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was? >>
Such a tangled web we weave, eh?
Let me go get a SP graded coin, crack it out, then take some tools and do a really poor job of giving it FBL or FS or FSB or FH or whatever. The I can rub it down with silver polish.
People expect me to then be able to resubmit it under secure plus and get the same grade again?
This is totally unrealistic.
I am not saying Stewart Blay did any of these things, but it does highlight that ANYTHING can happen to a cracked out coin. Who can guarantee a grade???
There are some distinct possibilities here.
-I think the accident possibility is slim, although possible. I mention it a lot because it won't upset either side and get a thread locked or me booted off.
-Without accusing anyone, and I know nothing about Stewart, but going with that "lack of knowledge" I can suggest that tooling post-crackout is a possibility few have discussed here. I am not saying he did. No one will know that hasn't seen all the data and isn't an expert in tooling and other code 98 matters. I am no expert.
-I think PCGS could have made a mistake on either SP submission or the regular submission, or who knws... both (maybe they missed some AS or something) Humans still do the grading work and make the code 98 and other code calls. Who knows, maybe there was tooling missed the first time by both SP and Stweart.
What should PCGS do as "fair" ??
Did someone tell him to crack it out for a variety attribution resubmission?
What do you think PCGS should do?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I sympathize with Stuart here. Secure Plus was advertised as a kind of super-tier, where once a coin went through, you could both be assured it qualified as a problem-free coin and that it would grade relatively consistently with future submissions. I know there was no guarantee of any of that, but that was the implication that I understood from how the SP tier was touted. >>
Who is to say nothing happened after the crackout?
No one can guarantee anything after a crackout.
Maybe a bottle of MS70 leaks all over a coin or it drops to a concrete floor and gets a foot over it or ... or ... or ...
you want PCGS or anyone to guarantee a grade after crackout? Impossible. >>
I agree that all bets are and should be off, once a coin is cracked out of the holder. However, in this case, I doubt that Stuart tooled the coin after cracking it out, and before resubmitting it. And if he didn't (and the coin was, in fact, deemed to have been tooled), one time or another, it appears that a major mistake was made in evaluating it. >>
a mistake made by both PCGS and Stewart.
<< <i>
<< <i>I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed. >>
A SP recognition scan and photograph will not catch tooling that took place before submission. A human does that.
After a second SP scan, a rescan will recognize the coin and the human can use the coin and past photograph, and I guess even current photograph to determine if it was tooled, etc.
I can't wait to see the results from a third submission. >>
If PCGS is adamant that the resubmitted coin is indeed tooled and a rescan is an identical/exact match to the first scan, then by default the coin was tooled when it was submitted the first time and the PCGS graders simply blew it. No doubt it was probably in a TPG holder before submission to SP; anyone know which holder? FWIW the scanner doesn't know a tool mark from a bag mark.
<< <i>
<< <i>In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart. >>
And I feel Stewart will probably get his coin back in a 65 slab, or a check. And probably deserves it, considering the situation.
But what would happen to the little guy who cracks out a coin, gets unhappy
results, and then wants it back in a slab like it was? >>
On the other hand, now that word is out that this got BB'd, perhaps the pressure is on PCGS to stand by their newly given and publically known ruling of 98 ??
Who knows.
I just hope they go for the right determination that fits the coin and not succumb to any pressure.
<< <i>A lot of what people think PCGS should do in this situation is based upon misconceptions about the SP service.
Let me go get a SP graded coin, crack it out, then take some tools and do a really poor job of giving it FBL or FS or FSB or FH or whatever. The I can rub it down with silver polish.
People expect me to then be able to resubmit it under secure plus and get the same grade again?
This is totally unrealistic.
I am not saying Stewart Blay did any of these things, but it does highlight that ANYTHING can happen to a cracked out coin. Who can guarantee a grade???
There are some distinct possibilities here.
-I think the accident possibility is slim, although possible. I mention it a lot because it won't upset either side and get a thread locked or me booted off.
-Without accusing anyone, and I know nothing about Stewart, but going with that "lack of knowledge" I can suggest that tooling post-crackout is a possibility few have discussed here. I am not saying he did. No one will know that hasn't seen all the data and isn't an expert in tooling and other code 98 matters. I am no expert.
-I think PCGS could have made a mistake on either SP submission or the regular submission, or who knws... both (maybe they missed some AS or something) Humans still do the grading work and make the code 98 and other code calls. Who knows, maybe there was tooling missed the first time by both SP and Stweart.
What should PCGS do as "fair" ??
Did someone tell him to crack it out for a variety attribution resubmission?
What do you think PCGS should do? >>
Rescan the coin to assure themselves that there have been no physical alterations to the coin's surface since it was previously scanned. I believe that it would be possible to recolor or tone the coin with no physical changes. If after scanning they are still convinced it is tooled then they missed something in the past and some compensation is due since they holdered a coin which shouldn't have been holdered. Your opinion may vary.
That one is a thinker.
IMHO - the coin should be rescanned under SP and the two scans compared for determination of whether the purported tooling occurred before or after the original submission to SP. In the event the two scans are identical or at least show no material variance between the two in the area of the purported tooling; I believe the two parties should sit down around the table and hash out a reasonable settlement. I do believe that PCGS should bear some responsibility for having holdered a tooled coin initially, however, Stewart should also bear a large share of the loss as well since in the end he was the purchaser of said piece, and merely asked PCGS for their opinion on it.
That being said, I agree with Ms. Morrisine in that once cracked...all guarantees are void. PCGS's responsibility here is only in terms of the PR exposure of having holdered a tooled coin. Unfortunately, I don't believe the public would have access to the scans in order to evaluate the similarities or differences in two scans. If PCGS believes the coin was tooled between scans...and that fact is evidenced by the scans...they should be buying full page ads in every numismatic publication they can touting that "SecurePlus works."
At the very least PCGS needs to make the comparison,
and either
admit error if tooled prior to original SP holdering and compensate Stewart accoringly,
OR
state it doesn't match the original SP scan and assert it WAS tooled post crackout (and THEN state - or at least clarify - the official policy going forward for cracked out coins sent in under SP service).
Of course I personally have NO DOUBT that Stewart DID NOT mess with the coin in ANY WAY.
"I believe that Stewart "assumed" a regular submission would get scanned and at the very minimum, be recognized for its "stored" grade. This obviously did not happen which is what generated the post."
....i believe the complete opposite :
the coin was submitted under regular submission so it wouldn't be scanned , there by possibly getting a higher grade then the orig. Secure + grade , without being cross checked to the original fingerprinting
<< <i>MsMorrisine, you have said more than several times that Stewart is not entitled to receive either encapsulation at the 65 grade or compensation.
You just said "no that it is out of the SP holder, there won't be a check."
Why do you think this is reasonable or fair given the most likely facts here?
1. Coin unattributed in SP65 holder.
2. OP told only regular submissions are attributed.
3. OP cracks and resubmits in an effort to obtain variety attribution.
4. Coin graded PCGS Genuine Tooled with attribution.
I understand your view of the PCGS rulebook. Why do you repeatedly think that is a fair outcome? >>
..................because the President of PCGS has stated so .........?
<< <i>Rescan the coin to assure themselves that there have been no physical alterations to the coin's surface since it was previously scanned. I believe that it would be possible to recolor or tone the coin with no physical changes. If after scanning they are still convinced it is tooled then they missed something in the past and some compensation is due since they holdered a coin which shouldn't have been holdered. Your opinion may vary. >>
I don't know the quality of a recognition scan and if it would catch all changes over the entire coin's surface.
They do have a photo of the coin from the SP submission.
To me, it would be a judgment call to base a grade guarantee for a cracked out coin on a photo-to-coin comparison. I would have it under some special review process, and honor the old grade should it appear unaltered to the human eye. But it is a judgment call and based upon a photo-to-coin comparison.
It would help knowing how much of the surface is scanned with the SP recognition scan. The finer the detail, the more likely a "matching determination" could be made. If it were fine enough, and they matched, I think I would honor the grade guarantee.
I for one am slightly compassionate towards him now after reading his recent posts here ;
but let me ask you this: he is an expert in copper , probably smarter about copper then 99.999% of all people in his field .........
If the coin was tooled , and not by him or with his knowledge -
then cant I safely almost bet he knew the coin was tooled ?
......i mean , I check out my heavy coins with a halogen and 10X glass until my eye's burn ,
I would think If the coin was tooled he surely would have spotted it .....................
Making assumptions about what he did or didn't know (i.e. to suggest he was trying to pull one over on PCGS) is uncallled for, IMO.
I once found a coin that had a spot removed by tooling. It got past PCGS & it got past the dealer who sold it to me. Does it make them any less trustworthy, or does it make them human and imperfect?
quite the contrary .........if that were the case and it made it into a secure + holder( tooled) ; then nobody aware of that fact in their right mind would crack it out !
I'm a big boy , And will willingly admit it if found wrong ............
I hoping now the coin was NOT tooled and that a big mistake was made ,by somebody , somewhere, somehow .......
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
That is the only way this issue can be factually resolved.
If PCGS made a mistake we will cover it with our guarantee - which is the best in the business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarification:
The coin was originally submitted through Secure Plus, cracked out and resubmitted through the Standard service. Today, coins of this value submitted through the Standard service are normally not scanned.
Variety attribution is not offered at shows. Only on office submissions. It is standard procedure for Customer Service to advise submitters at shows that they need to send their coins to the office for Variety attribution. The coin could have been submitted to the office through either service as Variety attribution is offered in both Standard and Secure Plus submmissions.
All secondary services such as varieties, first strike, etc. offered on Standard submissions are offered on Secure Plus.
Don Willis - Would you be willing to state how many graders determined a few small spots were tooled off this coin ? I would like to correct you that IF a few small spots were tooled off this coin
it was missed AT LEAST TWICE because the coin was graded MS 65 in a PCGS holder before it was submitted for Secure grading. Please don't even suggest the coin was tooled after it was cracked out
because it was in MY possession at ALL TIMES after it was cracked out.
I agree that the PCGS guarantee is the BEST in the business. As you may know ALL my copper coins are in PCGS holders. This coin has a value of $5,000 + which is substantial but not a fortune. Normally a coin like this
is graded naked eye without a loup. I wondered if these so called tooling marks are visable to the naked eye ?
This coin is a part of my core collection. I am a very passionate collector of copper coins. Yes I am a copper weenie. Therefore please do the right thing !
FYI I did not even get the coin back as I am not home. I will be home next week.
Stewart Blay