Well, something very GOOD has occured in the last year regarding coins being ruined!

saintguru · February 17, 2012 1:08AM

I spoke with John Albanese this morning about the coin flow he's been seeing come across his desk lately. He said with some awe, "It's amazing what effect the PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors has done. These guys are terrified now. I am seeing 70% LESS doctored junk in the last six months."

Well, I say hooray for this! It seemed that this was a pancea that would be almost impossible to attack. But the numbers don't lie. Now, 70% is great, let's hope it goes to 90%. It doesn't fix all the coins that have been tampered with either, but it's a hell of a lot better. Things do change.

PCGS...DaHamboneHall...it worked.

coindeuce · February 17, 2012 1:15AM

I believe that the question has been posed before in recent time here: What is the standing of the lawsuit? I have not seen any press releases from our host on the issue since the initial announcement of the civil complaint.

2/20/12
Edited to add for LanceNewmanOCC's benefit: It appears that the PCGS complaint was dismissed without prejudice in Federal court. So my question stands: what is PCGS doing currently that would affirm the remarks reported here?

BryceM · February 17, 2012 1:24AM

Fantastic!

Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby.

LindeDad · February 17, 2012 1:25AM

Wasn't the lawsuit dropped?
Doesn't mean that it did not have effect but makes it harder to use it as the cause in a cause and effect scenario.

kiyote · February 17, 2012 1:29AM

<< Fantastic!

Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby. >>

The policy on eBay for replicas goes a long way for that, I think. It's kind of like doing surgery with an axe but it gets the job done.

saintguru · February 17, 2012 1:38AM

I think counterfeiting is a much smaller problem and certainly not prevalent in big expensive coins....and even if they were, that caliber buyer would very likely be able to tell something wasn't right.

Counterfeit is pretty easy to spot. Modern "doctoring" can only be spotted by the VERT MOST experienced eyes in the biz. I have been shown coins that were messed with by experts and I saw absolutely nothing...even when I was told to look for it!

TomB · February 17, 2012 1:45AM

It would be really nice if PCGS had that great an impact on making the hobby-industry less vulnerable to boinked coins, but the experience of CAC might be due to other factors, too. One factor might be that those who submit to CAC are learning what CAC likes and what CAC does not like, which can then affect what is submitted to CAC. This could serve to lower the percentage of doctored coins submitted to CAC by a certain amount. A more telling observation might be if the new prong styler holders or Secure Plus holders had a significantly lower frequency of altered coinage in them when compared against the rattlers, OGH generations or various blue holders.

Edited to correct a mistake of writing CAC and PCGS in the wrong spots.

AUandAG · February 17, 2012 1:48AM

I'm glad to hear this!
Perhaps the threat of a lawsuit over doctoring is enough to get a bunch of them to quit doing it.
Lawsuits are expensive to be involved in and PCGS did sure put their money where their mouth was!
bob

joebb21 · February 17, 2012 2:04AM

<< It would be really nice if PCGS had that great an impact on making the hobby-industry less vulnerable to boinked coins, but the experience of CAC might be due to other factors, too. One factor might be that those who submit to CAC are learning what CAC likes and what CAC does not like, which can then affect what is submitted to CAC. This could serve to lower the percentage of doctored coins submitted to CAC by a certain amount. A more telling observation might be if the new prong styler holders or Secure Plus holders had a significantly lower frequency of altered coinage in them when compared against the rattlers, OGH generations or various blue holders.

Edited to correct a mistake of writing CAC and PCGS in the wrong spots. >>

I agree-

BAJJERFAN · February 17, 2012 2:06AM

<< It would be really nice if CAC had an impact on making the hobby-industry less vulnerable to boinked coins, but the experience of CAC might be due to other factors, too. One factor might be that those who submit to CAC are learning what CAC likes and what CAC does not like, which can then affect what is submitted to CAC. This could serve to lower the percentage of doctored coins submitted to CAC by a certain percentage. A more telling observation might be if the new prong styler holders or Secure Plus holders had a significantly lower frequency of altered coinage in them when compared against the rattlers, OGH generations or various blue holders. >>

I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not.

BAJJERFAN · February 17, 2012 2:12AM

Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.

Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance?

johnny9434 · February 17, 2012 2:19AM

<< Fantastic!

Now if we can get counterfeiters to feel the same pressure it would do tremendous things for the future of the hobby. >>

AnkurJ · February 17, 2012 2:25AM

Excellent news!
But what TomB says is very true. I can bet that doctored coins are probably not even sent in.

LanceNewmanOCC · February 17, 2012 2:26AM

<< I believe that the question has been posed before in recent time here: What is the standing of the lawsuit? I have not seen any press releases from our host on the issue since the initial announcement of the civil complaint. >>

your inquiry has been answered more than once here on this forum somewhere
.

JamesMurray · February 17, 2012 2:29AM

"Counterfeit is pretty easy to spot."

Woefully mistaken there.

lkeigwin · February 17, 2012 2:29AM

<< I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not. >>

I would be shocked to learn that PCGS has opened their database to JA for this purpose. Of course the version of the slab can be some indicator.
Lance.

saintguru · February 17, 2012 2:31AM

<< Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.

Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>

Both PCGS and NGC.

TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and

there is absolute consistentcy in what he grades the top 50-60% of the grade. Dealers can adapt to his standards by not submitting crap, but the standards are never going to change.

BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!

BAJJERFAN · February 17, 2012 2:43AM

<< 

<< I think that would depend on whether or JA is able to assess from the PCGS serial numbers which coins are recently graded and which are not. >>

I would be shocked to learn that PCGS has opened their database to JA for this purpose. Of course the version of the slab can be some indicator.
Lance. >>

I don't think that you would need access to the database to tell that. I know that cert numbers are randomly assigned, but slab appearance, consecutiveness of cert numbers as well as info from the shared submissions page mite be enough to guess from. Maybe too, dey haf dere vays!!!

BAJJERFAN · February 17, 2012 2:47AM

<< 

<< Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.

Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>

Both PCGS and NGC.

TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and

there is absolute consistentcy in what he grades the top 50-60% of the grade. Dealers can adapt to his standards by not submitting crap, but the standards are never going to change.

BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!

>>

If I had $50K coins and up I'd be more concerned with manipulation. For the lion's share of $500 to $2500 coins, I'd be more worried about grade assurance.

TomB · February 17, 2012 2:53AM

<< 

<< Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.

Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>

Both PCGS and NGC.

TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and there is absolute consistentcy in what he grades the top 50-60% of the grade. Dealers can adapt to his standards by not submitting crap, but the standards are never going to change.

BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!

>>

We agree on that point completely, SG. I never meant to infer that there was a shifting standard by JA or CAC; what I meant was that submitters (typically dealers) are now getting conditioned or accustomed to what CAC will and won't sticker and so they are less likely to submit coins that will not sticker. The dealer learning curve, in this case, would mean that over time many fewer altered coins would be submitted to CAC whether or not there was a similar tightening on the part of PCGS/NGC.

saintguru · February 17, 2012 3:07AM

TomB...believe it or not, NO! Some dealers still submit boxes and boxes of stuff and get very few stickered, knowing what they're sending in. It's like the crackout artists playing the numbers game, but JA remembers coins and is extemely consistent.

Ahrensdad · February 17, 2012 3:18AM

My understanding is that both PCGS and NGC are much tighter in grading coins with color. Probably means there are fewer coins getting into holders. I also agree with TomB that it is likely that after some time, submitters are starting to better understand what will CAC and what will not.

pennyannie · February 17, 2012 3:28AM

<< 

<< Did JA say if his observation about a 70% decline was for PCGS holdered coins? I wonder what is observations have been about the relative tendencies of the docs to get their "work" into one holder versus another.

Also are people submitting to CAC for the purpose of knowing if their coins have been "worked on" or if they are after the grade assurance? >>

Both PCGS and NGC.

TomB...I don't think it's at all "What JA likes". I've watched him since he started CAC and before, and he sticks to the same standards since he started selling in the '70's. The coins are A) either clean and original or not...and

there is absolute consistentcy in what he grades the top 50-60% of the grade. Dealers can adapt to his standards by not submitting crap, but the standards are never going to change.

BAJJER....I'm sure people are submitting coins to validate their status as original or messed with, as well as grade assurance. Why not? Clearly, as no criticism to PCGS, there are coins in holders that have been doctored, some "turn" after years, and getting a validation is simply a wise and valuable thing to do. People may not like the results sometimes, but better to know early, rather than to get a bad wakeup call when you go to sell them. In my first few years I had discovered that 2-3 of my Saints were puttied. I threw them into An auction and replaced them. This was way before CAC. I was glad to find out and it was part of my education. Ironically, they sold pretty damn well. One even brought a premium...go figure! I never put reserves on them so I was willing to let the buyer decide. It was a very pretty putty job...probably why I bought it. I remember it well..a 1909/8 MS64 on the night of the Morse sale. It sold for around 19K when they were going for 14K...I bought the MS65 from the Morse sale...which was one of the very few coins that I actually overpaid for. But it was a beauty and you can't bat 1.000!

>>

So it is fine to sell without disclosure? On one hand you want to be ethical but the wallet says let the next sucker take the hit?

I know of quite a few people that have been sued (and lost) for not disclosing issues on houses they have sold.

saintguru · February 17, 2012 3:39AM

PA.....It's an interesting ponderance. But let the buyer beware. My way of dealing with the "fairness" was to sell them in auction with NO reserve. It's the fairest way to do it. Plus, it's not like these coins were ruined. At least in my case, these were still good coins! I actually had one properly dipped in trych and it took the putty off and actually brought out the originality! I kept it; it was much nicer with the trace putty removed.

That's the only way I would sell a coin that I suspected of being questionable. My conscience is fine.

MrEureka · February 17, 2012 4:06AM

"It's amazing what effect the PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors has done. These guys are terrified now. I am seeing 70% LESS doctored junk in the last six months."

My guess is that the TPGs and the public are far more scared than the doctors.

I also agree with TomB, of course.

ricko · February 17, 2012 5:28AM

The doctors continue with their business.... the general buying public is very large and largely naive when it comes to this subject. Additionally, as SG said, some are so good, no one can tell. Cheers, RickO

Well, something very GOOD has occured in the last year regarding coins being ruined!

Comments

Leave a Comment