how do you feel about PCGS putting PQ on their own coins that they grade?

[James_OldeTowne]

In this thread , GoldRarities asked the following question, which I interpret as being an open question:

 

...just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the possibility of PCGS putting PQ designations on their own coins that they grade? This possibility has been floated, just curious as to how everyone may feel about that.

 

I'll answer first, and apologize in advance if this biases subsequent responses. But the question was originally addressed to me specifically in that other thread. I look forward to others' opinions.

 

The application of the "PQ" designation is a marketing tool. I do not believe PCGS attempts to hide this fact, as they advertise themselves as a business intended to assist dealers. Note the following on their website, which lead me to believe their primary goal is to promote marketing efforts, with my italics added to emphasize the choice of words:

 

In 1985, a small group of the nation's leading rare coin experts recognized that in order for the rare coin industry to realize its potential, several serious problems needed to be addressed.

 

Industry leaders were deeply concerned that without standardized grading the rare coin industry could face major problems.

 

a national network of reputable coin dealers could provide an extremely reliable form of protection for rare coin consumers.

 

PCGS would create a climate in which consumers could participate in the coin market with greater confidence.

It's apparent that PCGS is promoting themselves as a marketing vehicle. This is why, in that other thread, I am so persistent about not confusing terms like "hobby" with "industry" or "market". The distinctions are important!

 

I don't mind a marketing tool being advertised as a marketing tool, and that basically summarizes my opinion of the "PQ" designation, assuming it is analogous to NGC's "star" designation.

 

Incidentally, it's inevitable that PCGS would do this, as they envy NGC's tremendous success in doing this first. I truly hope PCGS settles on something other than the tired, worn-out term "PQ" though. NGC's "star" is eloquent, and maybe PCGS will hit on a similarly eloquent designator, perhaps a special gold label border, or something like that.

[DC Dawg]

What is the difference between PCGS adding PQ to their label and the NCG star designation?

 

If PCGS is adding PQ to their grades, will NGC treat it like a star for registry set scoring?

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

What is the difference between PCGS adding PQ to their label and the NCG star designation?....

NGC's star designation represents exceptional eye-appeal, not necessarily "premium quality" for the assigned grade.

[WinstonWare]

Why wouldn’t you just add to the grading scale e.g. MS65.7 or VF 28?

[bsshog40]

Didn't we go thru all of this just not too long ago?

[MikeInFL]

My first reaction is that I see nothing wrong with PCGS doing this. Fundamentally, you are going to PCGS for a grade (value) opinion. Exceptional eye appeal/PQ is just another opinion, and it certainly applies to the valuation of coins, so I don't have a problem in them providing additional information.

 

I would be concerned with their ability to do it consistently, but that concern is really no different than grading, if you think about it. However, the additional precision required for the PQ grade would assuredly mean a greater margin of error (one can think of it as another significant digit in a the grade), So if you asked me, all other things being equal, if I would rather have the PQ grade or more consistent grading, I'd pick the latter every time -- it is better for me as a collector, and it is better for the market in general, IMHO.

 

To do my best Bill Jones impression (who I truly respect, even, and perhaps why, I make fun of him)...I wonder, however, if this "creation" of a new class of coins wouldn't also have the effect of driving up prices on these coins. Although a part of me believes this is not entirely a bad thing.

 

That said -- and James and I have gone back and forth on this one already -- I think that once money becomes involved in any "hobby" it is automatically an "industry", like it or not. And frankly, I think we would be better served by continuing to discuss the finer points of numismatics than get caught up in semantics. I would humbly suggest that it is the nefarious actions of some, not how we label things, that are the problem in numismatics.

 

Back to the topic at hand....If I had to make a decision on PQ or no PQ for PCGS, I would go with no PQ because of the increased margin of error it would introduce.

 

Respectfully submitted....Mike

 

p.s. James, Isn't a grade a "marketing vehicle" in the first place?

[bsshog40]

Good reply Mike. A lot of this hobby revolves around business and profit anyway. As long as there is always enough of the hobby left for guys like me to just collect for the fun of it, that's ok by me.

[Mozin]

No, PCGS would be making a mistake by putting PQ on any of their holders. Just more grading nonsense.

[Doogy]

oh P*O*O*P!

 

 

[Just Bob]

oh P*O*O*P!

 

 

Care to elaborate, Doog?

[michael]

 

NGC's star designation represents exceptional eye-appeal, not necessarily "premium quality" for the assigned grade.

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u

[michael]

In this thread , GoldRarities asked the following question, which I interpret as being an open question:

 

...just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the possibility of PCGS putting PQ designations on their own coins that they grade? This possibility has been floated, just curious as to how everyone may feel about that.

 

I'll answer first, and apologize in advance if this biases subsequent responses. But the question was originally addressed to me specifically in that other thread. I look forward to others' opinions.

 

The application of the "PQ" designation is a marketing tool. I do not believe PCGS attempts to hide this fact, as they advertise themselves as a business intended to assist dealers. Note the following on their website, which lead me to believe their primary goal is to promote marketing efforts, with my italics added to emphasize the choice of words:

 

In 1985, a small group of the nation's leading rare coin experts recognized that in order for the rare coin industry to realize its potential, several serious problems needed to be addressed.

 

Industry leaders were deeply concerned that without standardized grading the rare coin industry could face major problems.

 

a national network of reputable coin dealers could provide an extremely reliable form of protection for rare coin consumers.

 

PCGS would create a climate in which consumers could participate in the coin market with greater confidence.

It's apparent that PCGS is promoting themselves as a marketing vehicle. This is why, in that other thread, I am so persistent about not confusing terms like "hobby" with "industry" or "market". The distinctions are important!

 

I don't mind a marketing tool being advertised as a marketing tool, and that basically summarizes my opinion of the "PQ" designation, assuming it is analogous to NGC's "star" designation.

 

Incidentally, it's inevitable that PCGS would do this, as they envy NGC's tremendous success in doing this first. I truly hope PCGS settles on something other than the tired, worn-out term "PQ" though. NGC's "star" is eloquent, and maybe PCGS will hit on a similarly eloquent designator, perhaps a special gold label border, or something like that.

 

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

[James_OldeTowne]

My first reaction is that I see nothing wrong with PCGS doing this. Fundamentally, you are going to PCGS for a grade (value) opinion. Exceptional eye appeal/PQ is just another opinion, and it certainly applies to the valuation of coins, so I don't have a problem in them providing additional information.

 

I would be concerned with their ability to do it consistently, but that concern is really no different than grading, if you think about it. However, the additional precision required for the PQ grade would assuredly mean a greater margin of error (one can think of it as another significant digit in a the grade), So if you asked me, all other things being equal, if I would rather have the PQ grade or more consistent grading, I'd pick the latter every time -- it is better for me as a collector, and it is better for the market in general, IMHO.

 

To do my best Bill Jones impression (who I truly respect, even, and perhaps why, I make fun of him)...I wonder, however, if this "creation" of a new class of coins wouldn't also have the effect of driving up prices on these coins. Although a part of me believes this is not entirely a bad thing.

 

That said -- and James and I have gone back and forth on this one already -- I think that once money becomes involved in any "hobby" it is automatically an "industry", like it or not. And frankly, I think we would be better served by continuing to discuss the finer points of numismatics than get caught up in semantics. I would humbly suggest that it is the nefarious actions of some, not how we label things, that are the problem in numismatics.

 

Back to the topic at hand....If I had to make a decision on PQ or no PQ for PCGS, I would go with no PQ because of the increased margin of error it would introduce.

 

Respectfully submitted....Mike

 

p.s. James, Isn't a grade a "marketing vehicle" in the first place?

Mike, that was a fantastic answer and very well thought out!

 

To answer your question directly to me, a "grade" is not a marketing vehicle. However, price guides based on "grade" are. A grade is of course, just an opinion regarding the perceived level of preservation of individual coins within a given population ("this" 1909-S VDB as it compares to all the rest). Marketing factors come into play once "values" are associated with grades.

 

Digressing a bit, there is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with marketing! Indeed, it is perhaps the most time-honored aspect of a Capitalist society.

 

The problem I have is when marketing is presented in the guise of something else - whether it me charity, science, art, altruism, whatever the case may be. So my point is, if you are a company whose purpose in life is to market coins, for example, then just call yourself what you are - a marketer (or is that marketeer?), and just let folks know that marketing is your job. Or at least, don't disguise it.

 

Rant over !

[Bruceswar]

PCGS would be stupid not to take on this task. Weather they charge extra for it remains to be seen. The star is free if your coin warrants it. As a side note why not like like PCGS MS65$ (Use the money symbol since that is what it means anyhow) on a more serious note I do not see why not as long as they do not charge for this service like NGC. Oh for the Record PCI has forever tainted any gold labels.