PCGS setting it self up for another Jadecoin fiasco?

[SilverEagleCoins]

I have to agree that I believe the only way for TPG to work effectively is if the grading service has the responsibility to pay for all errors and then attempt to collect from the original submittor. And I also agree that bearing this responsibility will lead to fewer errors in the first place.

 

I am a little confuse about collecting from the original submitter. If the submitted pays his $30 to have the coin graded and the TPG makes a mistake, what is there to collect from the original submitter?

[gmarguli]

I am a little confuse about collecting from the original submitter. If the submitted pays his $30 to have the coin graded and the TPG makes a mistake, what is there to collect from the original submitter?

 

According to the submission form you sign, you have to report any mistakes to them. Of course grading is subjective (that's what they say) so something like a 1945 Merc with flat as a dish bands might be FB to the submitter.

[SilverEagleCoins]

I depend on the TPG to tell me what the official grade is going to be. Should I be reporting every time I think the MS65 should be MS66? Why would I need a TPG if they depend on me to correct their mistakes? Doesn't really give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about any of the TPGs except the nice looking slabs.

[nwcs]

BTW, TDN, here is a picture of page 66 of the PCGS book that details the FH designation by the PCGS standard. The page before shows some pictures. I don't feel like typing out the relevant parts so I hope the admins don't mind.

 

PCGS Definition of FH

[Leothelion]

BTW, TDN, here is a picture of page 66 of the PCGS book that details the FH designation by the PCGS standard. The page before shows some pictures. I don't feel like typing out the relevant parts so I hope the admins don't mind.

 

PCGS Definition of FH

 

Read it twice, no where does it say, the FH designation is constituent with a full strike. Perhaps it was on the preceeding page.

I've seen enough of these attributes with weak strikes and yet these coins will bring a guy to his knees to have that slab that says it's so.

Of course, this bit of info. is not new and shouldn't affect anyone here since it's nonsense to be number one is such a shallow world of the registries.

 

Leo

 

Go Cubs!

[nwcs]

Nope, it doesn't mean a full strike. The only reason I mentioned this was that on the second page of this thread TDN said PCGS had no standard for deciding whether a coin was FH or not. Specifically where he said "we don't know what PCGS's definition of FH is, so how do we know it doesn't meet their definition quite handily?"

 

I'm just showing that PCGS does have a published definition for FH.

 

As for full strike issues, I cannot comment. And as for paying ridiculous prices for a certain feature, I think it is silly to pay such disproportionate prices. But if the market is bearing it, then obviously enough people are willing.

[Tradedollarnut]

TDN said PCGS had no standard for deciding whether a coin was FH or not.

 

I didn't say that PCGS has no standard - of course they have a standard. I said that most of us don't know what that standard is, so we cannot intelligently comment on whether a coin in a scan meets the criteria or not. Big difference!

 

Unfortunately, I cannot read all of that page you posted, so I still don't know exactly what the requirements are....

[jom]

HA! I just saw this thread. But it was a couple of nights ago I saw this coin while perusing the Heritage site. I don't know (or care for that matter) if the coin is FH or AT but it was one BUTT ugly coin. And for a QUARTER of a MILLION DOLLARS?! Wow! Oh boy! It's a FH!

 

I said that most of us don't know what that standard is, so we cannot intelligently comment on whether a coin in a scan meets the criteria or not. Big difference!

 

I had a non-collector ask me once when we were talking about my collection and the subject of the "plastic holders" came up: "...so, does this service have written standards". I said "...um....well....no, not exactly".

 

It's odd to me that these companies can get away with not having a standard. In fact, I don't see why the customer shouldn't know BEFORE he PAYS for the service what coin what the coin will grade. Why shouldn't he? He's paying for it, right? Why does everyone in this market think it has to be some sort of gamble when you send a coin in? When I got to the store to buy milk I know its milk beforehand, don't I? If it's bad I can take it back, right? It's truly amazing to me why more people don't see this about the grading services in the coin market.

 

TDN also says he wouldn't pay the crazy premium for the FH designation - again sounds pretty good to me - I checked an old blue sheet: MS65 was $6400, MS65FH was $100K. It is my firm belief that anyone who pays 95% of the value of a coin for a designation that covers about 2% of the area of the coin is simply setting themself up for a massive loss.

 

This is the bottom line for me. I have NEVER understood this logic whether the "big jump" was due to grade (64 to 65) or designation (non-FH to FH). Why anyone would pay that much just because a coin is surrounded in plastic is beyond me. In fact, I'll go so far as to say if the coin ain't worth the same price OUTSIDE the holder as it is INSIDE then it ain't worth the price.

 

WARNING: You'd better learn to grade, folks. The end drawith neigh.

 

jom

[gmarguli]

I had a non-collector ask me once when we were talking about my collection and the subject of the "plastic holders" came up: "...so, does this service have written standards". I said "...um....well....no, not exactly".

 

PCGS does have a written standard. It is in their grading book they published. It's just that they don't follow that standard, but it is written.

[Newmismatist]

However in Jadecoin and this recent FH issue PCGS agreed there were error.

 

SEC - I believe that is incorect! Nowhere has PCGS "Agreed" that the 27-S MS65FH coin is graded in error. A lot of forum members think it is, BUT NO ONE has submitted it to PCGS for grade/designation review (certainly not Heritage - they're offerring it for sale IN THE HOLDER AS GRADED). So don't confuse the opinion of some of our forum members with the slab-graded opinion of PCGS. They get to put those little inserts in the holder and they can say whatever they want on them, whether we agree or not.

[jom]

PCGS does have a written standard. It is in their grading book they published. It's just that they don't follow that standard, but it is written.

 

I know but this discussion took place in the mid-90s BEFORE this book was published. They went 10 YEARS without a standard. And, as you pointed out, since they don't follow it then what's the point of having the standard.

 

I still want to know why it has to be a gamble when I send a coin in. Why can't I know BEFORE I spend the dough what grade it will be? I know what I'm going to get when I order a burger at MacDonalds so why not a grade at PCGS? Quite a novel idea, eh?

 

jom

[EZ_E]

re: Absolutely agree with your comments regarding 95% of the value being tied up into the strike on 2% of the coin. It's foolish to spend that premium - especially when standards of what define FH change right and left. Who's to say that in a decade full shield rivets won't be a requirement to realize that FH premium and you aren't stuck with a $200k loss? :

 

 

Excellent comment! Makes one wonder........

 

I had a jaked-leg dealer try to double the price on a 1918 S SLQ because it was 80% fullhead. How bogus. It is either full head or not!

 

It would seem that once the standard is set then it should be a cut and dry issue to determine the FH status. That is the current problem, nothing is concrete. It is all too vague which allows subjectivity too much weight.

[SilverEagleCoins]

However in Jadecoin and this recent FH issue PCGS agreed there were error.

 

SEC - I believe that is incorect! Nowhere has PCGS "Agreed" that the 27-S MS65FH coin is graded in error. A lot of forum members think it is, BUT NO ONE has submitted it to PCGS for grade/designation review (certainly not Heritage - they're offerring it for sale IN THE HOLDER AS GRADED). So don't confuse the opinion of some of our forum members with the slab-graded opinion of PCGS. They get to put those little inserts in the holder and they can say whatever they want on them, whether we agree or not.

 

I'm sorry. Must have read it wrong. I thought after he bought it from Heritage and saw the coin he had PCGS look at it again and it came back without the FH with no other explanation.

[Tradedollarnut]

I'm sorry. Must have read it wrong. I thought after he bought it from Heritage and saw the coin he had PCGS look at it again and it came back without the FH with no other explanation.

 

Exactly why inflammatory threads with no basis should not be started in the first place. On either side of the street.

 

[truthteller]

TDN,

 

I completely disagree. Threads with hot button issues stimulate much thought and opinion. I learn quite a bit from the posters on this forum and this thread. If the thread is too inflammatory, too wild or too obnoxious, simply ignore it and the thread will die.

 

 

TRUTH

[jom]

I had a jaked-leg dealer try to double the price on a 1918 S SLQ because it was 80% fullhead. How bogus. It is either full head or not!

 

Actually, that is the wrong attitude to take. In fact, the coin may very well be worth twice the value of a flat head 18-S. There is NOTHING wrong with someone asking this price. You, being the expert, would know whether the strike (and by that I mean the OVERALL strike) is good enough to warrant such a price. If everyone passes on the coin they the price was set too high and he'll have to lower it to sell it. Whatever happened to being EDUCATED on a series of coins before you buy? Anyone buying SLQ's should know enough about the series to pay such a price (or not).

 

I pay premiums for coins all the time. For instance, if someone showed me an AU58 11-D half eagle that actually had luster in the fields and it was nice I'd happily pay TWICE what a "normal" AU58 would go for. I'd do it in a heart beat. Why? Becuase I know it'll take me 10 years to find one that cheap (ie not upgrade to MS62 and sold at even MORE that twice the AU price).

 

It all comes down to knowing what you are doing. Learn how to grade your series and do NOT depend on the grading services. EVER

 

jom

[IrishMike]

No one can even agree on what is a full head. Coinguy1 did an inteteresting thread on this across the street. They're full heads that are fuller than other full heads, something that collectors of this series already know. It's been explained to me that certain dates are given more latitude for this designation. As Jom has put so well, study the coin and don't rely on the tpgs.

[Leothelion]

"NIC-A-FH" That's it!?

Maybe "NIC-A-DATE" could restore some detail to that head on that quarter!

Then David Hall could invest in some "NIC-A-FBL", "NIC-A-FB", "NIC-A-FS"

and so on. How about "NIC-A-HOW-TO-GRADE-COINS" They sure could use some of that!

 

Leo

[nwcs]

Nah, a really sharp awl and a steady hand should bring out the full head detail.

[jom]

Nah, a really sharp awl and a steady hand should bring out the full head detail.

 

Oh bull! A Dremel and a case of beer will do much better. I "guarentee" it!

 

jom

[Newmismatist]

TDN, I completely disagree. Threads with hot button issues stimulate much thought and opinion. I learn quite a bit from the posters on this forum and this thread. If the thread is too inflammatory, too wild or too obnoxious, simply ignore it and the thread will die.

TRUTH

 

I'm sorry and I must respectfully disagree. This thread is a classic use of unfounded innuendo. It's like asking: Truth, when did you stop beating your wife? Suppose for example, I post a thread is XXXX dealer still selling counterfeit coins?

Or something like: Truth, are you still submitting AT coins? The possibilities are endless, they will generate many heated responses, there will be much "thought", most of it not thought at all but someone who sees an opportunity to wade in with a flame or to take a cheap shot at the "victim" of the thread. This thread is a perfect example, and the title of the thread is a perfect example:

 

"Is PCGS setting it self up for another Jadecoin fiasco"

 

The Jadecoin situation is entirely different than this: Jadecoin had a coin with a designated pedigree (Norweb). When Jadecoin questioned the pedigree and requested a Presidential review, PCGS agreed that the pedigree shouldn't be on the Holder for that coin and removed it. However, they returned the coin to Jadecoin with no explanation and without offering to compensate Jadecoin for the previous incorrect pedigree designation. (apparently incorrect per the removal for the insert of the pedigree designation). Now, that said there are 2 issues in the Jadecoin situation: 1) What value is attributable to a "pedigree"? and 2) should PCGS compensate Jadecoin for the difference in value? Neither of these questions is particularly easy to answer. The real issue in my mind is whether PCGS has created more serious problem by the manner in which they failed to address these issue with Jadecoin. The Jadecoin situation is further complicated by the fact that Jadecoin says that the coin is also a blatantly doctored coin, something of which presidential review was not requested, so there is a 3rd possible issue: Should PCGS honor it's "grade guarantee" for what a dealer claims is a blatantly doctored coin, and which the dealer says he knew was blatantly doctored when he bought the coin? This also is not an easy question to answer, and as it was not originally addressed in the request for Presidential review, I'm not even sure that PCGS has "mis-handled" an issue that is raised for the FIRST time in a public forum AFTER the Presidential review process has concluded.

 

Now to the current "Have you stopped beating your wife thread": The current thread directs us to a coin (1927-S MS65FH SLQ) which is being offered for $250K; a truly astounding price.

 

Now here comes the rub: Truth says:

Definitely not Full Head, with some questionable color. Now, after hearing and reading how PCGS does not back up it's designations via the Mark Feld story, nor it's authenticity to the pedigree via the Jadecoin story, how in the world will anyone buy this coin?

 

Let's examine these statement in real time:

Definitely not Full Head

1. Have you examined this coin in any manner other than the digital online scan? coin photography is tricky. Lighting can enhance or hide details on a coin. glare can make detail disappear - the camera lens picks up bright light and can't "see" the detail of the coin. I have repeatedly stated: You CANNOT grade coins based on images posted on the internet - I sold my collection of Proof IHCs last January & asked Heritage to re-image my coins because the originally images DID NOT show how nice the coins were, so I have actually experience with the fact that imaging does not always depict what's actually there. If I had "graded" my 52 Proof IHCs based on the initially images, I would have graded them Pr64RBs BUT, they were mostly Pr65RDs, Pr66RBs and Pr66RDs and I asked Heritage to re-image my coins so that at least looked CLOSE to what they really were. Back to our SLQ: To condemn this coin as NON-FH based on this image is not possible - it may or may not be FH you have to see the coin in person to ACCURATELY make that determination.

 

2.

with some questionable color

. Take what I said above and multiply it by 10. You CANNOT judge color from a digital image. I wish I had more technical expertise here, but people just don't understand digital photography: Its not a film image that use RED/GREEN/BLUE colors to generate a final image. It is something like a computer that "guesses" at the colors and then extrapolates the final image based on millions of guesses - it may or may not be accurate AND, it may depend on something called the white color balance. Complicated? you bet. Its very difficult to grade detail using a digital image - but it probably can be done IF the photographer properly uses the lighting source to capture an accurate image, but color nuances? You've really got to see the coin to assess color nuances to determine AT or NT, and AT vs NT is another whole issue that is the subject of heated debate. So for Truth to CONCLUDE "questionable color" never having seen this coin is probably no different than saying the "moon is made of green cheese: There is no factual basis for that statement.

 

Now that we have 2 highly questionable premises, we get to the innuendo: Why buy this "mis-attributed, AT" coin when PCGS won't back up it's guarantee based upon Jadecoin's and Mark Feld's experience? One thing I learned when I studied logic is: If you start out with a false premise, it's difficult to reach a correct conclusion, (but not impossible, there’s always blind luck). Throw in a little false innuendo and I submit it's impossible to reach a correct conclusion.

 

No one has submitted this coin to PCGS under its "grade guarantee" To suggest that you'll be screwed by PCGS is the false conclusion, based on several false premises discussed above.

 

Truth, your conclusion seems to be: Buy this coin & you've been screwed by PCGS. Is that so? Or is the REAL Question: Should you buy this coin and risk $250K if you don’t really think it’s a FH SLQ? Or to be more blunt: Should anyone in his right mind pay $244K MORE for a FH designation than for a non-FH designation, no matter WHO calls it FH?

 

Does PCGS (or NGC) have anything to do with how a person decides to spend his money, whether foolishly or wisely. If you don’t believe me, check out this thread across the street -

Linky to PCGS Forum thread with the same issue as this thread

 

THe thread title is: Who agrees with this one? 18/17-S Stg Lib Quarter

The originator of this thread “Mrearlygold” had a poll as follows:

Is this a FH Quarter? 1918/17-S Stg Lib Quarter NGC MS-64FH Lot 6014, Heritage Atlanta Sale, August 2001, 72 G's and change.

The only answer to choose from was: “No way”

 

Isn’t this thread exactly the same? Same series (SLQs), just a different rare date (this time, an 18/17-S MS64FH, this time graded by NGC) - same issue, same false premise, same arguments (it’s the grading services fault that someone over-paid for a coin, therefore they should be found guilty of some un-specified “crime”) but with a much smaller price differential between the FH example and the Non-FH example. And interestingly enough, same arguments - “NGC has screwed the collector who bought this coin because its not FH & now he can’t sell it for what he paid.” (Or has the rabid "Fan of Moderns" on the PCGS forum would say: “Only buy PCGS coins, they’re the only service that knows how to grade”.)

 

Well, those comments are certainly “hot button issues” but they don’t “stimulate much thought and opinion”, they stimulate only knee-jerk ranting and raving about which is the “ONLY” TPGS that “gets it right”. Well, here’s a little secret that anyone who has examined coins in plastic slabs knows by experience: NONE of the TPGS get it 100% right 100% of the time! It’s a bell curve folks. At the left hand of the scale (10-15%), they get it wrong they graded too loose, so its over-graded. In the middle (70-80%) they get it right - graded accurately & correctly. And at the right end of the scale, again they get it wrong (10-15%), but this time they grade too conservatively and it’s under-graded.

 

I know of Coinguy's situation only from 3rd party accounts, so I'm not in any position to comment on what happened. Next time I see Mark, I'm going to ask him exactly what happened. What I've read is that he bought a 1945 Merc dime with a FB designation on ebay (never inspected it in person) and when he got it, it wasn't FB and PCGS would NOT refund his purchase price (or the difference between the FB value & the non-FB value). Based upon HRH's comment several days ago - PCGS won't honor an attribution guarantee for a FB designation if the bands are "flat as a pancake", because then it's a "mechanical" error. Now if that is PCGS's "official" position, I would take issue with that in terms of their legal obligations. BUT, if that’s PCGS’s official position, one had better be very careful about spending stupid money for a strike attribution designation based upon the premises that if others disagree with PCGS’s opinion, that PCGS will reimburse you for you losses. Neither PCGS nor NGS are Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

If you spend your money stupidly, whether on a POP 1, top pop modern ($39K for a 1963 Pr70Dcam Lincoln cent) or 250K for a 1927-S MS65FH SLQ, or $72K for a MS64FH 18/17-S SLQ, you may lose a lot of money, nor matter what OPINION whichever TPGS has put on the little insert in the plastic slab. Why? Not because of anything that the TPGS has done to “harm” you, but because in the 1st instance you’re betting that that 1963 LHC is the ONLY Pr70DCam LHC out of the 3+ million made, and in the second and third instances because you’ve bought the “hype” that the strike attribution on Miss Liberty’s Head (about 2% of the obverse of the coin) is literally worth 98% of the coin’s value. If you believe in those premises, spend your money the way you choose, but don’t expect any TPGS to make up your losses when you find out that you made a bad bet.

 

The companion to “Buy the coin, not the plastic” is: Don’t place a stupidly irrational premium on strike attribute designations, top pop coins or even pedigrees (Jadecoin’s mistake) - they’re usually not worth a 3X premium (the 18/17-S SLQ), certainly not a 40X premium (27-S SLQ) and absolutely not a 200X premium (the 1963 Pr70DCam LHC)!

 

Has this thread “stimulated much thought and opinion” - Not Really. Why? Because the wrong premise has been asserted: What we should have been discussing is not whether this coin has been properly designated FH by PCGS, but whether the FH designation (IF accurate) warrants the $244K premium for this coin? And if yes, why?

 

Threads that are just excuses to bash one or the other of the TPGSs are a useless waste of time. They contribute nothing to our knowledge and understanding of coins, how we should collect coins, how we as collectors can learn to accurately grade coins so we can make our own independent assessment of grade, how and what aspects of rarity add value to the coins we buy, what historical factors make the coins we collect interesting and collectible, what effect, if any, pedigree has on the collectibility or value of a coin, what exactly constitutes a strike or condition rarity and what effect does it (or should it) have on the value of a coin. These issues will stimulate fruitful discussion, but bashing PCGS over here, or bashing NGC across the street, serves no useful purpose, other than to vent the anger and rage of those who are PO’d at one or the other of these grading services. And there is no lack of PO’d forum members either here or across the street.

 

Sorry this is so long, but I HAD to get this off my chest, because I think we are “discussing” the wrong issues in threads like this.

 

I am also quite upset with forum members who take “cheap shots” at other forum members who express their opinions. That’s very juvenile and should not be part of our forums.

 

JMHO

[EVillageProwler]

Newmismatist:

 

I'll be brief in contrast to your post and simply say that I agree en toto to the jist of what you've written. Sure, someone can nitpick at a minor point here and there, but that's ok. Let's focus on the big picture and realize that arguing about this and that without first-hand expert assessment is rarely worthwhile.

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

GREAT POST!!!!

 

I'd love to debate the merits of strike premiums, but I've had enough of bashing either leading service off scans.

 

Just today, I passed on a coin I've been looking for because the premium associated with the strike [and thus the holder] was 75% of the coin's value. Too rich for my blood!

[truthteller]

News,

 

I am glad you disagree with me, otherwise you would have not written a nicely presented post. So, I walk away from this post with interesting information and further education. Now, please tell me, would you have stated your conclusions without my post? The message was very clear. Give your opinions. While you don't agree, I find it advantageouss to post threads like this, and so do the many people who posted here. The major difference between the NGC posters and PCGS posters is level of civility in these responses.

 

 

TRUTH

[EVillageProwler]

The major difference between the NGC posters and PCGS posters is level of civility in these responses.

 

We can change that, ya know!

 

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

NGC posters and PCGS posters

 

First coins and now third party poster graders? What is the world coming to?

 

Of course, if they'll grade comic books, I guess they'll grade anything!

[jom]

I am glad you disagree with me, otherwise you would have not written a nicely presented post......Now, please tell me, would you have stated your conclusions without my post?

 

You know...that is EXACTLY what I was going to say. As long as you can get a civil response a "devils advocate" position is always the best way to get people to give good opinions. Again, as long as you can get a civil response...doesn't always happen though

 

BTW, I'd much rather discuss strike designations actually. A pet peeve of mine...

 

jom

[Newmismatist]

I am glad you disagree with me, otherwise you would have not written a nicely presented post. So, I walk away from this post with interesting information and further education. Now, please tell me, would you have stated your conclusions without my post?

 

Truth: I think there may be a slight compliment hidden between the lines, there - 1 for me and 1 for yourself.

 

TO answer your question: Yes I would have, and I would have preferred not to have had to dissect the "set up strawman" so that the post could be used to attack (unfairly) PCGS. PCGS's is not saintly, nor godlike, dispite what some at PCGS may think, but to pick out an over-priced coin and unjustly & w/o any factual basis, use that coin to attack the grading service, does nothing to help us understand what to buy, why and for how much. All the grading services get it wrong some of the time. WHY do we keep bringing this up as if its a revelation? It's not a revelation. They put THEIR OPINION on a piece of paper and put it in the slab. That's it: their Opinion! It's not an immutible mathematical theorem that can always be proved to have the same answer, ( 2+2 always = 4). The coin is the same with or with out that little piece of discriptive OPINION. It doesn't get any bettter or any worse because of what they say on that little piece of paper. If it's a POS, it'll be a POS if whoever calls it MS70FH. It's just that some people think it means MORE than it does.

 

Please don't keep saying that every time a collector pays a stupid price for a coin that XXX grading company has POSSIBLY over-graded that coin and therefore XXX has committed fraud, cheated the buyer, etc., etc. Please don't keep using Jadecoins' prediciment as proof of anything. Has it occurred to anyone that when Jadecoins knowingly bought a "blatently doctored" coin (worth per their own reckoning about $500) and then proceeded to pay 7X more than it was worth ($3500), that maybe, just maybe they are partly responsible for their own prediciment? I mean thy're not brand new collectors right off the farm listening to a sales pitch from HRH that this "Norweb" pedigreed coin that looks a little unusual because of its beautiful red coloration, & it's worth 10X what other unpedigreed Hibernia pennies are worth, but today and today only they can snap up this bargain at the low, low bargain price of ONLY 7X what an ordinary Hibernia sells for.

 

In a recent post regarding what's a pedigree worth James of Jadecoins says that the Norweb pedigree has NO value. That's certainly not going to help their lawsuit, if that's where their headed! If the thing was blatently doctored, over-graded & the Norweb pedigree has no value, no Judge or jury is going to give them 10 cents of damages for buying that coin for their customer, who later decided to return it. They made a business decision to buy that coin to make a small profit, they accepted the return of a coin which they acknowledge that they knew was doctored when they bought it, they placed no value on the Pedigree - How they gonna collect? They're NOT! BUT I bet they get about $30,000 (or more) worth of publicity, and HRH has nicely helped them along, so they've already turned a lemon into lemonaide - and more power to them. They seem to be nice dealers, they refunded their customer his money even when they probably didn't have to (Remember HE wanted the "Norweb" Pedigree, not Jadecoins), and in my mind they did the right thing, even though they may not have been legally required to refund ther customers money.

 

BUT, make no mistake about it, they own that coin because of their own knowing decision to over-pay for something that they knew was Doctored when purchased and of which they placed no value on the pedigree. They are at least 1/2 responsible for what happened, if not moreso. Despite their own folley, PCGS has successfully managed to make them look good, by some very unusual responses to what has occurred. I'm truly amazed at what is posted in the Q&A forum across the street.

 

Had you raised that issue, I would have responded, but what you did was set it up as if PCGS was 100% wrong and Jadecoins was 100% right, thereby presenting this thread as simply another opportunity to bash PCGS. Neither is the case, and the rather poor method of "resolving" (not) a legitimate issue by PCGS does not make them responsible for every person who over-pays for a coin in a PCGS slab. If our forum members and other collectors don't "learn" this FACT, they are going to loose a lot of money thinking that PCGS (and NGC) are going to save them (ie reimburse them) when they make stupid coin purchases and pay way too much for coins that are in reality neither rare nor valuable (to other collectors).

 

Had you raised the legitimate issue of the pricing of FH SLQs, I would have reponded and given you my opinions as carefully and as well reasoned as I am able. I would have used the many examples that I could from having collected them since I was 12 years old. (I still have 2 sets in those blue Whitman albums with the plastic slides, no FH 27-S or 18/17-S either) I would have mentioned that SLQs are one of THE most difficult coins to grade, that many times AU coins look far better than the UNCs, that sometimes it's rub (wear) on the knee and sometimes its the way they're made, that FH and Full strike are NOT the same, we've gotten Sooo indoctrinated by a few dealers to look only at the Head, that we forget to look at the shield the date and the toes, ignore the reverse where Gem uncs somestimes have no feathers on the eagle & if it wasn't for the luster we'd call 'em AU.

 

I would have stated flat out that paying a stupid price for 2% of the coin is not a wise thing, and I would have said even more about SLQs, maybe even Buff nickels, as they are very similar to SLQs when it comes to grading, because I wouldn't have had to spend all that time pointing out the faulty reasoning in the premise you stated in your thread ie that it was PCGS's fault and the future buyer (whoever the insufficiently_thoughtful_person may be) of that 27-S was going to be royally screwed by PCGS. Whoever buys that coin for $250K (or even a bargain $200K) won't be screwed by PCGS, but he or she may be out one hell of a lot of money for the reasons which I think (at least I HOPE) I have presented in a logical and thoughtful manner.

 

In some respects, I shouldn't have responded to this post at all, and by again responding I seem to be giving it legitimacy. I'm not, I'm trying to "Correct" this post, turn it into a learning experience, and in the process delete the false premises and the corresponding false conclusions, and if not that, at least get you to think about what your position is and why before you insert your foot in your mouth. I hope you and other PCGS "bashers" (if that's what your intent was) will think beyond "which grading service" and address WHAT coins and WHY.

 

Your thread had some great issues, unfortunately you missed them in your zeal to take a few cheap shots at PCGS. I'm sure they deserve a few "shots", but not in this instance, and certainly not as presented in your original post.

 

I hope I've kept this civil and addressed the issues raised, as that is my intent.

 

My future responses will be short. I'll just quote Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

My future responses will be short.

 

I don't have prior permission to "speak" for Newmismatist, nor have I carefully read his latest post, but I will briefly try to summarize how I interpret his post:

 

Truth: I think the path of civility and discussion on which you've tried to lead the membership is fraught with much peril. People being what they are, some may get tempted not to remain civil and to argue instead of to discuss. Detours do happen...

 

It also seems to me that it would be most constructive to lead the membership down the most direct path (i.e., frame the issue in the most appropriate context). Taking the Avenue of Big Money For Minutiae is much more direct than taking the Boulevard of Critiquing TPGS. If you think about it, we woldn't have considered the coin if $$ weren't a major issue here. And, the TPGS don't play nearly as big a role in market pricing as do well-heeled collectors and big-time dealers.

 

EVP

 

[TonerGuy]

Wow, nicely summarized EVP! (I think )

 

michael