PCGS' new found tolerance (encouragement?) of CAC talk-hilarious or hypocritical?

[MarkFeld]

I can't decide whether to laugh at or be disgusted with this PCGS forum thread :

Are 80% of CAC stickers on PCGS holders?

 

PCGS has consistently and diligently deleted threads/talk about CAC over a long period of time. But seemingly out of the blue, its president, Don Willis, has started a thread of his own. I happen to think Don is usually a very nice guy and enjoyable to talk to. But his question, based largely on the irrelevant number of CAC'd PCGS vs.NGC coins in an upcoming auction, seems extremely transparent. It is also based upon wholly irrelevant statistics. I say that because it is unknown how many PCGS and NGC coins in the sale were even submitted to CAC. Thus the number that CAC approved is meaningless.

 

From my own experience, of the coins that I have submitted to CAC, including those that belonged to clients, 50 of 71 (70.4%) PCGS coins received stickers and 33 of 56 (58.9%) NGC coins received stickers. And that sample size is likely way too small to be meaningful. But at least I know how many coins were submitted and what % of each group received stickers.

 

Personally, I think the thread in question is both funny AND hypocritical.

 

And here is part of what I believe to be the best and most accurate post to the thread:

 

this whole thread has been an almost surreal use of spin-doctoring by PCGS: go from banning any talk of CAC and it's founder, to now using it as some sort of marketing tool to promote superiority using extremely small sample sizes with little background info on the coins and the consignors.

[IGWT]

 

Geesh, there goes any hope of your reinstatement now that Don is at the helm. The discussion based on the ratio of PCGS to NGC coins w/ CAC stickers is meaningless for the reason that you stated (and as I tried to explain in my post to the thread), and the discussion on the percentage of PQ coins in any grade is just plain silly. I appreciate the effort to "reach out" to collectors via the CU Forum, but I don't much appreciate being treated like a numbskull.

[MarkFeld]

Geesh, there goes any hope of your reinstatement now that Don is at the helm. The discussion based on the ratio of PCGS to NGC coins w/ CAC stickers is meaningless for the reason that you stated (and as I tried to explain in my post to the thread), and the discussion on the percentage of PQ coins in any grade is just plain silly. I appreciate the effort to "reach out" to collectors via the CU Forum, but I don't much appreciate being treated like a numbskull.

Hey "numbskull", AKA Lou, I had already asked Don about my being reinstated and he said no. I am amazed that so many posters to that thread appear to be missing the obvious, yet seeing the meaningless.

[IGWT]

I'll see you on the floor at FUN unless you happen to see me first.

[mommam17]

Hi Mark. I submitted 88 coins, 48 PCGS and 40 NGC. 83% of PCGS stickered. 87% of NGC stickered. Any stats of value would be all coins submitted, not a random sample. John would have those numbers. But like I said over there CAC has taken a foothold. I thought it was VERY interesting after all those poofed CAC threads, the president of PCGS starts one. Change in strategy.

[EZ_E]

Hey "numbskull", AKA Lou, I had already asked Don about my being reinstated and he said no.

 

Good!

 

'Cause we don't want to share you! You very seldom posted on this side of the street before, now you're all ours!

[MarkFeld]

Hi Mark. I submitted 88 coins, 48 PCGS and 40 NGC. 83% of PCGS stickered. 87% of NGC stickered. Any stats of value would be all coins submitted, not a random sample. John would have those numbers. But like I said over there CAC has taken a foothold. I thought it was VERY interesting after all those poofed CAC threads, the president of PCGS starts one. Change in strategy.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if it turned out that the stats favored NGC over PCGS, the "strategy" would change again.

[James_OldeTowne]

All this tells me is that PCGS coins are harder to sell, and need an extra sticker to make them more marketable.

 

!

[WoodenJefferson]

 

The whole time reading this I was thinking about you Mark, how would Mark Feld address this hypothesis? I even thought about PM‘ing you to make you aware but figured out you‘d eventually find this thread and go ballistic.

 

Here‘s part of my post on page 5

 

~Why do I keep having this feeling like I’m a stray sheep and the collective keeps trying to round me up to graze in the same direction as the rest of the flock?~

 

I have a lot of respect for coins in PCGS holders but refuse to drink their kool-aid.

 

 

 

 

[TomB]

It was a very directed discussion without having to pull the strings as much as simply putting the play in motion.

[michael]

All this tells me is that PCGS coins are harder to sell, and need an extra sticker to make them more marketable.

 

!

 

(thumbs u

 

and yes i happen to agree with you mark.....................

 

 

and with pcgs this is business as usual with them

[michael]

It was a very directed discussion without having to pull the strings as much as simply putting the play in motion.

 

(thumbs u

 

again business as usual at pcgs

[IrishMike]

I find it an odd post to say the least, hilarious no, hypocritical, ah maybe. It did strike me at the very least as a tacit acknowledgment that they have gone from thinking the enterprise would likely fail to thinking that its going to be around for at least a while longer and an admission that is catching on with some in the dealer community and high end collectors.

 

I wonder what if any conversation took place before it was posted.

[MarkFeld]

I find it an odd post to say the least, hilarious no, hypocritical, ah maybe. It did strike me at the very least as a tacit acknowledgment that they have gone from thinking the enterprise would likely fail to thinking that its going to be around for at least a while longer and an admission that is catching on with some in the dealer community and high end collectors.

 

I wonder what if any conversation took place before it was posted.

Mike, I doubt that PCGS thought CAC would fail, or they wouldn't have worked so diligently at deleting threads on the topic. I also think that someone at PCGS decided that it would be a good thing to discuss CAC, as long as any such discussions painted PCGS in a good light, relative to its competition.

 

In response to the post by Mr. Willis that

No one has provided any information that contradicts my observation that app. 80% of all CAC stickers are on PCGS holders.

, I emailed him the first hand results that I and mommam17 had observed. Those results clearly contradicted the 80%/20% numbers which had been thrown out there. And our results included relevant information, such as the actual number of coins submitted, not just how many received stickers. I am shocked that Mr. Willis didn't include that information in a follow-up post.

 

[Mark T]

What a transparent obvious plug for PCGS by Don Willis.

From a statistical standpoint his conclusion about the Fun Auction is flawed.

It is possible that for this Auction more CAC- PCGS coins were offered for sale then

CAC - NGC coins. That would screw the results and a proper conclusion could not be made.

 

 

[IrishMike]

Mark, its been my perception that they are surprised that its done as well as it has. I see nothing in their marketing of their brand that would suggest that they would have predicted any thing else. I believe that dumping of CAC threads was an attempt to further discourage CAC's success. I don't know the players at PCGS personally, it just seems to comport with past marketing strategies.

 

I'd like to here why you think otherwise. I don't think trashing those threads meant they thought CAC would succeed, but their attempt to help it not succeed.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, its been my perception that they are surprised that its done as well as it has. I see nothing in their marketing of their brand that would suggest that they would have predicted any thing else. I believe that dumping of CAC threads was an attempt to further discourage CAC's success. I don't know the players at PCGS personally, it just seems to comport with past marketing strategies.

 

I'd like to here why you think otherwise. I don't think trashing those threads meant they thought CAC would succeed, but their attempt to help it not succeed.

Mike, your perception is just as likely to be correct, as mine is. But here's my thinking/guessing....

 

From the beginning, PCGS was assuredly very well aware of the great knowledge, abilities and well deserved following that John Albanese has. And that based on that, as well as its model, CAC stood an excellent chance of success. PCGS's first choice would have been for CAC not to reject any of their coins due to over-grading and/or doctoring. That was obviously impossible. Their second choice would have been for their product to fare better than their competitors' in the eyes of CAC and the marketplace.

 

I always thought it was silly for PCGS to appear to act paranoid about CAC and/or try to pretend it didn't exist

 

Perhaps PCGS thought they saw a way to highlight their competitive advantage by making a case for what could be construed as overwhelming confirmation of the superiority of their brand. Of course the problem was that the statistics and the way they were used, were meaningless.

 

Now I see that today, one or more CAC threads started by PCGS forum members have been deleted. I'll leave it to others to decide what to make of that, but I'm sure you can guess how I feel about it. I predict that the Don Willis thread will eventually be frozen or deleted, as more people see how the rules are applied in such an unnecessarily biased/unfair fashion.

[TomB]

I believe the deleted thread suggested that an NGC coin with a CAC sticker would be more liquid or valuable than a PCGS coin without a CAC sticker.

[IrishMike]

I agree with everything you just wrote and I think it reflected detrimentally to their perception as an organization. I am not sure it was a good idea to alienate dealers who have long supported them as well as other TPG's by taking that stance. Treat um like grownups and let them to decide whether its good for their business. If it is I see it as helping not hindering their brand. Maybe its easier to have that perspective by being outside of that loop. There is something to be said for having input from within an organization that didn't come from the collecting, selling and grading of their product to round out their market perspective.

[dean1345]

I think PCGS is getting somewhat paranoid and see some market advantage evaporating.

[Doogy]

 

for those that may be new to the party, allow me to sum up exactly what has transpired over the past few months that led up to this..................

 

 

 

 

1. John Albanese is a founder member of both major serivces

 

2. JA leaves services to venture out

 

3. services become dominant players

 

4. grading "standards" for the services fluctuate wildly with little consistency through the decades

 

5. JA becomes dismayed by gradeflation, doctored coins in holders, et cetera, and founds company (CAC) to weed these out

 

6. PCGS immediately bans any and all talk of new said company, in hopes that the "head in sand" approach will work

 

7. PCGS founder disowns JA as a founder, even though JA was listed as a founder in his own book

 

8. JA's company continues to garner market acceptance (CAC)

 

9. PCGS tightens their grading standards, seemingly to ensure that all new coins graded adhere to despised new company of JA

 

10. PCGS sees the writing on the wall, and decides to use JA's company as a marketing tool to tout alleged grading superiority. This apparantly ends the ban on talk of said company with the new president even calling the green stickers 'PQ' before he was 'educated' and edited his post

 

what a weird turn of events..............

 

[RI AL]

Doogy.

 

Thanks for the summary. I got a little lost trying to figure out exactly what was going on. So if I got this right, PCGS is becoming more strict in grading so that their slabs will garner more CAC stickers, eventhough PCGS has little love for CAC? But...CAC doesn't really have a clear definition of "Premium Quality"which leaves PCGS trying to attain a standard that even CAC doesn't know? Am I anywhere close?

 

I guess it's a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" though they clearly sit on opposite sides of the locker room.

 

Makes perfect sense.....

[Conder101]

Don't forget #11

 

11 PCGS still removes posts that suggest that CAC stickered competitor's slabs do well.

[BillJones]

From what I see offered on the market, and my observations are by no means scientific, PCGS seems to have a lot more coins with CAC stickers than NGC. At any rate it is pretty funny that PCGS is now giving CAC a thumbs up. (thumbs u It says to me that they are now admitting that they screwed up enough times to make another opinion of their opinion worth the cost.

 

I was sorry to see Don Willis move on to PCGS, I liked him as a dealer, and so far as I'm concerned I won't want his job for twice what he's getting paid. When you have a job like that you have to knuckle under and mouth the corporate line too often to survive. I’ve never been much for looking at a pile of manure and declaring to everyone that it was a stack of gold for the sake of office politics.

 

[MikeInFL]

" PCGS' new found tolerance (encouragement?) of CAC talk-hilarious or hypocritical? "

 

I think that PCGS views its forums as self serving and their editorial/posting policy has long been symptomatic of this, including the post Mark points out.

 

Frankly issues similar to this sickened me enough to quit posting over there for a long time, but I gave up trying to change the world in protest. But I must admit PCGS' arrogance and hypocricy on this (and other) topcis leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth...Mike

 

p.s. let's see if Don responds to my "obsevations" ATS.

[MarkFeld]

It appears that the thread has been deleted, along with a few other recent ones.

[WoodenJefferson]

clicking the link now gives you this message:

 

Sorry, we were unable to locate the object requested.

Error Code: 102

 

 

 

What a waste of bandwidth...wait a minute, now bandwidth has been freed up!

 

With all the bickering that went on in subsequent threads that appeared after Don’s original post, I was not surprised at all to see the majority of them just disappear into the sunset.

 

There is still some people that post there who are not satisfied until there is complete pandemonium and it eventually results in bannings, thread deletions and a sour grape taste in your mouth.

 

But the place still has its merits.

 

[RareSov]

Wow thanks for the informative posts

 

I would say PCGS = no idea how to run a business. I have seen a few with ideas like this, who would do the same and ignore CAC and be censoring posts. All have failed in business !

[MikeInFL]

p.s. let's see if Don responds to my "obsevations" ATS.

 

Update: Mr. Willis did respond -- via PM, and asked me to send him the coin directly. Hopefully this will be resolved equitably....Mike