Rating David Hall

[Tradedollarnut]

I think that the first night, his performance was outstanding. He rallied the masses and put a good spin on everything. He handled a couple of tough points properly. I'd give him a 10.

 

I think the second night was much poorer. He muddied the waters with questionable statistics on a slam dunk question about allowing NGC coins in the PCGS Set Registry. (Heck, I doubt even NGC wants that - it'd take away their inherent advantage of being able to allow both holders). The conflict of interest question was poorly and incompletely addressed. I'd give him a 4.

[dragon]

After looking at Mr. Halls recent post on conflicts of interest, I think he is now just insulting peoples intelligence and he would do PCGS a service by discontinuing to post in the forums, JMO.

 

Dragon

[EVillageProwler]

I agree that the Great One did very well on the first night. I'd probably give him an 8 or so. (I'm a strict grader, just like PCGS!)

 

The second night, he bombed on both the registry and the conflict of interest question. His response on the registry was ridiculous. On the conflict matter, his response wasn't stupid. It just had no basis in proof or fact. No substance.

 

I grade him a 3 for the second night.

 

The problem is that he hasn't committed anything for tonight. Yet, I'm sure the masses will want to see, tough and hear from their God again!

 

EVP

 

[SarasotaFrank]

I think he is make the hugest of huge mistakes by posting on the board - a sure sign of desparation and a willingness to do anything to plug a finger in the dyke and pacify the masses with whatever song and dance he can come up with.

 

Posting to these boards from his position is death and will wear him out as he tries to tap dance his way through every compliant that gets posted. No answer is going to please everyone and he will get caught up in this vortex as he gets sucked down the drain.

 

The higher road is to say he is reading and heeding the advice he is finding on the boards.

 

goodness, I am harsh this morning.

[keithdagen]

I agree that the Great One did very well on the first night. I'd probably give him an 8 or so. (I'm a strict grader, just like PCGS!)

 

You classic guys just don't know how to grade this high-end modern material.

 

David got a 9 on the first night. He makes a splashy showing, provides a lot of oohs and aahs when those Pop. 1 kind of answers start appearing, and makes promises of great things and returns to come. That's a classic pop. rarity modern for ya.

 

Night 2, not so good. Two major issues, and 2 bodybags.

 

First up, NGC admissions into the PCGS Registry. There was a solid logic there, but it was obvious that the answer submitted was flawed, and that David tried to cover it up with some substance. I'm giving him an N-4 Altered Surface on that one. I would guess the answer was puttied if you held me to it.

 

Second up, the conflict of interest. David addressed whether a confict actually exists, but his answer was clouded with facts that were not known to be accurate. Looking further, he did not address the PERCEPTION problem at all. This answer stunk to high heaven, and will be returned to the submitter as Questionable Authenticity.

 

 

[braddick]

Ok, So I 'learned' D. Hall doesn't respect NGC very much. His words- "Only High End NGC coins are submitted for PCGS crossover. Only 50% of those High End NGC coins cross".

 

Wow. I give him an EIGHT for that revelation.

[Guest]

On a scale from 0 to +10. I crown him with a MINUS 10.

 

He should not have even mentioned Laura's coin. She has every right to complain in any manner she wishes.

 

COOLCOIN

 

 

[braddick]

Quick OT question:

 

Is our cred punked when our post is followed by Coolcoin's?

[keithdagen]

Braddick,

 

No, because even he can see the logic behind our opinions, and it's refreshing to see it across many different spectrums of collections and collectors.

[EVillageProwler]

Pat,

 

In the past, and maybe in the future, we may not have much appreciation for Coolcoin's posts. But, I think never have we doubted his acumen.

 

EVP

 

[braddick]

OK. Cool.

[IrishMike]

Hall's commenting that PCGS uses tighter grading standards than NGC has to be about the stupidest comment he could have made. It either shows he is totally incapable of running a business or perhaps had a weak moment and didn't grasp the ramifications of his comment. That comment just slapped every one in the face who ever purchased a coin in an NGC holder. Then he compounded the mistake by throwing out the crossover rate as proof that coins are overgraded X percent of the time. Someone explain to me how your grading standards can be 87% tougher? What do they do to establish this, look at 100 slabbed NGC coins, pick out the top 13 and say this is our standard. I am glad so many people over there did not fall for this. He must think he was speaking at a PCGS politcal convention rather than to coin collectors. Let the spin begin.

[EVillageProwler]

Mike,

 

The CU boards is somewhat of a PCGS political convention. Haven't you been reading some of the G-D awful moronic Hail to the Chief comments over there?

 

It's scary seeing a cult of personality developing; it's a case study in how the Hitlers of the world acquired their following.

 

EVP

 

[IrishMike]

You are correct EVP, the board needs to hire a leader for CLCT and PCGS very quickly. It could be very interesting a year or two from now to see how the landscape changes.

[Oldtrader3]

I'm with you, it was a pretty sordid attempt at saving a bad situation. He dug himself in deeper and I am not sure that he even knows it.

 

I would rate him about a 6 for the first memo, and a zero for the second. Giving him about a weak 3 overall.

[pmh1nic]

I try not to read a lot in to or figure out his motivation for joining us on the board. For now I'll take what he shares with us at face value. Whether I agree with his answers or not I appreciate his willingness to face the fire.