NGC Stock Rising Fast - Thanks to D. Hall

[TonerGuy]

I'm a member of both forums and I have watched and read D. Hall's posts on PCGS as I'm sure many of you have as well. It seems to me that HomerunHall is simply doing damage control over Rick Montgomery's departure as well as the countless questions & opinions being posted on both sides of the street.

 

While PCGS remains #1 with the business side of numismatics, it appears that NGC is gaining much favor with collectors and is actually gaining on PCGS in all aspects as well.

 

Instead of casting aspersions as to NGC, Mr. Hall should be addressing the real concerns of his customers. I for one have had my concerns and will now look to NGC to fill the void the turmoil has created.

 

Questioned Posed

 

What do you believe NGC should/could be doing to capture even a greater amount of market share? What do you think will be Rick Montgomery's impact on NGC?

 

Thanks

Michael

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

I think if NGC continues to do the following, they'll be fine:

 

1. Grade as consistently as possible - i.e., an MS65 is an MS65 is an MS65 each time.

2. Grade as closely to market value as possible: if the market values an MS65 specimen at $800, then they should assign MS65 to the $800 specimens.

3. Continue to monitor for and address customer support issues as they arise.

4. Continue to tweak the registry, as per feedback from the end users.

5. Continue not to get into the mudslinging business. They don't need to; it seems that the industry has enough netizens who will fight for the unvarnished truth just because that is what Superman told us to do when we were kids.

 

EVP

 

[Gunsmoke]

2. Grade as closely to market value as possible: if the market values an MS65 specimen at $800, then they should assign MS65 to the $800 specimens.

 

EVP, I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by grading to market value? What does market value have to do with grade? The grade is the grade regardless of value - isn't it?

 

cvc

[EVillageProwler]

GS,

 

My wording was awkward...

 

Suppose a Morgan Dollar in MS65 is worth $800 as per recent Greysheet valuation. If PCGS-slabbed specimens are consistently fetching around $1200, then they're off the mark. But, if NGC-slabbed specimens are consistently fetching around $800, then I'd say that NGC's grading and Greysheet's valuation coincidently and nicely fit together.

 

After all, the market uses Greysheet as one of the sources of pricing.

 

EVP

 

[keithdagen]

5. Continue not to get into the mudslinging business. They don't need to; it seems that the industry has enough netizens who will fight for the unvarnished truth just because that is what Superman told us to do when we were kids.

 

Truth, justice, and the American Way.

[Gunsmoke]

Ok, I understand what you meant. But, couldn't PCGS MS 65 fetch $1,200 because of something other than being undergraded?

 

I think you are right that it is a red flag, but the coins could be properly graded and the public's perception that the pcgs coin is worth a premium.

 

 

[jtryka]

They should also maintain their current crossover policies, and not just start summarily rejecting other slabs out of hand. They could also offer a free PCGS crossover day (where members could get up to X number of PCGS crossovers for free in the economy service), or something similar.

[EVillageProwler]

Ok, I understand what you meant. But, couldn't PCGS MS 65 fetch $1,200 because of something other than being undergraded?

 

Greysheet, and pretty much all the other independent price lists, are necessarily behind the market in terms of pricing. But, when the typical slab is consistently off by a significant %-age, then I'd say that that company's grading is simply different from market standards.

 

EVP

 

[braddick]

NGC should just keep doing what they're doing now.

 

(Maybe try and control all the coins getting sent to CVC and stuff like that- but I'm pretty sure they can't really do that.)

[Hoot]

I agree that NGC should just keep on keeping on and improving those areas they have targeted and set out to improve.

 

As for market grading, this is what allows for the "slack" in the methods of all of the major grading services. Collectors demand market, not technical grading. What is good about NGC, and I think rather extraordinary, is that they have become so consistent in applying a standard (if you will) of market grades to the vast majority of series that they grade. This takes some doing. (It also takes years of experience in the market, an excellent internal training and evaluation program, strong leadership, and one hell of a good reference set). Shifting the market grading standard is exactly what belies "shifting standards" of today's grading services. With respect to the market grading philosophy, it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. But on the level of a single generation of collectors (which is only as long as the services have been around) and without a global agreement of such a shift, it is a practically repugnant thing to implement, as it amounts to nothing more than strong-arming an existing market. Pure capitalism, for better or worse.

 

Hoot