Will NGC Do Their Own Version of Secure Plus?

[DC Dawg]

While watching the videos of the PCGS announcement for Secure Plus, Don Willis mentioned that they have been working with a company called CoinSecure on this project. CoinSecure sells a product CP16 CoinAnalyzer that PCGS is using for their service. It appears that CoinSecure is a privately owned company that is not connected with PCGS. The president of CoinSecure owns the patents on the device (see my blog post for more on this).

 

I guess we can address this to Scott Schechter and the other NGC execs:

Since the CP16 appears to be a viable product and could create a digital fingerprint that NGC and PCGS could use to detect crackout and cross-over abuses, does NGC have plans to use the CP16 for their on version of Secure Plus? Yes, I know it looks like NGC will be playing catch up, but for NGC to come in an partner with PCGS on this service might make both services look good. Think of this as cooperation between the left (coast) and the right (coast)!

 

Scott

[rrantique]

Amazing.

 

http://www.coinsecure.com/demo.htm

[coinman23885-migration]

 

I guess we can address this to Scott Schechter and the other NGC execs:

Since the CP16 appears to be a viable product and could create a digital fingerprint that NGC and PCGS could use to detect crackout and cross-over abuses....

Scott

 

Define "cross-over abuses"? If they are able to detect coins that have been resubmitted or an attempted cross-over (with the coin raw), then are they truly fairly assessing your coin? It seems to me that this would be fraudulent on the part of the TPGS.

[RareSov]

I agree coinman

[DC Dawg]

 

I guess we can address this to Scott Schechter and the other NGC execs:

Since the CP16 appears to be a viable product and could create a digital fingerprint that NGC and PCGS could use to detect crackout and cross-over abuses....

Scott

 

Define "cross-over abuses"? If they are able to detect coins that have been resubmitted or an attempted cross-over (with the coin raw), then are they truly fairly assessing your coin? It seems to me that this would be fraudulent on the part of the TPGS.

If you watched the PCGS introduction (on their website), David Hall said that the coin will be sent to grading without the graders knowing about the scanning information. Only the finalizer will see the scanning information and deal with it accordingly. If you believe Hall, then your concern is unfounded.

 

Scott

[coinman23885-migration]

If you believe Hall, then your concern is unfounded.

 

That's precisely the problem. I don't trust David Hall or PCGS. I'm not going to repeat the whole debate, but look at what has happened to the "ironclad" guarantee. This is not a time when PCGS should be asking for clients to trust them nor should clients expect that they won't renege on their word.

 

As a side note, why would PCGS even need to identify repeat submissions if they weren't going to use this data for some purpose? Why would PCGS make reference to it in their monthly collector club email that it would help identify repeat submissions? Theoretically you could argue that they are doing it for statistics and quality control purposes, but why would a corporation spend so much money on relatively worthless statistics? I seriously doubt that PCGS would also implement more quality control than the finalizer and three panel system that it uses today.

[DC Dawg]

If you believe Hall, then your concern is unfounded.

 

That's precisely the problem. I don't trust David Hall or PCGS. I'm not going to repeat the whole debate, but look at what has happened to the "ironclad" guarantee. This is not a time when PCGS should be asking for clients to trust them nor should clients expect that they won't renege on their word.

Of course business conditions don't change and the lessons learned from yesterday's experience does not apply to tomorrow's problems. With all due respect, you are forgetting that PCGS (like NGC) is a business and has to treat what they do with the balance of doing right for the industry while making a profit. While PCGS had some stumbles with their guarantee issues, I don't think they've been unreasonable.

 

As a side note, why would PCGS even need to identify repeat submissions if they weren't going to use this data for some purpose? Why would PCGS make reference to it in their monthly collector club email that it would help identify repeat submissions? Theoretically you could argue that they are doing it for statistics and quality control purposes, but why would a corporation spend so much money on relatively worthless statistics? I seriously doubt that PCGS would also implement more quality control than the finalizer and three panel system that it uses today.

What is the risk to you or their service if they use the data collected in their submission process for other purposes? PCGS and any other TPG you've submitted to has a lot of information on you. Now it is adding the digital fingerprint of your coin. How is that going to change anything? Or are we building a conspiracy theory here?

 

Scott

[$ilverHawk]

So in essence, you are saying that the use of the CP16 Coin Analyzer is to digitally fingerprint coins, establish an identity and thereby alert a TPG when a coin has been cracked out and resubmitted. I agree.

 

CP16 doesn't grade a coin it simply establishes a unique identity. It seems to me that PCGS or any other TPG would simply use CP16 to avoid "overgrading" a resubmission. In other words, no second opinion. Thereby confirming the accuracy of the original grade.

 

Want to bet that the entirety of PCGS's photo archives are being digitized and finger printed using the CP16 Coin Analyzer. Essentially PCGS is saying don't question the original grade.

 

Exactly how does this contribute to numismatics?

 

$ilverHawk

[coinman23885-migration]

If you believe Hall, then your concern is unfounded.

 

That's precisely the problem. I don't trust David Hall or PCGS. I'm not going to repeat the whole debate, but look at what has happened to the "ironclad" guarantee. This is not a time when PCGS should be asking for clients to trust them nor should clients expect that they won't renege on their word.

Of course business conditions don't change and the lessons learned from yesterday's experience does not apply to tomorrow's problems. With all due respect, you are forgetting that PCGS (like NGC) is a business and has to treat what they do with the balance of doing right for the industry while making a profit. While PCGS had some stumbles with their guarantee issues, I don't think they've been unreasonable.

 

As a side note, why would PCGS even need to identify repeat submissions if they weren't going to use this data for some purpose? Why would PCGS make reference to it in their monthly collector club email that it would help identify repeat submissions? Theoretically you could argue that they are doing it for statistics and quality control purposes, but why would a corporation spend so much money on relatively worthless statistics? I seriously doubt that PCGS would also implement more quality control than the finalizer and three panel system that it uses today.

What is the risk to you or their service if they use the data collected in their submission process for other purposes? PCGS and any other TPG you've submitted to has a lot of information on you. Now it is adding the digital fingerprint of your coin. How is that going to change anything? Or are we building a conspiracy theory here?

 

Scott

 

I'm not building a conspiracy theory; I'm merely stating that I don't truly see the value of such information in the "digital fingerprint" for the coin nor do I think any statistics that might arise from the data (i.e. marketing, etc.) are worth the extra costs. With regards to the issue of a conspiracy theory, I never made the comment that this was PCGS's plan; in fact, I was originally responding to someone else's comment that it would crack down on "crack-out abuse." I simply asked for a definition of what constitutes a "crack-out abuse" and why it was necessary to quell this. You then replied stating that David Hall's statement would suggest that this concern was unfounded. I am simply stating that it is odd that they want this data. I hardly call this a conspiracy theory (i.e. I never make a claim, nor did I intend to set forth a claim, nor do I believe that crack-outs were the reason for implementing the new technology).

 

I wasn't arguing that there was an inherent risk, but in response to your assertion, if crack-out submission information fell into the hands of the grader, it could theoretically prejudice whether or not an old holder upgrades are not. Second of all, I never argued that PCGS's strategy not to guarantee copper coins for color was a bad business move; on the contrary, so as long as it applied to future transactions only (i.e. not modifying an agreement, contract, quasi-contract, or whatever else you want to call it) which are clearly indicated. I realize that PCGS and NGC are businesses who are seeking profits. There is nothing wrong with this; however, this must be done within the context of the law, particularly contract law (I won't go into detail here - enough said). With respect to profits, if businesses and consumers are able to modify their agreements/contracts on their every whim, then the market would collapse which would actually hurt the corporations as well as the consumers. Failing to uphold their guarantee was a mistake; not guaranteeing future copper coins for color is not.

 

With all due respect, please do not insinuate that I am implying or constructing a conspiracy theory. The comments that I post on this board mean exactly what they state within the context of the respective post. I'm assuming that you did not read the post or you would have gathered this; if you did read the posts, then don't make make comments accusing others of a conspiracy based on assumptions (especially baseless assumptions).