Experiences of Coin Collectors with Damaged Goods.

[MarkFeld]

this whole discussion reinforces the premise that

if a coin is in an older holder, and is stable,

it should be left there

unless there is a good reason

and realizing that there are risks involved

Yes sir!

[Oldtrader3]

Chris1976, I agree with you to the point that some coins now are worth (pick a number?), say $40K or more. Should this level of collectible be handled the same way as a $35 modern? That is essentially what is happening now. I also agree that some modest level upgrade of cleanliness standards should be done soon for all grading.

 

Maybe there needs to be some sort of triage of coins which sorts coins by some practicum of value, either cultural or monetary? This would create the opportunity for giving some customers the advantage of having their coins handled in an upgraded non-contaminated environment, perhaps similar to laminar flow or clean room environments.

 

If clean room procedures are implemented to any degree, they would have to be financially amortized in the price of grading. Nothing is free especially if you are adding value (or assuring no loss of value) through eliminating the possibility of contamination.

 

Just thinking out loud.

[Chris1976]

I see the point you are making OT3, dont get me wrong. But lets also consider this thought, even the $35 modern of today will eventually reach the same point as say the $40K coin. I do agree with you that on the higher end coins there should be more care taken when handling. Only issue is that instead of the TPG passing the cost along to that market of collector (those who can afford the high price coins and the high cost grading fees), the TPG wouldnt do just that though, they would instead however pass the added cost of the new equipment onto all levels of collectors by raising the fees across the board. Looking at the broad scope of submissions I would imagine (cant confirms since I have never worked for a TPG), but I would imagine that those high cost coins that would do best in a very expensive cleanroom enviroment are at the low end of the market. Meaning that there are less of those coins submited then there are the lesser priced coins. So to recover the added cost of the new equipment, they would have to charge more at all levels. I will state that I am looking at it from my point since I cant afford coins such as that, and cant afford the high cost that would be involved to cover the increase accured by the addition of lab grade equipment for something that I personally may never own. I just dont see it being reasonable to force people such as myself to pay more just because of someone elses collecting interests. Please dont feel that I have an issue with you or the concerns you have brought up, thats not the case at all. In fact I do agree that there does need to be improvement in handling at all aspects. But just consider all the things coins of those ages had been subjected to through out the years that could be adding to the problems that we have seen after they had been placed into hard plastic archival holders. So in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), no matter how good their equipment is, they cant prevent what the coin in question may have already been subjected to. For all we or the TPG knows, there may of been something on the surface of the coin for years that just finaly showed up due to a reaction with the plastic holder or one of the chemicals to which it was made from.

 

Again, I do feel you have legitimate concerns. We and the TPG just need to come up with a reasonable and workable solution to take the best possible care that we can for what is known about the coin that has been submitted. No one will know everything about the complete handling and care of a coin through out all its years from the time it was stamped. All we can do however is prevent the best we can any further damage or mistreatment.

 

-Chris#2

[Oldtrader3]

Actually Chris1976, I agree with what you are saying. Anything that was implemented for deionizing coins (blowing junk off) before grading or providing a cleaner environment would add something to the cost of the coin. This would be especially so if there is capital investment to be recovered or if the process in any way hampers the speed of TPG throughput.

 

Maybe, this is expressing a need for serving a niche market for grading of coins for those owners who are willing to spend more money during grading to assure protection of the coin? This process control may as have a greater cost utility to the owner of certain coins then the cost of grading. I actually feel that way about some of the coins that I own or have owned in the past. Look at how many people here forecast the demise of CAC.

 

In fact, with gold coins, I will sometimes pay a premium grading fee level to get the coin handled more quickly and to get it out of the grading queue in a shorter time, thereby giving the TPG less contact time and fewer handling opportunities.

 

We already have a system whereby the collector, in general, pays more for grading then the larger volume dealer does most of the time. I almost never wait until I have 5 coins of the same tier before sending coins for grading.

 

I kind of look at TPG's as being sometimes doing more harm then good, if they damage a coin. Thus far in this hobby though, there is no control of recourse for redress of these issues except the grade review policies of the TPG. As prices of scarcer coins go up, the rocks in the collecting river seem to get larger to all of us.

 

[Chris1976]

Basic run down of suggestions to improve handling would be the implimentation of the following:

 

1.) more strictly enforced policys about eating around coins

2.) usage of at least minimal protective gear such as non-powdered nitrile gloves or finger cots, and paper filters that cover the nose and mouth

3.) more strict final quality control checks

 

 

Another thought I had was that the graders should compare notes about the coins while not standing near the coins, that way any saliva that may fly from them while they speak wont be anywhere near where it could come into contact with a coin. Such as taking a digital image and discuss them one by one at a seperate desk after taking notes while viewing the coin in hand.

 

In my opinion, that alone would eliminate alot of the issues concerning foriegn objects coming into contact with all coins that are being graded. And on top of that, it wouldnt cost much at all to impliment. Total increase in pricing across the board could be as little as $1 more per coin submitted. To me I feel that would be a very logical and workable solution, and I am sure many would be in agreement.

 

-Chris#2

[Oldtrader3]

I am fine with it. I think that the primary issues here are hair, effluents from the mouth and nose and food contamination. It would be fairly simple and straightforward to nearly eliminate these contaminants from the process. Thus far, except for TomB and Mark Feld, no dealers have commented on this post. We are essentially singing to the choir.

 

Plus, I would certainly entertain comments from a representative of our site host on this issue. Maybe a Moderator could help us there. Plus, comments from a few more dealers would be nice. I hope that this is not one of those "maybe if I ignore it, it will go away" topics.

 

It is not going to go away, however. I absolutely believe that as coin prices for scarcities continue to rise, this will become more of an issue. Some people do not like change or variation out of their comfort zone. Being an engineer, I have been rowing against the tide all of my career with people too invested in the past and afraid of change. This smells and feels the same way.

 

Dealers strongly believe the they are the opinion makers in this hobby and collectors are not as important but I believe that this will change as nearly all other collectible venues have changed to be customer driven. Dealers basically serve the needs of their clients or if they don't, they eventually go away, unless they are wholesalers.

 

Laura Sperber has been beating her drum about coin doctors for years, to little avail, but the hobby has to change before it stops having periodic confidence crashes and serious price slippage each time confidence slips. Credibility and trust is what keeps markets well regulated with consumer confidence.

[coinman_23885]

this whole discussion reinforces the premise that

if a coin is in an older holder, and is stable,

it should be left there

unless there is a good reason

and realizing that there are risks involved

Yes sir!

 

What percentage of old holders (old NGC no line "fatties" and "rattler" PCGS holders) would you estimate to be undergraded? Does this percentage differ greatly from that of current generation holders (i.e. statistically significant difference)? Is there actually any truth or is this mainly a marketing ploy?

[PerryHall]

this whole discussion reinforces the premise that

if a coin is in an older holder, and is stable,

it should be left there

unless there is a good reason

and realizing that there are risks involved

Yes sir!

 

What percentage of old holders (old NGC no line "fatties" and "rattler" PCGS holders) would you estimate to be undergraded? Does this percentage differ greatly from that of current generation holders (i.e. statistically significant difference)? Is there actually any truth or is this mainly a marketing ploy?

 

Many undergraded coins in the older NGC no line fatties and older PCGS rattlers and OGH slabs have been cracked out and reslabbed in newer slabs. Many other undergraded coins in older slabs are still in collections where the owner has no desire to crack them out to attempt an upgrade. Every coin needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[BKW]

this whole discussion reinforces the premise that

if a coin is in an older holder, and is stable,

it should be left there

unless there is a good reason

and realizing that there are risks involved

Yes sir!

 

What percentage of old holders (old NGC no line "fatties" and "rattler" PCGS holders) would you estimate to be undergraded? Does this percentage differ greatly from that of current generation holders (i.e. statistically significant difference)? Is there actually any truth or is this mainly a marketing ploy?

 

Many undergraded coins in the older NGC no line fatties and older PCGS rattlers and OGH slabs have been cracked out and reslabbed in newer slabs. Many other undergraded coins in older slabs are still in collections where the owner has no desire to crack them out to attempt an upgrade. Every coin needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

 

Yup, totally agree with you guys. Each person’s collecting/investing needs and life situation also factor into the equation.

 

For example, I have a fully red IHC graded MS 66 with amazing luster in an old, no line NGC holder from the early 90s. It’s a top pop at CAC and I think it could go MS 67 RD. And, if I bought the coin to flip, I would send it for re-grading. But, since I bought it to collect, I have no plans to crack it or re-holder it because it’s stable and has been very well preserved in its current slab for 20 years.

 

Now, if I lost my job or had some unexpected expenses, etc. and needed to sell part of my collection, I would probably go for the re-grade since the price point between a 66 and 67 IHC is significant.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Most of the older design type of slabs that I have, I have had for quite some time. Others, I have paid a small premium for in auctions because they were conservatively graded.

 

My issue is pictures. Many of the coins in my collection really need decent pictures taken of them.