Banned from PCGS

[mrstock]

Thanks Idhair

[WoodenJefferson]

I guess this makes you ineligible to win the MS65 $20 St. Gaudens then, huh?

[mkman123]

post pics of your coins !

[PerryHall]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

[Walkerfan]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

 

I wondered the SAME THING!

[MJ]

Welcome, you joined here just in time! There is a Pancake social this Tuesday at 8:00pm. See you there!

 

MJ

[jerseycat10]

Could someone link to his offending post ATS?

 

My MacBook is incompatible with the archaic search feature the forums ATS employ.

[messydesk]

Usually, posts that cause a bamming are themselves bammed. The search feature doesn't work with most browsers anymore. They need to update their forum software.

[jom]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

 

I wondered the SAME THING!

 

I don't. I don't give a damn what they think or do. If you could apply "acting like a 3 year old" to a business entity the best example is PCGS, IMO.

 

jom

[e1cnr]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

 

 

Yes, but who cares. . Look what I found from FTC ->

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 17, 1990

 

 

FTC CHARGES COIN CERTIFICATION CO. MISREPRESENTS

OBJECTIVITY OF ITS COIN GRADING SERVICES;

COMPANY AGREES TO SETTLEMENT

 

 

The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Professional

Coin Grading Service, Inc. ("PCGS") misled consumers by falsely

claiming that it provides consistent, objective grading of coins

and that investment in PCGS-certified rare coins eliminates all

the risk associated with the grading of coins. Under a consent

decree filed August 16 in federal district court, PCGS is prohibit-

ed from making false representations about its objectivity, con-

sistency, or the liquidity of its coins, and from making deceptive

statements about the risks of investing in graded coins.

 

According to the FTC's Boston Regional Office, which handled

the investigation, PCGS was formed in August 1985 by seven promi-

nent rare coin dealers for the purpose of providing a consistent,

impartial, "certified" coin grading service upon which purchasers

and sellers of rare coins could depend. For a fee of approximately

$25 to $100 per coin, PCGS claimed that a coin would be impartially

and accurately graded by several of "the world's top grading

experts."

 

According to the complaint accompanying the consent decree,

PCGS falsely represented that its grading system is objective, con-

sistent, and unbiased; that an investment in PCGS coins eliminates

the risk associated with the grading of coins; that its coins can

be liquidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices; and that

it observes a "strict anti-self interest policy."

 

In fact, the complaint charges, PCGS has not provided object-

ive or consistent grading, and coin grading involves a certain

amount of subjectivity. Not all PCGS-certified coins can be li-

quidated easily at reasonable, competitive prices, according to

the complaint, and PCGS does not in all cases observe its "strict

anti-self interest policy." In addition, the complaint charges,

investment in PCGS-certified coins does not eliminate all the risk

associated with the grading of coins.

 

(More)

 

Under the terms of the consent decree, PCGS is subject to num-

erous prohibitions and requirements. PCGS is prohibited from mis-

representing that its grading is objective, consistent or unbiased,

or that an investment in PCGS-certified coins eliminates all risks

associated with the grading of coins. PCGS is also prohibited from

misrepresenting that PCGS-certified coins are liquid at reasonable,

competitive prices.

 

In addition, for a period of two years, PCGS must disclose in

all of its advertising and promotional material that "Certification

by PCGS does not guarantee protection against the normal risks

associated with potentially volatile markets." The decree further

requires that any claims about the safety or security of an invest-

ment in PCGS-certified coins be accompanied by a clear and conspic-

uous disclosure that the rare coin market is highly speculative and

subject to risk. PCGS must also clarify its liquidity claims with

a disclosure that the degree of liquidity, and the availability of

markets for certain coins, will vary from time to time.

 

The complaint and consent decree were filed in the U.S. Dis-

trict Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Professional Coin Grading Service, Inc. is based in Santa Ana,

Calif.

 

A consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not

constitute admission of a law violation. Consent decrees have the

force of law.

 

Copies of the complaint and consent decree are available from

the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th St. and Pennsyl-

vania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY 202-

326-2502.

 

# # #

 

MEDIA CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2180

 

STAFF CONTACT: Phoebe D. Morse, Boston Regional Office,

617-565-7240

 

 

(Civil Action No. 90-1982)

 

 

(PCGS)

 

 

[ldhair]

John is right. The thread is probably gone. They remove a lot of threads that criticize different things, including NGC.

 

It's also not unusual for several folks in the same thread to get bammed at the same time. Anyone that broke a rule is in trouble.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

. They remove a lot of threads that criticize different things, including NGC.

 

I'm surprised to hear this. There is a lot of NGC bashing that goes on over there, and the threads aren't removed. If PCGS was serious about this, I can think of at least three posters that wouldn't be there today.

[dimefreak]

[nunfa0]

I will be spending more time here now that PCGS banned me from their boards. They cant stand a little criticism. So be it. I know many more knowledgable people than me have also been banned and are now over here. I look forward to reading all the posts and even contributing a bit.

 

Welcome to the boards!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why for profit companies feel the need to silence people is just beyond comprehension.

 

They create such bad blood, they make any situation they were trying to squash 10 times worse.

 

What short sightedness.

 

[AnkurJ]

The actions he has made and continues to make to protect his company from message board comments will only fuel the fire for them.

[Kurtdog]

Well, I'm glad that you've decided to join us. You're welcome to pull up a rocking chair on the veranda with the rest of the group, sip some Hawaiian Punch and munch on Doritos while we watch the world go by.

 

You'll find that NGC is very tolerant of criticism, and will rarely ever say or do anything about it. I think it's pretty smart of them because it is some of the best feedback they will ever get.

 

Chris

Chris, what kind of host are you? How about a little something in that punch?

[James_OldeTowne]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

I wondered the SAME THING!

Don has stated that PCGS DOES monitor the NGC boards, and it was implied that statements here can affect someone's status ATS.

[cpm9ball]

Well, I'm glad that you've decided to join us. You're welcome to pull up a rocking chair on the veranda with the rest of the group, sip some Hawaiian Punch and munch on Doritos while we watch the world go by.

 

You'll find that NGC is very tolerant of criticism, and will rarely ever say or do anything about it. I think it's pretty smart of them because it is some of the best feedback they will ever get.

 

Chris

Chris, what kind of host are you? How about a little something in that punch?

 

Sorry, but the veranda get-together is BYOB.

 

Chris

[bsshog40]

Welcome mrstock. Hope you enjoy yourself over here. NGC has shown that they can put up with criticism much better than ATS.

[EXOJUNKIE]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

I wondered the SAME THING!

Don has stated that PCGS DOES monitor the NGC boards, and it was implied that statements here can affect someone's status ATS.

 

Good grief....

[JStull]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

I wondered the SAME THING!

Don has stated that PCGS DOES monitor the NGC boards, and it was implied that statements here can affect someone's status ATS.

 

Which is why it's best to have a moniker here, and a different one for ATS

[Conder101]

Ever wonder if Wiilis reads the posts here and bans people on the PCGS coin forum for what they say here that's critical of PCGS?

I don't know if Willis reads the posts here but PCGS does monitor the threads here and yes people have been banned there for things they say here.

 

I don't know if the rules have been reworded, but when I was banned one of them actually said that you could not criticize PCGS in any way! That would make disagreeing with a grade a bannable offense!

[RWB]

NGC and PCGS read each other's message boards, plus the other hobby boards. That is only good business practice and can occasionally produce helpful insights. Of course, if the person reading for a company is defensive and insecure, they can easily understand honest complaint as personal – when it might really be a great opportunity to improve.

[RigoAmador-migration]

Happens all the time.

[Kurtdog]

NGC and PCGS read each other's message boards, plus the other hobby boards. That is only good business practice and can occasionally produce helpful insights. Of course, if the person reading for a company is defensive and insecure, they can easily understand honest complaint as personal – when it might really be a great opportunity to improve.

If you're talking about ATS, improve on what? They've got more dealers and customers on those boards than they know what to do with. Something's working right over there.

[RWB]

Every organization can be improved...even if they think they are perfect.

[delta]

Very many thanks to "e1cnr" for posting the 1990 consent agreement in which PCGS agreed to refrain from deceptive claims regarding grading.

 

Our complaints about PCGS in this thread have mostly referred to the atrocious and outrageous methods employed in moderating their forum. However, if we wish to also mention grading, there's a recent scandal involving PCGS that dwarfs the 1990 situation, a scandal I'll outline below.

 

It should be understood I'm not saying PCGS is not a wonderful grading company, it definitely is, along with my favorite, NGC, and perhaps to a lesser extent several others. Numismatists are enormously indebted to the TPGs.

 

But the reputation of PCGS is weakened by their prominent use of the phony first strike designation on labels, and by their unfortunate inability to solve the frequent formation of white spots on silver coins in their slabs. However, the recent grading scandal at PCGS was in my opinion the worst blow against them, and has never been apologized for. In briefly describing it here, I'm only presenting factual details.

 

It regards the 2011 five-coin 25th anniversary set of American silver eagles. The bulk first-strike submitters from major customers who quickly sent in hundreds of sets got sweetheart grading, with a preponderance of 70s. However, ordinary submitters who only had a few sets, usually ten or less, whether or not labeled first strike, were very badly downgraded, a discrepancy of scandalous proportions. Since all sets had to be sent in sealed, the evidence seems to indicate there was flagrant grading favoritism. This might not be the best place to discuss the consequences of that, is it?

 

 

[PerryHall]

Very many thanks to "e1cnr" for posting the 1990 consent agreement in which PCGS agreed to refrain from deceptive claims regarding grading.

 

Our complaints about PCGS in this thread have mostly referred to the atrocious and outrageous methods employed in moderating their forum. However, if we wish to also mention grading, there's a recent scandal involving PCGS that dwarfs the 1990 situation, a scandal I'll outline below.

 

It should be understood I'm not saying PCGS is not a wonderful grading company, it definitely is, along with my favorite, NGC, and perhaps to a lesser extent several others. Numismatists are enormously indebted to the TPGs.

 

But the reputation of PCGS is weakened by their prominent use of the phony first strike designation on labels, and by their unfortunate inability to solve the frequent formation of white spots on silver coins in their slabs. However, the recent grading scandal at PCGS was in my opinion the worst blow against them, and has never been apologized for. In briefly describing it here, I'm only presenting factual details.

 

It regards the 2011 five-coin 25th anniversary set of American silver eagles. The bulk first-strike submitters from major customers who quickly sent in hundreds of sets got sweetheart grading, with a preponderance of 70s. However, ordinary submitters who only had a few sets, usually ten or less, whether or not labeled first strike, were very badly downgraded, a discrepancy of scandalous proportions. Since all sets had to be sent in sealed, the evidence seems to indicate there was flagrant grading favoritism. This might not be the best place to discuss the consequences of that, is it?

 

 

I find your accusations hard to believe. Do you have proof or are you just repeating a rumor?

 

 

[johnny9434]

welcome to the boards. it must be that time again for the ones ats. oh well, move on