Banned from PCGS

[jom]

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?

 

 

Well, I'm not sure I find it hard to believe as there as many dealers over the years have claimed "favoritism" in one form or another.

 

However, I don't think there are really any "facts" at all in this case...or at least I highly doubt it.

 

One thing though this "first strke/sealed box" thing is a joke. I know of several people who DID open their box (for whatever reason), resealed it then sent it in for this type of grading. I'm pretty sure "first strike" is rather meaningless...but whatever.

 

jom

[messydesk]

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.

I'm going to set aside my distaste for 69/70 hair splitting and silly promotional labels for the moment and suggest that the difference in grading workflow between bulk and non-bulk submissions, and not some secret sweetheart grading scandal, may account for some of this discrepancy.

 

If I were a grading service offering an inexpensive, bulk submission, I'd need to reduce my costs of handling those submissions, which means lower paid or less experienced graders working bulk. I may also limit the number of people who see a coin and raise the coins per hour throughput requirement. After all, we're talking about a deluge of thousands of the same coin within a week or two. Meanwhile, a smaller number of sets are trickling through at the normal modern submission level, and are going through the hands of graders who are also grading other coins and have eyes that aren't numb from seeing the same coin for hours on end. They may also be slightly more experienced graders. It would not be surprising to me to see different results coming from the two groups of graders.

 

The question becomes on of how to guarantee that one group of graders grades the same as another group when the levels of experience and fatigue are different between the two groups? If I could guarantee that, why would I want to pay the experienced graders more? What would it even mean to be an experienced grader, other than simply time on the job? If the answer is to acknowledge the difference in grading abilities among graders and have only the most experienced working in all levels of the operation, it wouldn't be possible to make any money on a discounted bulk submission program. Tough problem to solve. Maybe have experienced graders spot-check the bulk submissions before they go into holders, since you can't tell a coin is a 70 once it's holdered.

 

One solution might be to try and guess the population ratio of 69s to 70s that would be necessary to make the valuation difference be less than the cost of resubmitting it for a downgrade review. The risk here is that people in the marketplace will figure this out by inspecting the coins and finding no correlation between grade and quality at that level. Then you lose a ton of credibility. Not a good idea. (Question for another day: Do people scrutinize between these grades once coins have been graded, or do they blindly buy one grade or the other, enter the coin in their registry set, and move on?)

 

I think the best solution is for the mint to make sure that there's a small nick on the reeding of every coin they produce that would disqualify it from receiving a 70. People returning coins for a perfect replacement would never get one. The nick wouldn't be enough to make a 69 into a 68, so there'd be more than enough 69s to meet demand. The TPGs could continue offering promotional labels, which I'm convinced helps keep the prices of other services from climbing as fast as they otherwise might.

 

I submitted a box of 5 20th Anniv. ASE sets ATS last year through the modern submission, paid a $0 premium for the rare plain Jane label, and 9/25 coins graded 70. This was pretty much in line with what I heard from a couple dealers I spoke with about this series -- 30-40%.

[revoldlog-migration]

I gave most of my grading business to NGC because of the unfair grading over there.

I also don't like the 0 tolerance mentality there.

They should man up and take criticism seriously and improve their service rather than banning people from voicing their opinion.

 

Oh, maybe they will ban me from posting there because of this post

[mrstock]

Thanks for all the welcomes guys. Its gonna be fun. Today was the first day I clicked on the NGC forums before the PCGS forums. Maybe its because I can POST!

[James_OldeTowne]

Thanks for all the welcomes guys. Its gonna be fun. Today was the first day I clicked on the NGC forums before the PCGS forums. Maybe its because I can POST!

So... enough small talk... what coins do you enjoy?

[JIM F.]

Oh my. I guess we better not talk about SEGS and other TPG's less we want them to ban us too.

 

 

[delta]

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

 

Hi Perry, I agree it sounds hard to believe. The evidence is really indisputable, it is embodied in the population reports from during the first few months of grading, which can be broken down by date, and then also by first strike versus non-first strike. Bulk submitters got their coins graded quickest, they were all first strikes, and they were getting grades of 70 around 70% of the time. Later submitters, and especially those who didn't want to pay the extra $18 per coin for first strike labels were getting grades of 70 at around half that percentage. There were plenty of complaints on the forums from collectors who had bought a 5-set package of ASEs from the US mint, and after PCGS grading failed to get even a single set of 70s, while several bulk customers were awash in sets of 70s, and they were abundant on ebay, Teletrade, etc. The discrepancy was absolutely enormous, and remember all those sets had to be submitted inside a mint-sealed shipping box in order to be eligible for a 25th anniversary set label, so there was no possible pre-screening. It isn't a rumor, I saw the population reports, and some of the complaints.

[TomB]

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

 

Hi Perry, I agree it sounds hard to believe. The evidence is really indisputable, it is embodied in the population reports from during the first few months of grading, which can be broken down by date, and then also by first strike versus non-first strike. Bulk submitters got their coins graded quickest, they were all first strikes, and they were getting grades of 70 around 70% of the time. Later submitters, and especially those who didn't want to pay the extra $18 per coin for first strike labels were getting grades of 70 at around half that percentage. There were plenty of complaints on the forums from collectors who had bought a 5-set package of ASEs from the US mint, and after PCGS grading failed to get even a single set of 70s, while several bulk customers were awash in sets of 70s, and they were abundant on ebay, Teletrade, etc. The discrepancy was absolutely enormous, and remember all those sets had to be submitted inside a mint-sealed shipping box in order to be eligible for a 25th anniversary set label, so there was no possible pre-screening. It isn't a rumor, I saw the population reports, and some of the complaints.

 

There is also another possible interpretation for the above data. If you send in enough coins to be considered a bulk submitter, PCGS (and NGC, too, I believe) will allow you to declare a minimum grade to have a coin encapsulated. If the coin makes the minimum grade then you are charged a full grading fee and the coin is encapsulated, but if it fails the minimum grade then you are charged a slightly lower fee and the coin is returned raw. Those pieces that fail the minimum grade are not counted in the population reports whereas those that pass the minimum are counted. Therefore, if a bulk submitter asked PCGS to only certify the coins grading 70 and to return all others raw then the population reports from the early bulk submitters would be skewed heavily toward the 70 grade. It makes sense for these bulk submitters to request only coins grading 70 to be certified since all the others that fail can be packaged as raw sets and sold as "fresh" and "unpicked".

[messydesk]

You can't specify 70 as a minimum grade for bulk.

[coinman_23885]

Also, not to get off topic, how did Don Willis get to replace David Hall as President of PCGS/Collector's Universe? I have always wondered this. This isn't meant as a snide remark, but a legitimate curiosity.

[coinman_23885]

Obviously PCGS owns and operates their message boards, so they can do what they want; however, I hope the stock holders and corporate board do acknowledge that a President's mentality and public relations interactions do largely reflect on their company. I don't think Don Willis is a good public image for PCGS, although I find him comical. His "rules" post reminds me of this Andy Griffith Show

for some reason.

 

Rule 1) This is not a public forum. This is a PCGS forum paid for by PCGS and provided for PCGS customers to exchange information regarding collecting US coins. We make the rules this is not a democracy.

 

Rule 2) Anyone posting crude or vulgar pictures or language will no longer be allowed to post. No more warnings.

 

Rule 3) Anyone attacking another poster or making disparaging personal remarks will no longer be allowed to post. No more warnings.

 

Rule 4) Anyone making libelous remarks concerning any individual, any company, or any other entity will no longer be allowed to post. No more warnings.

 

Rule 5) If you have nothing to contribute to an OP then do not post. Snide remarks and other negative comments will result in your losing your ability to post. No more warnings.

 

Rule 6) This forum is about US Coins. If your post is not directly related to US Coins then this is the wrong forum. Do not post it or your posting privileges may be removed.

 

Rule 7) This is a PCGS forum. Posts promoting or bashing other grading companies or service are not allowed. Those posts will be removed and your posting privileges may be removed as well.

 

Rule 8) This forum is provided for the education and sharing of information. Not as a personal soapbox. If you want to learn and share information about US Coins you are welcome.

 

Rule 9) Your signature may contain multiple images and/or links but must be limited to a single line. If you would like additional advertising space on this site please contact our Advertising Department. Violators will have their posting privileges removed.

 

Rule 10) If you don't like any of the rules outlined above see Rule 1.

 

 

P.S. I think many of the rules are legitimate; it's the unspoken rules that I don't quite get.

[AnkurJ]

The one rule that isn't listed there is:

 

I can ban anyone for any reason at any time that I feel suitable and have no need to explain why.

[Kurtdog]

excerpt

[delta]

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

 

Hi Perry, I agree it sounds hard to believe. The evidence is really indisputable, it is embodied in the population reports from during the first few months of grading, which can be broken down by date, and then also by first strike versus non-first strike. Bulk submitters got their coins graded quickest, they were all first strikes, and they were getting grades of 70 around 70% of the time. Later submitters, and especially those who didn't want to pay the extra $18 per coin for first strike labels were getting grades of 70 at around half that percentage. There were plenty of complaints on the forums from collectors who had bought a 5-set package of ASEs from the US mint, and after PCGS grading failed to get even a single set of 70s, while several bulk customers were awash in sets of 70s, and they were abundant on ebay, Teletrade, etc. The discrepancy was absolutely enormous, and remember all those sets had to be submitted inside a mint-sealed shipping box in order to be eligible for a 25th anniversary set label, so there was no possible pre-screening. It isn't a rumor, I saw the population reports, and some of the complaints.

 

There is also another possible interpretation for the above data. If you send in enough coins to be considered a bulk submitter, PCGS (and NGC, too, I believe) will allow you to declare a minimum grade to have a coin encapsulated. If the coin makes the minimum grade then you are charged a full grading fee and the coin is encapsulated, but if it fails the minimum grade then you are charged a slightly lower fee and the coin is returned raw. Those pieces that fail the minimum grade are not counted in the population reports whereas those that pass the minimum are counted. Therefore, if a bulk submitter asked PCGS to only certify the coins grading 70 and to return all others raw then the population reports from the early bulk submitters would be skewed heavily toward the 70 grade. It makes sense for these bulk submitters to request only coins grading 70 to be certified since all the others that fail can be packaged as raw sets and sold as "fresh" and "unpicked".

 

Hi Tom, Yup, that could have been a plausible explanation, except not in this particular case, because first of all it was announced that bulk grading with minimums was not allowed with this set. Also, any sets no longer in an original unopened US mint shipping container could not really be peddled as fresh unpicked raw sets. Since two of the five coins in the set were separately available from the mint or on the secondary market, only sealed sets were allowed to be given the 25th anniversary set designation.

[Kurtdog]

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.

 

Actually on one level of awareness I'm inclined to agree. But let's raise our level of awareness. Just for a moment. We can always go back.

 

Why do you think every time there's a movement over there to close down the membership to paid members only it gets shot down by the big brains? It's a marketing tool. It's as simple as that. Their whole bag over there is to brainwash (oh, I'm sorry, "influence;" oh, sorry, again, "market") as many customers (oh, sorry, "members") as they can over to their way of collecting coins. Those forums are how they do that, in the first instance. They're scared to death to restrict their membership over there as they rightly see that as stunting their growth. They start doing that, they're going to start losing their big dealers, there, too, who feed on that ever-growing customer base. That's why those big dealers are there, and are rarely, if ever, here.

 

I think they know exactly what they're doing over there, and I think they do it better than anybody around. Some of us here just have a big blind-spot when it comes to that. For every thinking member over there who upsets their marketing strategy that they ban they recruit countless other new members to take that member's place. One going, ten coming. That's the math they're looking at. That's why they're successful, and will continue to be successful.

 

In my most humble opinion. How's that?

[delta]

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.

I'm going to set aside my distaste for 69/70 hair splitting and silly promotional labels for the moment and suggest that the difference in grading workflow between bulk and non-bulk submissions, and not some secret sweetheart grading scandal, may account for some of this discrepancy.

 

If I were a grading service offering an inexpensive, bulk submission, I'd need to reduce my costs of handling those submissions, which means lower paid or less experienced graders working bulk. I may also limit the number of people who see a coin and raise the coins per hour throughput requirement. After all, we're talking about a deluge of thousands of the same coin within a week or two. Meanwhile, a smaller number of sets are trickling through at the normal modern submission level, and are going through the hands of graders who are also grading other coins and have eyes that aren't numb from seeing the same coin for hours on end. They may also be slightly more experienced graders. It would not be surprising to me to see different results coming from the two groups of graders.

 

The question becomes on of how to guarantee that one group of graders grades the same as another group when the levels of experience and fatigue are different between the two groups? If I could guarantee that, why would I want to pay the experienced graders more? What would it even mean to be an experienced grader, other than simply time on the job? If the answer is to acknowledge the difference in grading abilities among graders and have only the most experienced working in all levels of the operation, it wouldn't be possible to make any money on a discounted bulk submission program. Tough problem to solve. Maybe have experienced graders spot-check the bulk submissions before they go into holders, since you can't tell a coin is a 70 once it's holdered.

 

One solution might be to try and guess the population ratio of 69s to 70s that would be necessary to make the valuation difference be less than the cost of resubmitting it for a downgrade review. The risk here is that people in the marketplace will figure this out by inspecting the coins and finding no correlation between grade and quality at that level. Then you lose a ton of credibility. Not a good idea. (Question for another day: Do people scrutinize between these grades once coins have been graded, or do they blindly buy one grade or the other, enter the coin in their registry set, and move on?)

 

I think the best solution is for the mint to make sure that there's a small nick on the reeding of every coin they produce that would disqualify it from receiving a 70. People returning coins for a perfect replacement would never get one. The nick wouldn't be enough to make a 69 into a 68, so there'd be more than enough 69s to meet demand. The TPGs could continue offering promotional labels, which I'm convinced helps keep the prices of other services from climbing as fast as they otherwise might.

 

I submitted a box of 5 20th Anniv. ASE sets ATS last year through the modern submission, paid a $0 premium for the rare plain Jane label, and 9/25 coins graded 70. This was pretty much in line with what I heard from a couple dealers I spoke with about this series -- 30-40%.

 

Hi MessyDesk, No doubt you are quite correct there are differences in bulk grading and normal grading. However, the persons in supervision must certainly know all about that, and the results cannot be happenstance. By circumstantial evidence, that being the glaring discrepancy in results, we can assume the psychology of grading in the bulk department is slanted to favor the bulk submitters, who incidentally are already the long-time personal friends and business intimates of the major stockholders and corporate officers who control the process. Scandalous!

[EXOJUNKIE]

excerpt

 

+1

Hilarious!

[lcoopie]

perhaps the tone is quieter here since no one wants to get a double bam

except in mahjong

[Walkerfan]

perhaps the tone is quieter here since no one wants to get a double bam

except in mahjong

 

 

So true.....there's alot of refugees over here!

[lcoopie]

where would you go from here?

the anacs board?

[Walkerfan]

where would you go from here?

the anacs board?

 

They'd throw you in the SHU for incorrigible coin chat board members.....

[lcoopie]

[rrantique]

Welcome

[crypto79-migration]

Word on the street that MUMU Errrrr PeaceMonkey will be joining you soon.... Wait he was all ready here.

 

I commend the OP, he was told he wasn't welcome and moved on be it fair or not. On the other hand I will never understand Alt's, I think it is pretty sad to try and lie to get back somewhere that doesn't want you.

 

[Conder101]

On the other hand I will never understand Alt's, I think it is pretty sad to try and lie to get back somewhere that doesn't want you.

I did it because as I read the threads there were so many new people asking questions and either being ignored, or given incorrect or incomplete information. I created the alt so I could help those people. Lasted for about a year until I made the mistake of mentioning over here that I had and al. Didn't say what it was but within less than four hours it had been tracked down and banned. Apparently I must be a pretty dangerous person to require that kind of rush behavior.

[dimefreak]

Word on the street that MUMU Errrrr PeaceMonkey will be joining you soon.... Wait he was all ready here.

 

I commend the OP, he was told he wasn't welcome and moved on be it fair or not. On the other hand I will never understand Alt's, I think it is pretty sad to try and lie to get back somewhere that doesn't want you.

 

All I ask is Don dont bam you. I'd prolly get banned over here if you became a regular. What a sorry excuse.......

[WinstonWare]

Word on the street that MUMU Errrrr PeaceMonkey will be joining you soon.... Wait he was all ready here.

 

I commend the OP, he was told he wasn't welcome and moved on be it fair or not. On the other hand I will never understand Alt's, I think it is pretty sad to try and lie to get back somewhere that doesn't want you.

 

They don’t want anyone. I was convinced for years that coin collectors would abandon the PCGS boards for content censorship and rude moderation. Now, I’m sure the posting rules could read “spoon-off” and people would continue to post there and pretend like they were being treated well.

[crypto79-migration]

To be fair this board owes quite a bit to PCGS in terms of overall traffic with their bannings. But when you look at the influx of new members with only a few exceptions (RWB and Coinguy1) the old adage of Quantity Vs Quality still applies.

 

Mind you, I am talking about the people forced over not the community as a whole... for the most part

[dimefreak]

To be fair this board owes quite a bit to PCGS in terms of overall traffic with their banning. But when you look at the influx of new members with only a few exceptions (RWB and Coinguy1) the old adage of Quantity Vs Quality still applies.

 

Mind you, I am talking about the people forced over not the community as a whole... for the most part

 

Nobody was forced over here. You really think PCGS forum is some type of super exclusive club dont you?

[crypto79-migration]

To be fair this board owes quite a bit to PCGS in terms of overall traffic with their banning. But when you look at the influx of new members with only a few exceptions (RWB and Coinguy1) the old adage of Quantity Vs Quality still applies.

 

Mind you, I am talking about the people forced over not the community as a whole... for the most part

 

Nobody was forced over here. You really think PCGS forum is some type of super exclusive club dont you?

 

Not at all, merely one with a lower tolerance for stupidity. Both forums have their merits and target demographics and of course there is overlap. That said there does seem to me IMHO to be a larger group of fan boys who participate on one location over the other. Many top shelf poster post in multiple locations and at their best, nothing separates the two it is the bottom of the totem pole that the two differentiates.