NGC or PCGS

[brg5658]

For the record, I never once called anyone a name. On the contrary, Bruce/TDN (instead of answering my serious questions to him) on more than one occasion was dismissive and called me (and others -- including posters in general here on the NGC boards) names. Of course, I'm perceived as the "bad guy" here because I have the gall to ask someone with the "credentials" of TDN to answer a few questions or to clarify his point.

 

Let's not forget, in TDN's very first post back on page 4 in this thread he stated "Because PCGS coins sell for more, it is practically certain that any significant NGC coin has been tried for crossover multiple times before you ever have the chance to buy it. Unless you know the source and the history, you have to presume such."

 

I asked him to define "significant" because I simply don't believe the statement to be true for coins below a certain (arbitrary) value of say $2K. In his normal "helpful" style he told me to believe whatever I liked (i.e., he was dismissive). If he is so in the know (which I don't doubt he is), then he's certainly holding that information close to his chest for some reason.

 

I also have general issues with the lack of objectivity of someone who has huge financial interests in the companies he so vehemently defends. The PCGS vs.NGC (incessant bickering) really is a religous experience for some people. And based on the the comments from TDN about how I don't understand the industry, the dealer's perspective, etc. -- quite frankly those are politics and marketing to me -- I guess for some the perception of quality is more important than the reality.

 

I collect coins, not for investment reasons or for some bragging rights that I own a $10M coin. It's a hobby for me, an enjoyable get-away from work, and a dive into history and art. Accordingly, I collect mostly dark-side coins, and I don't have to deal with all of the bizarre politics and car-salesman-pitch garbage that seems to go along with collecting high end US coinage.

 

To each his/her own.

[Walkerfan]

For the record, I never once called anyone a name. On the contrary, Bruce/TDN (instead of answering my serious questions to him) on more than one occasion was dismissive and called me (and others -- including posters in general here on the NGC boards) names. Of course, I'm perceived as the "bad guy" here because I have the gall to ask someone with the "credentials" of TDN to answer a few questions or to clarify his point.

 

Let's not forget, in TDN's very first post back on page 4 in this thread he stated "Because PCGS coins sell for more, it is practically certain that any significant NGC coin has been tried for crossover multiple times before you ever have the chance to buy it. Unless you know the source and the history, you have to presume such."

 

I asked him to define "significant" because I simply don't believe the statement to be true for coins below a certain (arbitrary) value of say $2K. In his normal "helpful" style he told me to believe whatever I liked (i.e., he was dismissive). If he is so in the know (which I don't doubt he is), then he's certainly holding that information close to his chest for some reason.

 

I also have general issues with the lack of objectivity of someone who has huge financial interests in the companies he so vehemently defends. The PCGS vs.NGC (incessant bickering) really is a religous experience for some people. And based on the the comments from TDN about how I don't understand the industry, the dealer's perspective, etc. -- quite frankly those are politics and marketing to me -- I guess for some the perception of quality is more important than the reality.

 

I collect coins, not for investment reasons or for some bragging rights that I own a $10M coin. It's a hobby for me, an enjoyable get-away from work, and a dive into history and art. Accordingly, I collect mostly dark-side coins, and I don't have to deal with all of the bizarre politics and car-salesman-pitch garbage that seems to go along with collecting high end US coinage.

 

To each his/her own.

 

Brandon--Just for the record; I don't think that you are the bad guy.

[O mint bug]

Well said. I read DWs 2nd edition on New Orleans gold twice. A great book for the collector. O mints or other mint mark collectors.

 

Very informative and industry reading. Which the few DEs I own could tell their story and some of the more interesting things they purchased. I sure don't like the prices and wish a couple of hoards with the 54 and 56 O would be found but given the mintage I am not at all optimistic. They are it what I have wanted to acquire some good examples of for decades.

 

I post the topic and look how it deviated in just 13 pages of responses. There are far more 'experts" out there than I thought. Just wish they answered the question of passed on the topic. This forum is for learning and sharing a nice coin or two and nothing else.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

from mixed NGC/PCGS to primarily PCGS/CAC

 

Just curious... if you dont care for NGC's grading and have made it a policy that your dealership is primarily a PCGS house why do you come to these boards to post - especially if you dont particularly like how you are treated ?

 

Why not just limit your posting to ATS ?

 

NGC's grading for the most part is fine - they grade to their own standard and most of the bell curve of that standard [with a few exceptions in the high end] overlaps most of the bell curve of PCGS's. What skews the AVAILABLE coins in NGC holders is the market dynamics of the crossover game. If ya all can't see that or choose to ignore it then that's fine - I don't need the insults from the yahoos in this place.

 

I have Registry Sets here and have posted here far longer than the majority of posters on this board. If a few of ya all choose to have a small guy attitude and a chip on your shoulder then you can just not get passed on valuable experience acquired over many years. So be it.

 

Besides, if you knew one of the real reasons that CAC was started, half of you would have a brain seizure and never recover. It just doesn't fit with your myopic view of the numismatic world.

 

As far as the prevailing view of some that this is a far more civil and upstanding board than ATS - bull .

 

CAC was started as a marketing scheme. That being a method to create an idealized concept of a TPG grade. The concept of A, B, C levels within a specific grade was "created" by CAC. Yes, dealers for years have exploited differences within an assigned TPG grade. The general idea of low for the grade and high for the grade was well known. Informed collectors are aware that equally graded TPG coins differed in quality and the open market clearly reflected the differences. CAC has attempted to quantify the differences by assigning "beans" and become the reference point for collectors.

 

You refer to market dynamics, I refer to market scheme. CAC, is simply making their own market. You can buy the sticker or buy the coin. CAC/PCGS created the market dynamics. Just make sure you buy a CAC coin.

 

You are a coin investor masquerading as a collector. You seek to maximize profits which is good business. That is why you expound the CAC/PCGS connection, it is to your financial benefit. No worries, it's not numismatics, it's a business model and profits are the primary reason to be in business.

 

Just quit trying to sell the collector angle, it's very transparent.

 

As far as your other comments regarding this forum and NGC in general, I will be honored to be included on your ignored list.

 

Carl

 

Disclaimer: I have never met Mr. TDN.

I have never met Mr. Feld.

I am only known to a very few on these Boards.

I am not important, rich, poor, or any other disqualifying description that would lend any air of importance to anything I say.

I do not have any connection with NGC or PCGS or a preferance of any nature for one over the other.

 

So:

 

I understand the description of CAC being used.

 

I, for one, would not call the formation of CAC a scheme. It carries an underhanded connotation, and that is not the purpose of the formation, as I remember. Was it hopefully going to be a profit center for the participants? Of course, but at its heart was doing a heck of a lot of good at the same time. What more could someone ask for of an entity? Were the participants supposed to give all their investment time and energy for no return? Of course not. Everyone here is benefitting from capitalist undertakings. CAC is no different. That is not the definition of an evil and greedy group of people.

 

As I recall, and I will admit to being a little old, there was not any subterfuge or scheming in the formation. The principals openly announced the idea, and invited various thoughts from the collecting community. There was (and probably still exists) a very, very long and interesting Thread ATS during the time it was being formed, and questions were answered freely, to the extent that the business plan could be discussed without being self injurious. I only recall a few derisive individuals who were not courteous and were indeed disruptive. My favorite person in that category was a Mr. Pharmer . That did not deter open dicussion and Mr. TDN readily participated, as did Mr. Feld, and a number of others that I recognize that post here. The logic posits were discussed to the point of sleepiness, but at no time was there even a close majority against the idea, and consideration of respect and support for the idea was prevalent, in large part due to the individuals that would be involved. The subject of getting it wrong from time to time was even discussed.

 

In my limited world and view, I have not seen or experienced a shift from the original presentation and intent of CAC discussed at the time. There was good natured ribbing about the letters CAC, with some very amusing suggestions, but these were in jest and understood to be so.

 

We all have a tendency to use phrases that are less than ideal, regardless of economic status. I don't think that is a reason to ignore advice that comes from hands on experience, and certainly not do so by being caustic and dismissive.

 

We have all walked into a bar and seen someone that caused us to have a vibe that set us on edge. Fine. that is human. But (blah, blah) 9 out of 10 times we sooner or later discover that the person would be one of the first to come to our aid.

 

I suspect that is the same here.

 

Why does it really matter, to the point of causing ourselves to be rude and ignore experience that can be helpful?

 

It seems to me that is like throwing the dictionary away, and preferring to use sticks on the ground to try to figure out how to spell.

 

Information is easy to come by. Good information, especially when free, not so much.

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

I realize doctoring is a art/skill that requires training and practice to become an expert in. Has technology also increased the TPG's difficulty in being able to detect it ? Hence the "sniffer" at PCGS...

 

Yeah, I asked about that on other threads....you would think we would have some spectrographic analysis that can do a metallic composition and also scan the coin for any anomalies.

 

Check out the booklet that came with the 2009 UHR and it talked about how they used Digital Technology and could scan down to 1/1,000th of a micron when designing the coins obverse/reverse. That should be able to help detect doctoring, putty, etc.

 

If that is the case, how can CAC really be able to detect AT better than NGC or PCGS since they are viewing the coin through plastic ? I would think that evaluating the coin raw would be better.

 

Great question.... (thumbs u

 

As for grade-flation - what do you mean ? TPGs grading becoming more loose ?

 

I think they are referring to the mid-1990's through early-2000's when they were more lenient, maybe subjectively in reaction to the Bubble Bursting in 1989-90 and/or gold doing nothing for an entire decade but falling gradually.

[Hard Times]

from mixed NGC/PCGS to primarily PCGS/CAC

 

Just curious... if you dont care for NGC's grading and have made it a policy that your dealership is primarily a PCGS house why do you come to these boards to post - especially if you dont particularly like how you are treated ?

 

Why not just limit your posting to ATS ?

 

NGC's grading for the most part is fine - they grade to their own standard and most of the bell curve of that standard [with a few exceptions in the high end] overlaps most of the bell curve of PCGS's. What skews the AVAILABLE coins in NGC holders is the market dynamics of the crossover game. If ya all can't see that or choose to ignore it then that's fine - I don't need the insults from the yahoos in this place.

 

I have Registry Sets here and have posted here far longer than the majority of posters on this board. If a few of ya all choose to have a small guy attitude and a chip on your shoulder then you can just not get passed on valuable experience acquired over many years. So be it.

 

Besides, if you knew one of the real reasons that CAC was started, half of you would have a brain seizure and never recover. It just doesn't fit with your myopic view of the numismatic world.

 

As far as the prevailing view of some that this is a far more civil and upstanding board than ATS - bull .

 

CAC was started as a marketing scheme. That being a method to create an idealized concept of a TPG grade. The concept of A, B, C levels within a specific grade was "created" by CAC. Yes, dealers for years have exploited differences within an assigned TPG grade. The general idea of low for the grade and high for the grade was well known. Informed collectors are aware that equally graded TPG coins differed in quality and the open market clearly reflected the differences. CAC has attempted to quantify the differences by assigning "beans" and become the reference point for collectors.

 

You refer to market dynamics, I refer to market scheme. CAC, is simply making their own market. You can buy the sticker or buy the coin. CAC/PCGS created the market dynamics. Just make sure you buy a CAC coin.

 

You are a coin investor masquerading as a collector. You seek to maximize profits which is good business. That is why you expound the CAC/PCGS connection, it is to your financial benefit. No worries, it's not numismatics, it's a business model and profits are the primary reason to be in business.

 

Just quit trying to sell the collector angle, it's very transparent.

 

As far as your other comments regarding this forum and NGC in general, I will be honored to be included on your ignored list.

 

Carl

 

Disclaimer: I have never met Mr. TDN.

I have never met Mr. Feld.

I am only known to a very few on these Boards.

I am not important, rich, poor, or any other disqualifying description that would lend any air of importance to anything I say.

I do not have any connection with NGC or PCGS or a preferance of any nature for one over the other.

 

So:

 

I understand the description of CAC being used.

 

I, for one, would not call the formation of CAC a scheme. It carries an underhanded connotation, and that is not the purpose of the formation, as I remember. Was it hopefully going to be a profit center for the participants? Of course, but at its heart was doing a heck of a lot of good at the same time. What more could someone ask for of an entity? Were the participants supposed to give all their investment time and energy for no return? Of course not. Everyone here is benefitting from capitalist undertakings. CAC is no different. That is not the definition of an evil and greedy group of people.

 

As I recall, and I will admit to being a little old, there was not any subterfuge or scheming in the formation. The principals openly announced the idea, and invited various thoughts from the collecting community. There was (and probably still exists) a very, very long and interesting Thread ATS during the time it was being formed, and questions were answered freely, to the extent that the business plan could be discussed without being self injurious. I only recall a few derisive individuals who were not courteous and were indeed disruptive. My favorite person in that category was a Mr. Pharmer . That did not deter open dicussion and Mr. TDN readily participated, as did Mr. Feld, and a number of others that I recognize that post here. The logic posits were discussed to the point of sleepiness, but at no time was there even a close majority against the idea, and consideration of respect and support for the idea was prevalent, in large part due to the individuals that would be involved. The subject of getting it wrong from time to time was even discussed.

 

In my limited world and view, I have not seen or experienced a shift from the original presentation and intent of CAC discussed at the time. There was good natured ribbing about the letters CAC, with some very amusing suggestions, but these were in jest and understood to be so.

 

We all have a tendency to use phrases that are less than ideal, regardless of economic status. I don't think that is a reason to ignore advice that comes from hands on experience, and certainly not do so by being caustic and dismissive.

 

We have all walked into a bar and seen someone that caused us to have a vibe that set us on edge. Fine. that is human. But (blah, blah) 9 out of 10 times we sooner or later discover that the person would be one of the first to come to our aid.

 

I suspect that is the same here.

 

Why does it really matter, to the point of causing ourselves to be rude and ignore experience that can be helpful?

 

It seems to me that is like throwing the dictionary away, and preferring to use sticks on the ground to try to figure out how to spell.

 

Information is easy to come by. Good information, especially when free, not so much.

 

 

Huh? Could you be a bit more succinct, I got lost somewhere between Feld and TDN.

 

Best, HT

[$ilverHawk]

from mixed NGC/PCGS to primarily PCGS/CAC

 

Just curious... if you dont care for NGC's grading and have made it a policy that your dealership is primarily a PCGS house why do you come to these boards to post - especially if you dont particularly like how you are treated ?

 

Why not just limit your posting to ATS ?

 

NGC's grading for the most part is fine - they grade to their own standard and most of the bell curve of that standard [with a few exceptions in the high end] overlaps most of the bell curve of PCGS's. What skews the AVAILABLE coins in NGC holders is the market dynamics of the crossover game. If ya all can't see that or choose to ignore it then that's fine - I don't need the insults from the yahoos in this place.

 

I have Registry Sets here and have posted here far longer than the majority of posters on this board. If a few of ya all choose to have a small guy attitude and a chip on your shoulder then you can just not get passed on valuable experience acquired over many years. So be it.

 

Besides, if you knew one of the real reasons that CAC was started, half of you would have a brain seizure and never recover. It just doesn't fit with your myopic view of the numismatic world.

 

As far as the prevailing view of some that this is a far more civil and upstanding board than ATS - bull .

 

CAC was started as a marketing scheme. That being a method to create an idealized concept of a TPG grade. The concept of A, B, C levels within a specific grade was "created" by CAC. Yes, dealers for years have exploited differences within an assigned TPG grade. The general idea of low for the grade and high for the grade was well known. Informed collectors are aware that equally graded TPG coins differed in quality and the open market clearly reflected the differences. CAC has attempted to quantify the differences by assigning "beans" and become the reference point for collectors.

 

You refer to market dynamics, I refer to market scheme. CAC, is simply making their own market. You can buy the sticker or buy the coin. CAC/PCGS created the market dynamics. Just make sure you buy a CAC coin.

 

You are a coin investor masquerading as a collector. You seek to maximize profits which is good business. That is why you expound the CAC/PCGS connection, it is to your financial benefit. No worries, it's not numismatics, it's a business model and profits are the primary reason to be in business.

 

Just quit trying to sell the collector angle, it's very transparent.

 

As far as your other comments regarding this forum and NGC in general, I will be honored to be included on your ignored list.

 

Carl

 

Disclaimer: I have never met Mr. TDN.

I have never met Mr. Feld.

I am only known to a very few on these Boards.

I am not important, rich, poor, or any other disqualifying description that would lend any air of importance to anything I say.

I do not have any connection with NGC or PCGS or a preferance of any nature for one over the other.

 

So:

 

I understand the description of CAC being used.

 

I, for one, would not call the formation of CAC a scheme. It carries an underhanded connotation, and that is not the purpose of the formation, as I remember. Was it hopefully going to be a profit center for the participants? Of course, but at its heart was doing a heck of a lot of good at the same time. What more could someone ask for of an entity? Were the participants supposed to give all their investment time and energy for no return? Of course not. Everyone here is benefitting from capitalist undertakings. CAC is no different. That is not the definition of an evil and greedy group of people.

 

As I recall, and I will admit to being a little old, there was not any subterfuge or scheming in the formation. The principals openly announced the idea, and invited various thoughts from the collecting community. There was (and probably still exists) a very, very long and interesting Thread ATS during the time it was being formed, and questions were answered freely, to the extent that the business plan could be discussed without being self injurious. I only recall a few derisive individuals who were not courteous and were indeed disruptive. My favorite person in that category was a Mr. Pharmer . That did not deter open dicussion and Mr. TDN readily participated, as did Mr. Feld, and a number of others that I recognize that post here. The logic posits were discussed to the point of sleepiness, but at no time was there even a close majority against the idea, and consideration of respect and support for the idea was prevalent, in large part due to the individuals that would be involved. The subject of getting it wrong from time to time was even discussed.

 

In my limited world and view, I have not seen or experienced a shift from the original presentation and intent of CAC discussed at the time. There was good natured ribbing about the letters CAC, with some very amusing suggestions, but these were in jest and understood to be so.

 

We all have a tendency to use phrases that are less than ideal, regardless of economic status. I don't think that is a reason to ignore advice that comes from hands on experience, and certainly not do so by being caustic and dismissive.

 

We have all walked into a bar and seen someone that caused us to have a vibe that set us on edge. Fine. that is human. But (blah, blah) 9 out of 10 times we sooner or later discover that the person would be one of the first to come to our aid.

 

I suspect that is the same here.

 

Why does it really matter, to the point of causing ourselves to be rude and ignore experience that can be helpful?

 

It seems to me that is like throwing the dictionary away, and preferring to use sticks on the ground to try to figure out how to spell.

 

Information is easy to come by. Good information, especially when free, not so much.

 

 

You apparently did not read my entire post. There was nothing "underhanded" in my use of the word "scheme". If you read my post you would see that my usage of the word "scheme" was that of a plan or program of action. I posit that CAC is making their own market. No subterfuge, no negative connotations, just the fact that CAC seeks to make their own market.

 

Perhaps you picked up on the negativity I expressed towards TDN s posts, That is real. I don't know the man, never met him, but I do take exception with the tone and verbiage of his posts. It is my nature to be terse and direct rather than verbose. That can be an issue when posting opinions on various topics---too much space to read between the lines depending on the mental/emotional state of the reader. I will work at more clearly expressing my position.

 

Carl

[GoldFinger1969]

Am I the only one who forgot what this thread was originally about ?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

from mixed NGC/PCGS to primarily PCGS/CAC

 

Just curious... if you dont care for NGC's grading and have made it a policy that your dealership is primarily a PCGS house why do you come to these boards to post - especially if you dont particularly like how you are treated ?

 

Why not just limit your posting to ATS ?

 

NGC's grading for the most part is fine - they grade to their own standard and most of the bell curve of that standard [with a few exceptions in the high end] overlaps most of the bell curve of PCGS's. What skews the AVAILABLE coins in NGC holders is the market dynamics of the crossover game. If ya all can't see that or choose to ignore it then that's fine - I don't need the insults from the yahoos in this place.

 

I have Registry Sets here and have posted here far longer than the majority of posters on this board. If a few of ya all choose to have a small guy attitude and a chip on your shoulder then you can just not get passed on valuable experience acquired over many years. So be it.

 

Besides, if you knew one of the real reasons that CAC was started, half of you would have a brain seizure and never recover. It just doesn't fit with your myopic view of the numismatic world.

 

As far as the prevailing view of some that this is a far more civil and upstanding board than ATS - bull .

 

CAC was started as a marketing scheme. That being a method to create an idealized concept of a TPG grade. The concept of A, B, C levels within a specific grade was "created" by CAC. Yes, dealers for years have exploited differences within an assigned TPG grade. The general idea of low for the grade and high for the grade was well known. Informed collectors are aware that equally graded TPG coins differed in quality and the open market clearly reflected the differences. CAC has attempted to quantify the differences by assigning "beans" and become the reference point for collectors.

 

You refer to market dynamics, I refer to market scheme. CAC, is simply making their own market. You can buy the sticker or buy the coin. CAC/PCGS created the market dynamics. Just make sure you buy a CAC coin.

 

You are a coin investor masquerading as a collector. You seek to maximize profits which is good business. That is why you expound the CAC/PCGS connection, it is to your financial benefit. No worries, it's not numismatics, it's a business model and profits are the primary reason to be in business.

 

Just quit trying to sell the collector angle, it's very transparent.

 

As far as your other comments regarding this forum and NGC in general, I will be honored to be included on your ignored list.

 

Carl

 

Disclaimer: I have never met Mr. TDN.

I have never met Mr. Feld.

I am only known to a very few on these Boards.

I am not important, rich, poor, or any other disqualifying description that would lend any air of importance to anything I say.

I do not have any connection with NGC or PCGS or a preferance of any nature for one over the other.

 

So:

 

I understand the description of CAC being used.

 

I, for one, would not call the formation of CAC a scheme. It carries an underhanded connotation, and that is not the purpose of the formation, as I remember. Was it hopefully going to be a profit center for the participants? Of course, but at its heart was doing a heck of a lot of good at the same time. What more could someone ask for of an entity? Were the participants supposed to give all their investment time and energy for no return? Of course not. Everyone here is benefitting from capitalist undertakings. CAC is no different. That is not the definition of an evil and greedy group of people.

 

As I recall, and I will admit to being a little old, there was not any subterfuge or scheming in the formation. The principals openly announced the idea, and invited various thoughts from the collecting community. There was (and probably still exists) a very, very long and interesting Thread ATS during the time it was being formed, and questions were answered freely, to the extent that the business plan could be discussed without being self injurious. I only recall a few derisive individuals who were not courteous and were indeed disruptive. My favorite person in that category was a Mr. Pharmer . That did not deter open dicussion and Mr. TDN readily participated, as did Mr. Feld, and a number of others that I recognize that post here. The logic posits were discussed to the point of sleepiness, but at no time was there even a close majority against the idea, and consideration of respect and support for the idea was prevalent, in large part due to the individuals that would be involved. The subject of getting it wrong from time to time was even discussed.

 

In my limited world and view, I have not seen or experienced a shift from the original presentation and intent of CAC discussed at the time. There was good natured ribbing about the letters CAC, with some very amusing suggestions, but these were in jest and understood to be so.

 

We all have a tendency to use phrases that are less than ideal, regardless of economic status. I don't think that is a reason to ignore advice that comes from hands on experience, and certainly not do so by being caustic and dismissive.

 

We have all walked into a bar and seen someone that caused us to have a vibe that set us on edge. Fine. that is human. But (blah, blah) 9 out of 10 times we sooner or later discover that the person would be one of the first to come to our aid.

 

I suspect that is the same here.

 

Why does it really matter, to the point of causing ourselves to be rude and ignore experience that can be helpful?

 

It seems to me that is like throwing the dictionary away, and preferring to use sticks on the ground to try to figure out how to spell.

 

Information is easy to come by. Good information, especially when free, not so much.

 

 

You apparently did not read my entire post. There was nothing "underhanded" in my use of the word "scheme". If you read my post you would see that my usage of the word "scheme" was that of a plan or program of action. I posit that CAC is making their own market. No subterfuge, no negative connotations, just the fact that CAC seeks to make their own market.

 

Perhaps you picked up on the negativity I expressed towards TDN s posts, That is real. I don't know the man, never met him, but I do take exception with the tone and verbiage of his posts. It is my nature to be terse and direct rather than verbose. That can be an issue when posting opinions on various topics---too much space to read between the lines depending on the mental/emotional state of the reader. I will work at more clearly expressing my position.

 

Carl

 

I understand.

As usual, my point was lost to the reader. My fault.

Please don't think I was being personal.

We all think and respond as our nature dictates.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

My fault Mr. HT.

Didn't mean to confuse.

It is really not worth expanding on.

[Hard Times]

My fault Mr. HT.

Didn't mean to confuse.

It is really not worth expanding on.

 

No worries John, it is just that my attention span for posts on this thread is about 5 seconds.

 

Best, HT