• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is cracking out and resubmitting eventually going to catch up to......

20 posts in this topic

a point where it is going to create a serious problem for NGC/PCGS, pop reports, registry sets, and collectors? Could bogus pop reports influenced by crack outs and resubmissions start to effect values of certain series? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already do.

 

Take, for instance, my dupe 1866 seated dollar in the ANR sale. At first glance it's not even condition census - 5 coins finer. Well, if you follow the series you know that the Jimmy Hayes coin was first graded MS66, sold in the late 1990's and was graded 66 again at PCGS and then upgraded by NGC and crossed by PCGS. Also, the Knoxville coin was graded MS66 by PCGS, upgraded by NGC and crossed by PCGS. So the supposed 5 coins finer is actually 2 coins finer, both of which are currently in PCGS MS67 holders and valued over $150,000. The dupe is the third finest known, which it was so called when it last sold in Auction '86.

 

You gotta know your series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think anything will ever have to be done? Can anything ever be done? It seems like its going to be a big problem that the grading companies just want to ignore. Kind of like that dirty little family secret that no one wants to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For coins like TDN speaks of, the TPGCs could already do something about it, if they truly wanted. The provenance of such coins is well known and the pop reports could easily be corrected.

 

For less well-known coins, this is impossible without dealer and collector participation. What most dealers and collectors don't realize is that they are only hurting themselves by not actively participating in the correction of the pop reports. All that is necessary, is to send the old labels in to the companies, and the pop reports are corrected. PCGS even has a 50 cent bounty on them. Perhaps the bounty should be better, but the bottom line is that those people who sell coins and/or collect coins would both benefit by more accurate pop reports. Laziness and/or stupidity hinder the process.

 

I have a packet of labels to go off to NGC, PCGS, and ANACS.

 

BTW, I have long thought that error rates for the top 2 grades for a particular issue were at least30% inflated. It's more likely that the top grade is 30% inflated and the second highest is 50%.

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nickel guys over at pcgs do it all the time! The thinking goes, the more the lower grade is inflated, when they finally get the sole next pop one, it will be worth much more! 27_laughing.gif

 

Leo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was looking through the SL Dimes in the Frog Run Farm auction from ANR, it occurred to me that many of the dimes in this auction may have pop. reports that understate scarcity. Especially so in instances where you have several specimens in AU, with a large gap and pops of 3-5 coins jumping to MS65/66. Building off TDN's comments (IMHO), the probability is pretty high that many of these specific MS coins are regrades of the same coin.

 

I also assume that NGC and PCGS notify each other when TPG coins are submitted in holders to the other service for regrade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie,

 

I think NGC and PCGS should notify each other when a coin is crossed in the others holder, but to tell the truth, I would not be surprised to find out that they don’t.

 

I say this because if a coin is crossed that was in a holder both companies return the holder label to the submitter. It just seems to me that if they were notifying each other what better way would there be than to return the labels to each other once a month or so. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

Of course I could be wrong confused-smiley-013.gif

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoot,

 

Yes, that is the reasoning behind returning the labels to the submitter, but to take that reasoning to the next level; do they return the pieces of the empty holder to the submitter?

 

I for one would be more than happy to let the grading companies keep the labels if it would mean more accurate pop reports. Once my coin is crossed I couldn’t care less about the old label. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

The companies could also just make surrendering the label a condition of crossing a coin from one company’s holder to the others. If you don’t want to give up the label, your coin does not get crossed. 893naughty-thumb.gif

 

All of this is moot anyway because unfortunately unreported crack outs and crossovers have gone on for so long now that it has probably permanently tainted the pop reports. frown.gif

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of coins cracked out and submitted raw compared to crossed over in holder is probably 500-to-1 if not more.

 

 

As for them not returning the pieces of plastic slabs while they do return the insert, both PCGS & NGC have returned to me the broken plastic. However, I think it was a mistake. 27_laughing.gif The inserts do have value and that is why they are returned. PCGS pays 50c for each insert and I can see them selling on the registry set market for $20-$100. It also goes to prove a point about the condition of the coin. If you can show that two grading companies graded the coin X then that goes to show buyers that the coin is not likely a just made, but had to be resubmitted 10 times coin for the grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well shucks! I can't log into the pcgs pops anymore. My subscription has finally ran out, I guess my ties with them have been severed forever! headbang.gif

After they proved 3 times over that they couldn't grade FS nickels I had no more to do with them! And I had a near 3 month wait before I received those coins back! I did nothing with the last remaining 21 months of my subscription! A guy could get the impression that they owe me around $175!

The last time I looked, there were roughly 13 53S MS64FS's and only about 3-4 of all the registrants had one. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif Now they're showing up in Heritage auctions and they aren't selling for the money that's being asked for them. Now what does that tell you! I believe a few collecters are starting to wise up! Who in their right mind

would spend $3000 to $8000 on a misnomer of a 53-S! screwy.gif That kind of money is pretty steep for a coin that's becoming quite common fast!

 

Leo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leo - As I've long predicted. You also must have seen the writing on the wall two years ago. And we have yet a long way to go with the entire series.

 

Hoot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that the rest of you guys but I just don't "get it". Other than having the possibility of finding something "high end" in a lower grade slab what difference does it make whether the TGCs are grading looser or tighter! The purpose of the pops is to help place value on your best coins. But as we all know, the pops are all screwwed up for the exception of those collectors who have been able to keep track of their top grades! But if and when they are given an accurate grade while most of the coins in the same grade are crappy coins that shouldn't be at the same grade level as your coin. Then the pops are off! It becomes pointless and mute except when someone else ends up buying your high end coin for that grade which is accurate by the way, for far less money then it's worth had the TGCs been consistent from the beginning! The only means we have to go on these days is by word of mouth and knowing who the serious collectors are! The only purpose I see for the TGCs is to help dealers sell their crapp through certfication means! And that's BULL! So it must be tough for the TGCs to be accurate and/or consistant and keep the stock holders happy at the same time if they must depend on mass submissions to make a profit! They need a second tier of a serious grading service, they need to take more time in grading and handling of the coins, to make a new set of pops accurate!

 

All those in favor say YEA! yay.gif YEA! yay.gif YEA! headbang.gif

 

Leo 27_laughing.gif

 

Opps! Wrong thread but I'll leave it here anyway! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John: It would be cleaner if the TPG's would notify each other on regrades, even though they return the label to the submitter. However, I wonder if they do (Hoot and others think not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John: It would be cleaner if the TPG's would notify each other on regrades, even though they return the label to the submitter. However, I wonder if they do (Hoot and others think not).

 

They do not notify each other. Besides, they have no right to. If NGC notified PCGS that a submitter crossed X coin and PCGS removed it from the database/pop report, then there can be some lost value to the submitter. Perhaps the submitter wants to sell that insert on eBay to some registry set collector. Maybe they want the illusion of having more of these coins in the market than there really is so they can buy up the other pieces cheaper? The submitter owns that insert and everything that comes with it. Take away a source of profit for submitters and you're going to have a legal fight I doubt the grading services could win.

 

Now I'm sure 95% of the submitters wouldn't mind the grading services notifying the other service, but that 5% can cause trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a place to discuss coins not 'your religion' or quotes from some bible. It is obnoxous to me.

 

Hey tip, here is a good quote from the bible. Specifically, the Book of Thing. It goes something like this......Hey tip, go smoke a turd in hell. 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites