Incomplete population data reported on coin certifications

[MLCoins-migration]

For the 1900 members who were forced to witness the worst of our Society's behavior; yet, are interested in the topic of the thread; I will summarize my concerns about incomplete NGC coin certification specifications as it pertains to population data.

 

If you do not agree with my summary, please do not repeat the mud slinging behavior of the prior thread, which will only disrupt other Coin Society members attempts to fairly discuss this matter further.

 

Best regards,

 

MLcoins

[cpm9ball]

It wasn't 1900 members. It was 1988 views with the last one being a moderator who closed the thread. Now, you want to start this over again.

 

Post it on "Ask NGC"!

 

Chris

[MLCoins-migration]

First, there is a difference between the “Census” and each coin’s “Certification data”. If you are not sure of this differentiation, then please ask NGC Customer Service for an explaination.

There appears to be an inconsistency in the way NGC reports population statistics within some of their certifications. Some more uncommon holder certifications are slipping past the Population data part of the certification. I have discovered one such error. The coin is certified as "1957 25C REVERSE STRUCK THRU MINT ERROR PF 67 CAMEO", and the holder number is 2635014-018.

 

We might argue that, since this error most likely varies within coins of the same date, denomination and grade, it shouldn't be segregated and reported differently than any other coins of that year, denomination, and grade. However, apart from MS/PF 70, all coins of a given date, denomination and grade vary, since the "defects" occur at different locations on all the coins within that grade.

At this point, let me reiterate, the discussion of population data described in the second paragraph is not about changing Census data; rather, it is about reporting the “Sub-Population” data for each coin, whether it is a common MS or PF coin, or an error coin. Furthermore, every slabbed coin possesses a description, which includes the MS or PF grade; yet, might also contain a description of a coin’s other attributes, such as the VAM # for a particular Morgan dollar, ect…

 

Complicating matters, there may be inconsistencies in the language used on the holder descriptions, since some errors may have been described differently at different times. For example, in the description entered on the holder, one grader might abbreviate a word, where in another instance the word is completely spelled out. This is a matter of "Cleaning" the Database entries to correct for all description inconsistencies, so that accurate Certification Population Data may be tallied. This is a matter for NGC’s Database Administrator. And as a Database Analyst and Applied Mathematician, I can assure our members that this “Cleaning”, though tedious, is not prohibitively difficult.

 

The issue of Coin Certification reporting might seem benign to most; however, for those who have a low population error or variety coin not included in the Census proper, the issue becomes one of having the ability to 'Vet" their coin(s) to prospective buyers.

There appears to be an inconsistency in the way NGC reports population statistics for some of their certifications. Some more uncommon holder certifications are slipping past the Population data part of the certification. I have discovered one such error. The coin is certified as "1957 25C REVERSE STRUCK THRU MINT ERROR PF 67 CAMEO", and the holder number is 2635014-018.

 

We might argue that, since this error most likely varies within coins of the same date, denomination and grade, it shouldn't be segregated and reported differently than any other coins of that year, denomination, and grade. However, apart from MS/PF 70, all coins of a given date, denomination and grade vary, since the "defects" occur at different locations on all the coins within that grade. Therefore, a coin's description, beyond that of a mere grade, distinguishes it from other coins both in collector interest, and in the ability of a seller to quantify a coin's rarity, and thus its potential value.

 

Complicating matters, there may be inconsistencies in the language used on the holder descriptions, since some errors aren't commonly graded. For example, in the description entered on the holder, one grader might abbreviate a word, where in another instance the word is completely spelled out. This is a matter of "Cleaning" the Database entries to correct for all description inconsistencies, so that accurate Population Data may be tallied.

 

Even if NGC's database is so archaic as to consist of excel spread sheets (I don't know, maybe they are, maybe not?), the process of separating graded coins based on their holder's label is a very simple thing. We are not discussing a very arduous task to update the coins with online certifications missing population statistics.

 

The issue of certification reporting might seem benign to most; however, for those who have a low population error or variety coin which is not represented in the Census, the issue becomes one of having the ability to 'Vet" their coin(s) to prospective buyers.

 

Again, a coin's Certification population data is not always the same as the Census data.

 

To say that “Population data is unavailable” in a coin’s Certification is erroneous, as it inherently resides in the same data which is used to create the Census. The Certification population for non-variety and error coins simply matches the Census data. Accounting for sub-populations within the Census population for the varieties and errors not represented in the Census would provide such coins with a complete Certification.

 

As to the issue of “Truth in Reporting”. I understand that including this topic will probably ruffle the feathers of NGC’s CFO as well as its COO, and many Society members as well. However, if NGC’s has a valid reason or reasons for its decision not to provide complete population data for every NGC graded coin’s Certification, then I’m sure of two things; first, they can enumerate them, and second, they can legally justify them.

 

For Society members to weigh in on the matter of “Truth in Reporting” will simply be an attempt to speak for NGC’s corporate office. I don’t think this is a wise course of action by the Society members. This truly requires NGC policy statement(s) related to Coin Certification Population Reporting that are clear and fair to all NGC Coin Collector Society members.

 

Best regards,

MLcoins

(AKA Marcus)

 

[MLCoins-migration]

It wasn't 1900 members. It was 1988 views with the last one being a moderator who closed the thread. Now, you want to start this over again.

 

Post it on "Ask NGC"!

 

Chris

 

 

Thank you Chris, the additional 88 members shouldn't have been neglected in my salutation.

 

I believe that the Coin Collector's Society has the right of first refusal, and since their were only about a dozen contributors to my prior thread, that leaves about 1976 members who might decide to speak their minds (I'm sure I'm wrong about the count. Chris, could you go back and do an accurate count? This is very important indeed!)

 

Thank you for...

 

MLCoins

[cpm9ball]

23 views and only 2 replies other than yours........mine! How many replies do you think you will have when it reaches 1988 views? How many replies do you think will accumulate before you wake up? How many replies will it take for you to stop whining about something you refuse to accept?

 

Mods, please do something about this!

 

Chris

[RWB]

None of the authentication companies produce a census -- of anything. They merely report the quantity of authentication events....a "population."

[cpm9ball]

It wasn't 1900 members. It was 1988 views with the last one being a moderator who closed the thread. Now, you want to start this over again.

 

Post it on "Ask NGC"!

 

Chris

 

 

Thank you Chris, the additional 88 members shouldn't have been neglected in my salutation.

 

I believe that the Coin Collector's Society has the right of first refusal, and since their were only about a dozen contributors to my prior thread, that leaves about 1976 members who might decide to speak their minds (I'm sure I'm wrong about the count. Chris, could you go back and do an accurate count? This is very important indeed!)

 

Thank you for...

 

MLCoins

 

It's really easy to calculate. Every time someone opens this thread, you need to add "1" to the count. It could be 1988 people opening it once and laughing their arse off, or it could be 10 people wondering how someone who claims to be so intelligent can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Like I said before, why don't you post this on "Ask NGC" so all of us can finally put this to bed. You're beginning to sound like a little boy whose father said "No!" so you run to mommy for a shoulder to cry on.

 

I hope the Mods will accept my suggestion and move this to "Ask NGC". What are you afraid of?

 

Chris

[ldhair]

I don't see the point. In the first thread several members stated how worthless the information would be. There were many reasons given. It would be a waste of time and few would care or use the information. As a Database Analyst myself, I can spot projects that would be of little value. There is no demand for such a project. If there is no demand, why do it?

[PaulS.]

This is your last warning. Enough of this, it isn't happening. Please don't start another thread.

 

 

-Paul