How Long Did The "Surge" in Coin Submittances Last in 1986-87 ? 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

Was talking about the grading of memorabilia and sports cards and how PSA (affiliated with privately held CU) prohibited new submissions because the wait list was getting too long.  I think they put it in place last Summer; it may still be in effect.

Got me thinking:  when PCGS and NGC started up in 1986 and 1987, how big was the flood of submittances ?  Were turnaround times long ?  Any submittances rejected because of backlog ?

I'm not sure if the coin collecting community -- mostly older compared to today's memorabilia submitters -- was as eager to submit as I see today with PSA.

[zadok]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:16 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Was talking about the grading of memorabilia and sports cards and how PSA (affiliated with privately held CU) prohibited new submissions because the wait list was getting too long.  I think they put it in place last Summer; it may still be in effect.

Got me thinking:  when PCGS and NGC started up in 1986 and 1987, how big was the flood of submittances ?  Were turnaround times long ?  Any submittances rejected because of backlog ?

I'm not sure if the coin collecting community -- mostly older compared to today's memorabilia submitters -- was as eager to submit as I see today with PSA.

...my first submissions were to pcgs in 1986, if i remember correctly one needed to submit coins through an authorized dealer to them, my recollection was that it took me about 2-3 weeks to receive my coins back, 20 in first lot, i also remember that there was a considerable amount of submissions n re-submissions being done at the major shows, walk thrus as we would call them now, my perception was that many collectors were in a wait n see mode to see if the slabbing of coins was going to be accepted n take hold or if it was going to cause a decrease in values n the coins were going to be returned to raw state...change is always viewed with trepidation....

[zadok]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:16 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Was talking about the grading of memorabilia and sports cards and how PSA (affiliated with privately held CU) prohibited new submissions because the wait list was getting too long.  I think they put it in place last Summer; it may still be in effect.

Got me thinking:  when PCGS and NGC started up in 1986 and 1987, how big was the flood of submittances ?  Were turnaround times long ?  Any submittances rejected because of backlog ?

I'm not sure if the coin collecting community -- mostly older compared to today's memorabilia submitters -- was as eager to submit as I see today with PSA.

...one more remembrance, from my personal perspective n what i was most interested in seeing the results from...most of the coins i saw being submitted were AU n low grade Uncs being submitted in hopes of getting Unc n higher grade Uncs....

[DWLange]

By 1987-88 slabbing had really caught on, and regular submissions (not Express or Walkthrough or whatever they were being called back then) could take several months to be returned. I submitted coins for grading only rarely, but that was my experience. Zadok is correct that one had to go through an authorized dealer. Direct submissions by collector members weren't possible until the mid-late 1990s.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:25 AM, DWLange said:

By 1987-88 slabbing had really caught on, and regular submissions (not Express or Walkthrough or whatever they were being called back then) could take several months to be returned. I submitted coins for grading only rarely, but that was my experience. Zadok is correct that one had to go through an authorized dealer. Direct submissions by collector members weren't possible until the mid-late 1990s.

Thanks Dave....would you say that folks at the time were submitting entire collections or the bulk of their collections...or just a few select coins ?

I know it's not an exact thing, just trying to get your impression.

 

[zadok]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:37 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Thanks Dave....would you say that folks at the time were submitting entire collections or the bulk of their collections...or just a few select coins ?

I know it's not an exact thing, just trying to get your impression.

 

...i wont attempt to pre-empt Dave's reply, he knows far better/more than i do...my observations 1985-6 was that the majority of in person submissions were by dealers not collectors trying to take advantage of the new concept n upgrade specific coins once they had been graded, also it seemed that a lot of "sliders" were being submitted with high hopes...collectors at least as i saw it were in a wait n see mode to see if certifying/slabbing was going to remain or not...some very rare coins were submitted for the authenication, varieties for the most part had not arrived yet at the tpgs...i do recall one time a collector flew to the colorado springs airport with one coin trying to have it certified as an overdate variety that hadnt even been acknowledge yet, i was sent to meet him at the airport to evaluate the coin n express an opinion, subsequently informing him it was not an overdate n that there was not a provision in place at that time to certify it as anything other that the standard date n mint n its determined grade, he thanked me n returned inside the airport n departed on the next flight out...after the certifying started to take hold the collectors entered the fray as Dave mentioned...i remember some of the pcgs dealers started to not accept more submissions because they had no place to store the coins until they could get them into the tpgs system...perhaps Dave can provide his assessment....

[Henri Charriere]

Gentleman, and the OP, FWIW, I cannot speak from experience, but I distinctly recall in that John Albanese interview, in which he reminisces at length on the way things were in the very beginning, he provides specific figures on back-log times of up to a year, possibly more, on submissions, whether by dealers or collectors. The Great Z (Guideline policy prohibits me from naming individual members) is well within the ballpark--but that interview, which may have appeared stand-alone, or as part of a dedicated thread, was quite revealing. I am certain anyone in full posession of their faculties, and so inclined using their innate resourcefulness, would be able to locate it with ease. [I am under the weather and unable to undertake this myself, particularly in locating it and describing exactly where it is.] It is there, I recall reading it, and was stunned by the disclosures which active collectors can attest to.]  🐓 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Correction of inadvertent typo

[DWLange]

At the beginning dealers sent in only their best coins---the ones they'd been sitting on in anticipation of this new service and which were well worth the fees. Those alone represented a fairly large number of coins. When slabs proved to be widely successful the bar was lowered somewhat to include common date Morgans, commemoratives, etc---the meat and potatoes of the market. That's what caused the long delays in the early years. When the grading services finally caught up they found a new market was needed, and that's when collector accounts were created. Bulk grading at a sliding scale also brought in a lot of coins that weren't worth paying the tier fees.

[zadok]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Gentleman, and the OP, FWIW, I cannot speak from experience, but I distinctly recall in that John Albanese interview, in which he reminisces at length on the way things were in the very beginning, he provides specific figures on back-long times of up to a year, possibly more, on submissions, whether by dealers or collectors. The Great Z (Guideline policy prohibits me from naming individual members) is well within the ballpark--but that interview, which may have appeared stand-alone, or as part of a dedicated thread, was quite revealing. I am certain anyone in full posession of their faculties, and so inclined using their innate resourcefulness, would be able to locate it with ease. [I am under the weather and unable to undertake this myself, particularly in locating it and describing exactly where it is.] It is there, I recall reading it, and was stunned by the disclosures which active collectors can attest to.]  🐓 

...to summarize, John Albanese in an interview discussed early data of certifying coins, interview is still in the metaverse, QA of advancing years cant remember where but was dumbfounded....

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/24/2022 at 6:10 PM, zadok said:

...to summarize, John Albanese in an interview discussed early data of certifying coins, interview is still in the metaverse, QA of advancing years cant remember where but was dumbfounded....

Alright, alright... I will do the grunt work. Sheesh!

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:59 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Alright, alright... I will do the grunt work. Sheesh!

@zadok:

Relax, 463 results spread over 19 pp. Should find it by midnite; if not, tomorrow is another day.  [Your wish is my command.]   

[VKurtB]

The flat out MAJORITY of coins submitted today would not have been ACCEPTED for grading during the late 1980’s. They simply were not eligible. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:25 PM, VKurtB said:

The flat out MAJORITY of coins submitted today would not have been ACCEPTED for grading during the late 1980’s. They simply were not eligible. 

This is true, but "Houston, we have a problem!"

There were many John Albanese interviews and the vast majority dwell on CAC, whatever that is.

I know J.A. specifically addressed the subject of long turn-around times, citing early examples at NGC or the other TPGS, for no other purpose than to emphasize how far along they have come and how much better things are today.

[No, I am not slacking. I have to visually skim through every interview. It's got to be recent. No more than two years old.]

[gmarguli]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:25 PM, VKurtB said:

The flat out MAJORITY of coins submitted today would not have been ACCEPTED for grading during the late 1980’s. They simply were not eligible. 

I assume you're referring to modern coins. NGC stupidly restricted them at this time, but PCGS and ANACS accepted them.

If you're referring to world coins, that was a slow rollout of accepted countries at PCGS & NGC, but I recall ANACS graded pretty much anything. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/25/2022 at 8:55 PM, gmarguli said:

....but I recall ANACS graded pretty much anything. 

As well they should have. I have the distinct impression, having never dealt with them personally, that they embraced the small coin collector with open arms.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:25 PM, VKurtB said:

The flat out MAJORITY of coins submitted today would not have been ACCEPTED for grading during the late 1980’s. They simply were not eligible. 

I understand how some purists may not like the grading of modern coins and there are certainly some bastardizations that we see with their sales.

But if it helps get NEW people into the hobby and keeps folks, I'm OK with it.  Doesn't affect grading or values of older certified coins.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/25/2022 at 8:55 PM, gmarguli said:

I assume you're referring to modern coins. NGC stupidly restricted them at this time, but PCGS and ANACS accepted them.

You wonder, if with all the pent-up demand for classic coins when they first opened for business, if the 2 TPGSs would have even been able to handle modern coins individually submitted, let alone mass submittances like you see today with dealers sending in hundreds or thousands at a time.

[CaptHenway]

On 8/25/2022 at 7:07 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

As well they should have. I have the distinct impression, having never dealt with them personally, that they embraced the small coin collector with open arms.

I left there as Senior Authenticator in the Summer of 1984, but as of then we had always been collector friendly. However, we were being buried in tons of BU silver dollars by dealers who were using the paper certificates as marketing tools. We were always many weeks behind no matter how many people we hired and trained. I suspect that that was one of the reasons why PCGS and next year NGC got so much business, because ANACS could not handle the load.

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:27 AM, CaptHenway said:

I left there as Senior Authenticator in the Summer of 1984, but as of then we had always been collector friendly. However, we were being buried in tons of BU silver dollars by dealers who were using the paper certificates as marketing tools. We were always many weeks behind no matter how many people we hired and trained. I suspect that that was one of the reasons why PCGS and next year NGC got so much business, because ANACS could not handle the load.

[Deleted due to unintelligible word coupling.]

Edited September 29, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Unintelligible

[World Colonial]

On 8/25/2022 at 10:10 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You wonder, if with all the pent-up demand for classic coins when they first opened for business, if the 2 TPGSs would have even been able to handle modern coins individually submitted, let alone mass submittances like you see today with dealers sending in hundreds or thousands at a time.

I don't think the prior post is referring to NCLT which accounts for the lopsided majority of "modern".  I've never heard of anyone collecting "business strike" ASE as a collectible until later, only buying it for the metal content.  Outside of the Chinese Panda and Mexican Libertad, it's my recollection the other NCLT weren't struck until later either.

By "modern", referring to US moderns.  There were no registry sets at the time (came later but forgot exactly when) which presumably means NGC might have thought hardly anyone would ever submit this coinage.  Volume only became "meaningful" beginning in 1999 with the introduction of SQ and later series.

Edited August 26, 2022 by World Colonial

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:27 AM, CaptHenway said:

We were always many weeks behind no matter how many people we hired and trained. I suspect that that was one of the reasons why PCGS and next year NGC got so much business, because ANACS could not handle the load.

Do you think that PCGS and NGC also had more well-known folks (D. Hall, J. Albanese, etc.) so that folks were more interested in seeking out those 2 TPGs ?  ANACS clearly had 1st-mover advantage.

[gmarguli]

On 8/25/2022 at 7:10 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You wonder, if with all the pent-up demand for classic coins when they first opened for business, if the 2 TPGSs would have even been able to handle modern coins individually submitted, let alone mass submittances like you see today with dealers sending in hundreds or thousands at a time.

When PCGS was started, the expectation was they would receive hundreds of coins per month. They had no idea the demand and why should they. Their product wasn't that much different from ANACS & Accugrade which was already in the marketplace. The authenticity and grade guarantee backed by money made a lot of people more confident to buy coins. So they didn't have the capacity for what arrived day one regardless of whether it was classic or modern coins. And modern coins started to be submitted fairly early on. 

Both services graded modern coins from day one. They were popular early one. You used to see 1964 proof coins with insane price tags because they graded PR67 or PR68. Even super common stuff from the 70s & 80s in PR69 were bringing crazy prices. 

Then Albanese intentionally tried to kill the modern market and ended up only hurting NGC and helping give PCGS the market edge.

Then Hall killed the modern market because he was clueless.

 

 

On 8/26/2022 at 7:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you think that PCGS and NGC also had more well-known folks (D. Hall, J. Albanese, etc.) so that folks were more interested in seeking out those 2 TPGs ?  ANACS clearly had 1st-mover advantage.

PCGS & NGC were using slabs. ANACS were still user paper certs. I don't believe ANACS guaranteed the grade when they introduced slabs. PCGS & NGC had established dealer networks.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:22 PM, gmarguli said:

Then Albanese intentionally tried to kill the modern market and ended up only hurting NGC and helping give PCGS the market edge. Then Hall killed the modern market because he was clueless.

Huh ???????  

[World Colonial]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:22 PM, gmarguli said:

Then Albanese intentionally tried to kill the modern market and ended up only hurting NGC and helping give PCGS the market edge.

Then Hall killed the modern market because he was clueless.

How?

[gmarguli]

On 8/26/2022 at 6:47 AM, World Colonial said:

I don't think the prior post is referring to NCLT which accounts for the lopsided majority of "modern".  I've never heard of anyone collecting "business strike" ASE as a collectible until later, only buying it for the metal content.  Outside of the Chinese Panda and Mexican Libertad, it's my recollection the other NCLT weren't struck until later either.

By "modern", referring to US moderns.  There were no registry sets at the time (came later but forgot exactly when) which presumably means NGC might have thought hardly anyone would ever submit this coinage.  Volume only became "meaningful" beginning in 1999 with the introduction of SQ and later series.

The business strike ASE were absolutely collected early on. I remember submitting a lot of the 1988 and 1989 SAE business strikes. Used to sell a bunch on Teletrade until that bastion of hypocrisy would (kind of) no longer take them on consignment.

NGC stopped grading moderns supposedly because Albanese thought they were overpriced in the marketplace and people would get burned. 

[World Colonial]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:33 PM, gmarguli said:

The business strike ASE were absolutely collected early on. I remember submitting a lot of the 1988 and 1989 SAE business strikes. Used to sell a bunch on Teletrade until that bastion of hypocrisy would (kind of) no longer take them on consignment.

NGC stopped grading moderns supposedly because Albanese thought they were overpriced in the marketplace and people would get burned. 

Thanks, wasn't aware of it.

In my last post, I was referring to circulating coinage but now your post makes sense.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:33 PM, gmarguli said:

NGC stopped grading moderns supposedly because Albanese thought they were overpriced in the marketplace and people would get burned. 

If this was 1988-90 it was possible modern silvers/golds were getting dragged upward by the bubble in numismatics.  That's all I can think of.

I think JA left NGC by the early-1990's, right ?

[Henri Charriere]

[All this talk of indiscriminate killing--and younger folks may not even remember this--began with the introduction of the Kreugerrand (which, come to think of it, I do not recall ever seeing slabbed) in 1967, or thereabouts, and it wasn't until nearly 20 years later until the ASE appeared.  Back then, things heated up quickly, but I don't know that their emergence had any undue influence on TPGS. Today, IMHO, the only two worth memorialization are the first ones of each, 1967 and 1986  respectively, and the 2017 KR with that special "privy"? mark. None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. [Young collectors: you need look no further than Charmey's charming thread to realize, The future is yours!] Carry on gentlemen...

Edited August 27, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Correct misspelling.

[gmarguli]

Albanese supposedly felt the modern market was crazy priced and the prices would eventually drop and people would get burned. Coins that were not rare were selling for a lot of money. There was only perceived rarity because so few had been submitted. So a 1964 Kennedy in PR66 should not be selling for $159 and a PR68 definitely should not be selling for $895, even if there were only 30 PR66 and 3 PR68 graded. So NGC stopped grading them. While possibly a magnanimous move by Albanese to kill the modern market, it was an incredibly stupid business decision as PCGS said screw that and continued to grade them. At this time it was still debatable as to which company would come out on top. PCGS clearly became the modern coin winner around this time. I don't recall when, but NGC realized their mistake and started to grade moderns but clearly way more liberally than PCGS.

Hall killed the modern market by getting rid of the PR70 grade. Whether his decision or not (he blamed Rick Montgomery who had left PCGS for NGC), he was the head of the company and he takes the blame. There was a time when PCGS PR70 coins actually sold for really good money. It was because PCGS was extremely tight on that grade, while NGC was much more loose. I recall selling PCGS PR70 state quarters for $150-$300. NGC PR70 would bring a small fraction of this. But everyone knew the deal.

With PCGS you would get a very small percentage of PR70 and that is where you'd make your money. The PR69 you'd blow out around cost. At NGC, you'd get 10X the number of PR70, but only make a little on each and blow out the PR69 at around cost. When PCGS turned off the PR70 spigot it screwed up this dynamic. No dealer wants a zillion PR69s and no PR70s. This caused the prices on PR70s to go up as it was clear no more would be graded. This caused a lot of liability for PCGS (see the infamous 1963 PR70 Lincoln or the dozen PR70 Ike dollars). Then Hall "reinstituted" the PR70 grade (I believe thanks to my Open Letter on the PCGS forums), but the grade didn't just reappear, it came back with a vengeance. The old 1%-3% for 70s suddenly appeared to be dramatically higher. The market for modern proofs is pretty thin at the high price points. Only a few people will pay $300 for a PR70 when there are few of them graded, but you can make your money, and a lot of people will be happy with a PR69 for a fraction of the cost. However, when there are a ton of PR70s graded, most people will buy them at $25 instead of a PR69 since the cost isn't that much different. Since then, the 70 grade has only become more common and I believe this is only partially due to mint quality. Now a 70 brings little more than slabbing cost and a 69 may bring you $5. Even with the highly discounted bulk grading fees, there is no financial incentive to submit most moderns anymore. 

So when I say he killed the modern market, that's what I mean. There is no incentive for 99.9% of the people to submit moderns when you can buy a PR70 for less than you can make one yourself. Clearly the TPG still grade millions of NCLT, but I believe they do so with massive submissions from a few dealers at greatly reduced rates. Today, most slabbed and raw generally don't sell for much difference in the aftermarket. 

[World Colonial]

All modern US proofs and NCLT are widgets.  There is no reason for any US modern base metal proof to sell for even the slab fee or, except for a few like the 95-W, for ASE to sell for more than minimal premiums to silver spot.

So, while I understand submitters do not like the changed economics, the pricing structure almost (but not quite) makes sense for collectors.