Interesting views of HRH

[jtryka]

This is copied from the latest PCGS e-mail newsletter:

 

Our Readers Ask

 

Question: Let's say I get a coin graded by PCGS and decide to crack it for some purpose, for example to submit to one of the other grading services that I am told exist somewhere out there. Then I see the light and want my coin back in a PCGS holder. Can I send the cracked PCGS slab and label back as a reholder, or must I submit the coin for grading again?

 

Answer: You would need to send the coin in for grading again. We of course trust you totally. However, there are a few people that would claim a coin was in a certain PCGS holder when it was really a different coin that was in that holder. Consequently, if you crack and gamble... you crack and gamble.

 

-- David Hall, Professional Coin Grading Service

 

I know it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the tone of this is rather amusing. The question seems to be a nice dig at the competition (or apparent lack thereof in PCGS' management's mind), while the answer seems to be funny, but shows more underlying truth about how they view their customers. For example, "We of course trust you totally," sort of smacks of an old Joe Isuzu commercial (remember those, or am I dating myself?). We trust you, right, but for your own safety and security, you'll have to pay us again to verify what you are saying, but we still trust you implicitly, and you have our word on that, or my name isn't Joe Isuzu. Taken as a whole, the entire question seems to say, "if you're stupid enough to try this game, and give our competition any sense of validation, then you are an insufficiently_thoughtful_person, and deserve to pay the PCGS tax again, insufficiently_thoughtful_person."

 

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly understand the business aspects of this decision, and I would not expect anything other than the bottom line answer (you must resubmit for grading as if it were raw). But the tone smacks of Hall's own hubris, not to mention the bold faced lie, we trust you, when it's patently obvious that they don't trust their customers. This is a case where I feel it's perfectly appropriate not to trust the customer, so why even include that statement? I don't expect NGC, or PCGS or any of the services to take my word on the grade and just slab my coins without even looking at them, so in that case, I feel fine about them not "trusting" me. In fact, for the most part, we are paying the services not to trust us, that's the essential value of an independent evaluation of a coin's grade.

 

Sorry for the !

 

 

 

[Hoot]

Nice rant Jeff.

 

It's 100% true that we pay the services not to trust anyone. They should never be so biased (except when grading my submissions ).

 

Hoot

[IrishMike]

jtryka, there is a word for people who date themselves, but I am old and can't remember it. It is a humerous reply but as I have said before HRH takes the existence of other grading companies personally. This doesn't bother me, you just have to understand where he comes from and give those kind of compliments all attention that they deserve.

[mrDQ-migration]

Don't get too X-files on us here

 

Using that syntax is very common in training, managing or otherwise teaching or modifying other's behavior. I do it all the time

 

"Now I know YOU girls wouldn't put 3 scoops of snickers in that blizzard when it's supposed to be 1, but SOMEONE is doing it and it has to stop now"

 

rather than

 

"Kelly stop putting too much candy in the blizzards!"

 

You let them know you're on to them without accusing anyone of actually doing it but everyone knows it's going on and you're not happy with it.

 

HRH was not accusing anyone of doing that but we all KNOW they (and NGC) would be swamped with resubmissions of raw coins that "Used to be in this holder, HONEST".

 

I know many of you dislike and even HATE HRH and PCGS but this is getting a bit too picky IMO. He's sending out a mass email of a Q&A (real or not) to answer a FAQ let's not dissect it for INTENT or any major conspiracies.

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This email is probably just an email with no hidden meanings or implications.

[Wihlborg]

MrDQ,

 

I don’t hate or even dislike HRH and to be honest I don’t even care how he runs his company, that’s his problem. But I have to agree with Jeff on this one. The way HRH worded his statement was a little condescending. To me it read as if he was talking to children. We all know why the grading companies cannot let this happen (yes I said companies. There is more than one) He should have worded it professionally. I mean come on, ‘I see the light and want my coin back in a PCGS holder’ what light is that, the one shining down on a big pitcher of KoolAid?

 

John

 

[gmarguli]

I know many of you dislike and even HATE HRH and PCGS but this is getting a bit too picky IMO. He's sending out a mass email of a Q&A (real or not) to answer a FAQ let's not dissect it for INTENT or any major conspiracies.

 

I don't know what his intent was and I won't guess, but HRH really needs to stop communicating with his customer because his wording and attitude is not what a successful business would want. I can't believe that there are not people at CU that cringe when they read something that he wrote. I guess people are too scared for their jobs to tell him to STFU or take a communications and marketing class before opening his mouth.

[braddick]

I guess you can read that into it. I didn't. Seems to me it was a fairly candid answer to an age old question and dealt with civility and a bit of humor.

 

I hope it doesn't get to a point where he (or us) are dammed if we do, damned if we don't.

[true_grade]

"We of course trust you totally"

 

Other than this statement, I agree with what was posted.

 

The quote, however unintentional, put a personal light on the "customer" and is a no-no.

 

But, in the big boys world, let it go and move on to something more important.

 

[BillJones]

What other response would you expect? Arrogance is one of PCGS' biggest flaws. They respect neither their competition nor their customers.

 

Did you hear about HRH's comment that most dealers can't grade? In other words the fact that we complain about PCGS grading is a clear indicator we cna't grade and don't know what we are talking about. PCGS gets it right 100% of the time ... NOT

[dragon]

I think we may have missed the best part of that answer..

 

 

"Consequently, if you crack and gamble... you crack and gamble"

 

 

Rather interesting how the president of PCGS considers his service a GAMBLE IMO, sort of like "send it in and take your chances"

 

We are told cracking out a PCGS graded coin is a gamble?...does he mean that your same coin may come back a different grade the next time, maybe a lower grade, and be worth substantially less money even though it's still the same coin?........hmmmm...I see, and how does this speak of both the validity and CONSISTENCY of PCGS and 3rd party grading in general?

 

dragon

 

 

[BigAl-migration]

I can't believe that there are not people at CU that cringe when they read something that he wrote. I guess people are too scared for their jobs to tell him to STFU or take a communications and marketing class before opening his mouth.

 

this is exactly the issue.

 

i wonder if he was responding to a verbal question or if he actually wrote this response. regardless of whether he was put on the spot or not, a good spokesperson would avoid insinuating that he doesn't trust his customers, unless of course he just forgot to slip in the ole:

 

if he felt that he must elaborate, and give a "reason", he could have simply stated that once out of the holder, the coin is at risk of being damaged. he once responded to this same question by stating something to the effect that "once out of the holder all bets are off"-- a better response.

 

i personally think it's a stupid question anyway and anyone expecting PCGS or any other grading service to reholder without reexamining needs a lobotomy.

 

 

[mark]

Greg:

 

Personally, I thought HRH's answer was amusing. I also thought it was honest. And I'd prefer that the CEOs of the companies in which I own stock would be as straightforward rather than attempting to come across as statesmen and stateswomen. Were I a shareholder of CLCT, I wouldn't mind HRH's answer. But, our opinions of HRH's answer are simply that: Our opinions. And your opinion is equally as valid as mine.

 

Re the gamble aspect of the answer: Sure in HRH's perfect world, every coin submitted to PCGS always receives the same grade. But in the real world, the grade can vary and HRH knows this, though he probably low-balls the frequency with which grades change. So I think HRH is being honest when he says that a crack out is a gamble. And, were I a shareholder of CLCT, I wouldn't mind this statement, either.

 

Mark

[Beijim]

And I'd prefer that the CEOs of the companies in which I own stock would be as straightforward rather than attempting to come across as statesmen and stateswomen.

 

Remember: A statesman is a politician who's been dead for ninety years.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I think that Dragon's point: Quoting HRH, "You crack you gamble" says more than it's intended point. There is not a linear scale grading standard beyond the capabilities of the particular grader. Grading is still quite subjective.

[TomB]

The "You crack you gamble" phrase says a lot. In fact, I was looking at a PCGS MS68 Washington quarter at the ANA this last week and the very same coin had recently resided in both a PCGS MS66 holder and a PCGS MS67 holder. Now, we know which holder this coin will be buried in.