Is it OK for one grading company to want and/or try to harm another?

[MarkFeld]

What do you think about these comments:

Here's the deal on crossovers. it is to our advantage to cross as many nice NGC coins as possible to PCGS holders. As I said, I haven't been close to this for the last 3 years. But during the previous 10 years, the crossover rate (and we published it on a monthly basis...and I don't think we should have stopped publishing it) hoovered consistently around the 50% range. Think about it. Every month we got to look at 2000 NGC coins and cream the best half to put in PCGS holders. A permanent rape of their quality inventory. A great deal for us and a bad deal for them. We want to have as many coins as possible in PCGS holders. We do not want nice coins to be in NGC holders

 

 

[bsshog40]

You know Mark, it is shame but I know by personal experience that this does happen. I have a coin graded high by NGC. I had a person at Heritage look at it and stated "If you could only get this in a PCGS holder". First thing I thought was, NGC is respectible, why would my value be any better in a PCGS slab? I don't like this concept and don't like the idea that someone is demeaning a slab instead of realizing the coin.

[TomB]

The practice is simply business. However, I remember reading that post in real time and was stunned at the choice of words, though it should not have surprised me much given the source.

[gmarguli]

What do you think about these comments:

Here's the deal on crossovers. it is to our advantage to cross as many nice NGC coins as possible to PCGS holders. As I said, I haven't been close to this for the last 3 years. But during the previous 10 years, the crossover rate (and we published it on a monthly basis...and I don't think we should have stopped publishing it) hoovered consistently around the 50% range. Think about it. Every month we got to look at 2000 NGC coins and cream the best half to put in PCGS holders. A permanent rape of their quality inventory. A great deal for us and a bad deal for them. We want to have as many coins as possible in PCGS holders. We do not want nice coins to be in NGC holders

 

I think I commented on these several years ago when they were first made.

 

It shows a bias toward the competition. PCGS was not willing to crossover all coins that met the standard, but rather only the cream (PQ) coins. Submitters did not get value for their money. Some might go so far as to say it was fraud. Overall, if that is the company position, it is not a company that many people should want to be associated with.

 

There is a reason why I remember this statement well. Shortly before it was made, David Hall made a completely contradictory statement indicating that he was there all the time and knew the happenings. I asked him outright which of his statements was a lie, the one where he said he was there and knew the happenings or the one where he said he wasn't around and blamed Rick Montgomery (who had just left for NGC). Someone told me that was the reason for my banning, posting publicly that David Hall was a liar and having proof in his own writing to back it up.

 

[WinstonWare]

Actually I think NGC does a better job at grading original DBH/CBH so even if it was PCGS policy to attempt to get the “nice coins” in their holders, by my standards they would fail anyway.

 

To answer your question more specifically, I am opposed to one TPG attempting to harm another but as Tom points out it is business.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Personally, I'm holding my breath in anticipation of carson city's reply...

[WinstonWare]

Someone told me that was the reason for my banning, posting publicly that David Hall was a liar and having proof in his own writing to back it up.

 

I think that would do it (thumbs u

[WinstonWare]

Personally, I'm holding my breath in anticipation of carson city's reply...

 

[carson city]

I do not understand how NGC, or any TPG service, is "harmed" by a coin being placed in any other TPG holder. I, as the owner of the coin, can decide for whatever reason to have my coin graded by any TPG service for the going fee.

 

PCGS has created the illusion that their coin grading is somehow more accurate, reliable, consistent etc than other grading services. But that is not the reality when coins are sold. Coins, at the higher grades, are not a fungible commodity. Each coin is sold on its own merits and paid accordingly. Any attempt, IMO, to substitute a biased dealers opinion (CAC) or to attempt to preempt the buyer's decision as how much $$ to pay for a given coin is arrogance beyond belief !

 

Whatever happened to, buy the coin not the holder ?---Q.David Bowers

[Tradedollarnut]

I do not understand how NGC, or any TPG service, is "harmed" by a coin being placed in any other TPG holder. I, as the owner of the coin, can decide for whatever reason to have my coin graded by any TPG service for the going fee.

 

A little dab here, a little do there and presto chango: I do not understand how NGC, or any TPG service, is "harmed" by a coin they have graded being stickered by another group. I, as the owner of the coin, can decide for whatever reason to have my coin stickered by any post TPG service for the going fee.

 

I have barely changed the context of your post, CC. Obviously, your statements are completely inconsistent.

[michael]

The practice is simply business. However, I remember reading that post in real time and was stunned at the choice of words, though it should not have surprised me much given the source.

 

 

how true ................. it is all business

 

but given the fact if i was in business as one grading company i would never even consider harming another grading service

 

the only thing i would do is grade consistantly and conservatively anfd let me own service stand on its own marits and if the markeT ACCEPTED THIS (in other words i made a living) THEN FINE IF NOT (i could not sustain the business with revenue generated) THEN I GOT TO GET INTO ANOTHER BUSINESS

 

 

[gmarguli]

The practice is simply business.

 

 

Business if the company makes it clear that they will only cross nice coins that they want in their slab. However, from their literature it implies that they will cross over any coin that meets the same grade. The statement by David Hall indicates that this is a lie and that only "nice" coins will get crossed. Your average MS63 isn't going to get crossed over. However, your nice MS63 will. It doesn't matter that both quality for the MS63 grade. Unless this is explained to the submitter, they are being sold something they are not getting.

 

PCGS Definition of the Crossover: "Use the "Crossover" service for coins previously graded by another grading service. Submit the coins in the holder to PCGS. We will grade the coins and put them in a PCGS holder only if the PCGS grade meets or exceeds the other grading company's grade (unless specifically instructed differently by you)."

 

At no place does it indicate only the nice coins will be crossed.

[carson city]

One word changes the context entirely. Why should CAC, or any group, attempt to preempt my judgment as to a coins value. Only to satisfy a small group of disgruntled dealers---NOT

[Tradedollarnut]

One word changes the context entirely. Why should NGC, or any group, attempt to preempt my judgment as to a coins grade.

 

Why indeed?

[MarkFeld]

Personally, I'm holding my breath in anticipation of carson city's reply...

I must confess - this thread was intended primarily for him. I see from his post, however, that he won't admit to seeing some obvious/glaring similarities between what PCGS admits to doing and what he is accusing C.A.C. of doing.

 

By the way, while David Hall's comments were blunt, I appreciate his candor. And, to a certain extent, at least, the practice makes good business sense and is not something that NGC would sue PCGS over.

 

Below is a quote of David Hall's about C.A.C. He apparently has a very different attitude about it than C.C. does.

 

Russ,

 

Why do you say "There's no love lost between John Albanese and David Hall." ?

 

Personally, I've always liked John and he's clearly a very knowledgeable coin expert. I've always felt that his heart was in the right place, though like all of us in the coin business, he has his commercial interests. We talk occasionally, have helped each other over the years on occasion, and have what I consider a friendly relationship so your comment surprised me. Perhaps you know something I don't.

 

If John starts a service and does a good job I'm sure he'll be as successful as he wants to be, though stopping coin doctoring and other coin fraud is a big gig. And if his service enables dealers (and collectors) to sell their coins for a premium, I'm sure dealers will use the service. If his service makes the coin market better, I'm personally all for it.

 

David

[carson city]

There you go again. You changed one word. "value" to ---grade---

[Tradedollarnut]

There you go again. You changed one word. "value" to ---grade---

 

Actually, I changed two words - CAC to NGC also. Just to make a point of how silly you're being about the whole thing. How can you argue against a company's opinion of value on one hand but accept anothers opinion of grade?

[MarkFeld]

CC, if you haven't already done so, you should read my previous post (just above yours) - you can see what David Hall says about C.A.C.

[IGWT]

Each coin is sold on its own merits and paid accordingly.

 

Not in my experience. The brand of slab and its insert often overwhelm the qualties of the coin. I don't do much selling; but, when I do, I receive better offers for an average coin in PCGS plastic than for a nice coin in NGC plastic. Silly, but true.

 

As for Mark's question, I think that harm to a competitor should be the incidental result -- not the goal -- of competion in marketplace.

[gmarguli]

CC, if you haven't already done so, you should read my previous post (just above yours) - you can see what David Hall says about C.A.C.

 

And David would never lie.

[PerryHall]

This is why you need to crack your coin out of the NGC slab before sending it to PCGS if you ever hope to get a fair appraisal for your coin.

[cpm9ball]

They way I see it, if they would try to $crew their competitors, then they would do the same to their customers.

 

Chris

[MarkFeld]

They way I see it, if they would try to $crew their competitors, then they would do the same to their customers.

 

Chris

Chris, I don't see how that follows.

[carson city]

Very interesting letter to RUSS. If accurate, it certainly puts a different spin on this matter. Apparently, David Hall should be careful what he wishes for. It seems as though he is putting his imprimatur on John Albanese's project ! Very interesting, indeed !

[gmarguli]

They way I see it, if they would try to $crew their competitors, then they would do the same to their customers.

 

Chris

Chris, I don't see how that follows.

 

Ethics. Morals.

 

And Mark, wouldn't you admit that they tried to screw their competition by harming their own customers?

[Count_Erfit]

I have commented to many on what I think is NGC's main drawback. That is slabbing conserved coins.

Conserved coins can change. I've had it happen.

Lately, in early gold, I've seen egregious scrubbing making it into both service's holders. Especially rampant on Classic Head gold from the 1830's.

"Gradeflation" is a product of the TPGs.

 

They will have to cure it.

 

I don't know how they will do so, especially if the grade guarantee is to remain intact.

 

I believe the main reason that there are mo'bettah coins in PCGS slabs is the result of the perhaps unwarranted.. BUT EXISTING.... easier saleability of coins in the PCGS holders. Borne out by Mark's OP quote calling attention to the crossovers.

 

Analysis by NGC would be warranted, IMO.

 

[MikeInFL]

As a business, PCGS is within their rights to do as they wish realtive to crossing coins from other TPGs.

 

However, I view PCGS' actions as counter-productive to the interests of their customers, and bordering on fraudulent as PCGS portrays themselves as providing an unbiased grade opinion -- and this unbiasedness should extend to crossing over coins from other TPGs.

 

Instead PCGS uses crosovers to further their own competitive interests at the expense of the customer -- a shortsighted policy, IMHO...Mike

[Count_Erfit]

a shortsighted policy

 

I disagree. Getting a superior coin in one's slab has a VERY long term effect.

 

 

[WinstonWare]

I see dipped white CBHs in PCGS slabs every time I look for new coins to add to my collection. I think there is room for improvement by both TPGs.

[MikeInFL]

a shortsighted policy

 

I disagree. Getting a superior coin in one's slab has a VERY long term effect.

 

 

A VERY long term effect on what?

 

The customer who submitted a good-but-not-great-for-the-grade coin in an NGC slab and whose crossover was refused?

 

Or on the TPG, who's reputation is now bolsterd by only PQ coins being crossed, leaving the average and below average coins in their competitors holders?

 

The point I was trying (and perhaps failed) to make was that misleading your customers is a shortsighted policy that sacrifices the subjective opinion of the TPG in the eyes of their customers for a competitive advantage. Given that the ultimate success of a TPG is based directly how confident their customers are in using their service, this policy which erodes confidence in the TPG's grading objectivity is short-sighted...Mike