Now "NO" guarantee on your ASE's for those nasty Milk Spots from the top TPG?

How can coin collectors keep paying their hard earned $$$ to a company to give your coin a "GRADE" for a fee/opinion and then because there was an issue they already knew about before they gave your coin a grade about problems and even offered I think $10,000 reward if anyone knew what the cause on why these Milk Spots exsist, change their policy to protect them only.

I don't know if this is true, it probably is. I just think of someone behind the scenes like Willy Wonka making decisions for only one purpose. To make sure he walks away with your money because of a hired "OPINION" with no recourse for the owner of the coin.


http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=883410

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why bother getting newer coins graded? They're mostly all 69 or 70s. I really don't see the point of paying the TPG to tell me what I already know. If the mintage of a coin is 250,000 and they are sold in holders, what's the point?

I have some Canadian coins that have the milk spots on them which obviously looks bad, but it is what it is. Maybe when the coins were graded they didn't have the milk spots on them and they appeared after the coins were slabbed, as what happened to my coins. Are they now suppose to grade a coin not in its present state, but its future state?

Like I said I don't see the point of getting present day coins graded, I think people get too focused on the numbers and not the coin. I'd rather see a circulated Seated Half in a holder graded VF+ than a 2013 MS/PR70 Eagle any day, but that's just me and my opinion......

 

I think PCGS's reasoning was fair. I really don't see what else they could do. It really will put a dent in the number of future submissions, as no one can safely expect a given grade now, will hold in the future. I suspect these coins will now be held as bullion only, and grades will not be a significant factor.

 

Smart move by PCGS. I see no reason why they should have to pay for white spots that develop well after they are in their slabs as this is admittedly the fault of the mint. If the slabs caused the spots, then of course PCGS should be liable but this is not the case. Maybe PCGS should not slab ASEs at all. TC

 

I think that the decision made by PCGS to exclude "milk spots" from their grade guarantee makes sense. If the head of the US Mint's quality division doesn't have an answer for the cause of the milk spots, then why should PCGS be held accountable?

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/printarticle/spotting-on-silver-american-eagles-remains-a-

BigTee, there is a very good reason why so many moderns are submitted for grading........."feeding frenzy" on new issues and "bidiots".

Chris

 

Their decision makes sense. Their fees do three things, pay the ongoing expenses, provide a profit, and create a self insurance fund to pay off claims. Now have estimates for the claim rates they are going to have and those figures allow them to set the fees. But they have a problem. The milk spotting is causing a much higher claim rate than expected, and it is disproportionately highest on those coins that cost them the most in damages. The insurance fund can't keep up. This leaves them with two possibilities, either discontinue coverage against milkspotting, or boost the fees up high enough to protect themselves from those extremely high losses when the 70's spot. Since boosting the fees that high would greatly reduce submissions the funds for expenses and profit margin would decline requiring a further increase in rates. (And eventually like taxes you get to a point where raising rates results in a decline in revenues instead of an increase.) So it just made more economic sense to withdraw the coverage against milkspotting.

 

I have been wondering the same thing about TPGs since I got involved in the hobby, and not just in regards to their milk spot policy. On the other hand, people do it because the value of that little plastic tomb is greater than the cost. It's important to keep in mind, PCGS is not slabbing coins out of the goodness of their heart or as a public service, they are doing it for profit and will engage in business practices which benefit their interests.

 

CLCT had a gain from Thurs, 3/14 $11.30 to today 3/18 $ 11.75, and the rule change seems like the only thing that happened. So the investors seemed to like it , unlike many of the collectors who forsee a plunge in submissions on other boards.

 

My arguement is this.. When any TPG found out this problem back when, there should of been Quality Control for all future slabbing of this coin and any coin slabbed after company decision put in place it was at buyers risk..

Many newbies chased this silly Silver ASE program as well as some old crows like myself. Some paid huge $$$. Again buyers lose and TPG's walks away with no future liability.

Again. They should of have put in place a (No Guarantee) for any "FUTURE" grading of this coin when the problem first appeared. A financial decision was put into place to offset losses for slabbing ASE new coins. Now we have a closure of some sort for investors.

Hidden board room decisions always protects businesses not the buyers. I feel strongly this is what happened here. Sorry just my opinion.

 

Practically speaking this creates a two tiered opaque market for these coins. One set of slabbed coins is guaranteed (and worth more) while another set is not guaranteed ( and worth less), with the difference between the two sets unknowable simply by looking at the slab. Your solution has real practical implementation problems.

Again, their interests and your interests are not the same. This is not the first and it will not be the last time a decision by the grading companies has a large negative impact on prices for a portion of the coin market. If you play their game you may get burned.

 

I think it was nice that PCGS backed the Mints spotting problems. They didn't have to and finally figured it out.

 

Does anyone have a verified example of a slabbed coin they know was spot free and later developed spot(s)? Since milk spots have been around for awhile and attributed to the wash the mint uses, I haven’t experienced them developing later, if they didn’t come from the mint that way. I do have experience not seeing the milk spots in certain light, yet they showed up when viewing the coin in diffused sunlight. Wonder if PCGS viewed the coins in the wrong light and missed the spots?

 

Doesn’t make since, does it? A toned silver coin gets a bump up, yet a toned red cent, gets a down grade to RB. I for one like nicely toned cents that started out red.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. Not saying I agree, but rather I follow the logic.

Now the next question... What coins will be the next to have their guarantee erased?

 

Well yes & no. I'm not usually willing to pay more for a slabbed coin, yet I want a significant discount for a raw coin in many cases, simply because there are too many good counterfeiters out there and there is simply too fine a line between some grades and prices. That may be because I'm not an expert with all coins, which is the case for most collectors, so the market does not pay as much for raw coins.

 

The most interesting part to me is that they admit they will dip the coins and reholder them.

I say they have to send them to a collector for the new "grade" after the dip. Just once....wouldn't you like to return THEIR coin saying "MS details cleaned". HAHAHAHAHA...payback! :devil:

 

And, they re-slab it at the same grade. So what's all the hub bub.......bub?