Holy .... NGC just took PCGS behind the woodshed!

CAC is a third party. This is a good example of why NGC is being so petty in my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In some cases, five times as many as in the previous twenty years combined. That's how many. If their business had grown that much, they'd be crowing it from the rooftops. Their published financials don't support that theory, anyway.

It's not like I'm some sort of Mark Salzberg fan, either. I sat in a room with him a few months ago and listened to him crow about the benefits they've accrued from the ridiculous "added value" labels they've used on their slabs. That doesn't exactly pass my smell test.

But his points are valid, and the bottom line is the bottom is dropping out of some auction results as a result of PCGS' actions. Fact is fact. I don't care how bad it makes NGC look, because it isn't as ugly as the facts make of PCGS.

 

I have to disagree. When my next NGC submission is done it will be my last, Salzbery in my opinion either sees the righting on the wall or is trying to boost his own position. I have never seen a company not market themselves but try and tear down someone else instead like that unless they were failing.

He literally started the email about their praise of the the registry decision. I know you read the other forms too. Can you show me the praise anywhere?

In my opinion he went full cash for gold in that email and lost me as a customer from here on out. I don't want to ride a sinking ship

 

Correct me if I misunderstand. It is my understanding that the Green CAC denotes that the affixed coin meets the average standard for that TPG, not for an industry standard (e.g. A.N.A. published Technical, etc), or a standard of their competitor.

In a past thread discussing the differences between the differing TPG, I posted a group of the 4 "premier" TPG, all of the same type/grade/date. The coins were classic Gold where it's generally easier to view the technical differences for a given type/grade/date. I selected the PCGS coin which had a Green CAC, which in my opinion was relatively attrocious to the other 3 coins certified by differing TPG. I believed the post easily showed the grading disparities, but was believed to correctly have a Green CAC bean for that TPG.

The believed most properly technical graded coin of the group was certified by ICG, which I'm to understand, isn't allowed to have a CAC "bean"

I'm a Neophyte in the new grading systems, because I've been collected since before TPG existed, but have many of the old ANACS and ACG graded coins which I believed were technically properly graded. In a current study, several of these old Gold coins have been resubmitted to the supposed Creme De La Creme TPG, and have received significant upgrades above their initial assigned grades. I personally believe something is evidenced, as indicated in the referenced article, by my exercises.

JMHO

 

That is incorrect. It meets the CAC standard. It is also incorrect to say the ANA standard is the industry standard anymore.

 

\

Can you please explain to me how you constantly argue for federal government grading and law suits left and right for grading, but you can justify these types of posts?

 

Rather than your unevidenced/unsupported "rambling", It's believed the majority of those using objective criteria for acceptance, would appreciate your posting supportive statements from/by CAC.

I stated a Neophyte understanding of current grading standards, as my current in-depth studies appear to indicate a lack of coherent standards.

Have you currently been involved in an objective study, or is your basis for fact from the current school of seeming mythology/untruths? I'm very interested in establishing a basis for your supposed facts, as I believe I've evidence that may belie yours.

JMHO

 

Then submit to PCGS from here on in. They're giving out higher grades anyways.

 

Go through the tru views you'll see the same coin 5-10 times with a different cert number, alot of crack out artist don't return the cracked out certs so they can be removed from the pop reports.

 

I agree that the specific examples cited in the letter with higher populations and lower auction results are factual. However, these are highly selective and one sided facts. There is no comparison to NGC coins, which you showed (on the first page of this thread) that the first two examples also had population increases. A balanced letter would show both sides or at least try to highlight where NGC has stayed consistent over the years.

Some other things to consider are that some examples in the letter are modern coins, like the 1995-W ASE. These are still available raw and it is possible that a large segment has been recently sent in to be graded. Also, the 1974-S PR 70 dcam quarter is both modern and readily available in lower grades. Many people saw the auction results for the Pop 1 coin and likely submitted these coins in record numbers to get more 70s.

Regardless if the letter was factual, balanced, or fair, it certainly achieved a purpose. NGC will be getting a lot of publicity. Any extra attention is good, right?

 

This reminds me of an "After Game Show" where a bunch of folks tell you their version of what he just said. I, like most of you, have thought this thing through and am considering an investment in International Paper because in the back of my mind, I can picture a guy asking a dealer about the price of a coin and the dealers response being: "Paper or Plastic?"

 

It appears that if the linked article, and my evidence of grading "creep" and incongruent "standards" aren't understood by you, than this is as assumed, a futile exercise for objective discussion.

JMHO

 

From the CAC website:
I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?
For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker
http://www.caccoin.com/faqs/

 

Being "uninformed", but supposed being in the position of CAC to relatively evaluate the quality of the 2 constituents in an outhouse, if I found a sugar cube floating amongst the fluids, and a chocolate amongst the solids, I probably need to apply a Gold "bean"to any similar elements. I'd rather have been able to evaluate all disposed constituents, than just have my standard based on 2 products.

I believe I now understand: the term “premium quality”

JMHO

 

You've got that backwards

 

How do you "go through the tru views"?

 

Salzberg is turning out to be just as arrogant as Don Willis, and I didn't think that was possible.

 

You will from PCGS.

I was screwed over by the same phenomenon with a PL coin from NGC. The population was approximately 12 for all dates and mint marks combined and now the population is 50. I took a $120 loss on a $650 purchase. I sold it because the market is showing signs that it will tank even more.

 

I wouldn't rule out a collapse. The services, their ever changing and watered down guarantees, and grade inflation are killing this hobby.

 

There will be no tarp money from the federal government to save the certified rare coin market if it ever came down to it. Wall Street was bailed out repeatedly in 2008.