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

I apologize if I can't somehow allow you to view the ideals which I see, as the dilemma of our 2 past presidential candidates.

My objective view is to have the parties in an adverse situation always resolve their differences without the involvement of 3rd parties who have a differing subjective goal. Usually all parties goals are based on greed/self-interest.

Greedy firms have viewed the funds paid for their products as only for their benefit, and will continue to expand their practices until a greedy government agency intercedes to benefit/justify itself.

I personally don't believe that the current process for capitalistic or government expansion are good for a cohesive society, but choices must be made. If the choices selected/implemented by the Numismatic industry continue, government will expand.

We may need to best agree upon disagreement without hostilities.

JMHO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Then collecting is dead. If that is what you guys really hope for from a dislike of PCGS that is up to you guys. If it happens there is no coming back

 

Anyone who pays attention to the market can see it. Especially when major collections hit the market that have been there.

 

This is a discussion of grading, not your socialist platform for political rants....

 

LOL This post, and my prior explanation for objective recognition of diverse/advancing grading standards will be shared with associates/advocates who consider me a radical pragmatist, but never a socialist.

Thanks for sharing! You made my day!

 

It has nothing to do with a disdain for one service or the other. I think both are equally culpable. I also don't want to see a collapse, but think that one will happen if prices continue to tank and grade inflation continues at the rate we have seen in recent years.

 

Then you're saying the NGC article, and factual proof presented therein, are all wrong.

 

The same way gold sellers are all wrong with their PM inflation. I know you read the CU forums. A reputable dealer there reported the 12-S increase was influenced from two original rolls hitting the market.

Point being that article was propaganda without actual facts behind why. Tells me they are losing business

 

Prices are tanking on one service much faster than the other. There is a chance one goes away (I don't think either will) but if one does I don't think it will be who that article was about

 

If prices tank, every TPG loses.

Where'd all the 1995-W ASE's come from? And the 1939-S Quarters? And the 1974-S Quarters? And the 1918 Lincolns? And the 1945-S Walkers? And all the rest? And none of those somehow found their way to NGC?

Additional reading:

http://www.coinweek.com/education/c...-pcgs-ike-populations-from-2010-through-2013/

 

Why would you submit a 95-W to NGC first? That will cost you 5 grand in auction if you get a 70 between PCGS and NGC. You lose so much money at the top end with NGC of course they go to PCGS. You know that, I know you know that.

I hate PCGS customer service as much as the next guy, the fact remains they are the king for prices and their style of grading looks the best overall

 

CAC is just as objective as PCGS and NGC! Owned by John Albanese (of PCGS and NGC) and Laura Sperber (of PCGS.... and also a dealer). But tell me more of how they have no vested interest in the coin market.

Again, not saying that they have manipulated anything, but what are the checks and balances? What exactly is in place to stop them? If you think they are completely objective, well then... best of luck to you.

 

Could this be because more PCGS holders get sent to CAC? Legit question.

 

That was a good read.

 

No, coin investing may be dead, coin collecting would be just fine. It existed for 2500 years before TPGs, it would continue to exist post TPGs.

 

Good point.

 

I am one short click above a novice, however, I have seen a couple PCGS MS65s that I would not buy at the price requested. Mostly they were pitted or stained, yet carried a 65. So I offered lower, way lower and got one. So now I own a 65 that I really dont like. Sort of like my old 1960 Studebaker Lark VIII.

 

This is exactly why I dont collect grade rarities with exponential price pops in higher grades.

I do see the points made though -- it appears to be well supported.

 

Too bad we can't take all of the slabbed coins and start over. The pop reports are meaningless since they don't take into account resubmission's. The saying "buy the coin, not the holder" becomes even more true. I still like to look at auction archives to see how often a particular coin of interest comes to auction, regardless of grade. In many instances I find lower grade coins with superior eye appeal.

 

No truer words, "Buy the coin."