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

So you are saying that the registry sets all have the same coin in them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is indicative - I think - of the historic greater laxity of NGC grading at the Premium Gem levels. Whether that status is still true today, I can't say.

 

No. A pop of say 10 doesn't mean there are 10 people with the same coin in their registry set. A pop of 10 could be from 3 unique coins, each owned by one person.

A person who had the original coin that was cracked and resubmited still has it in their registry just with the most updated cert number (eventually hoping for an upgrade, at which point they would update the cert number again and get points for the next grade).

 

I know a guy that hasn't removed his DMPL Morgan from his registry even though he cracked it himself and lost the DMPL. It became a PL and although he never got it back into a DMPL holder, he left it in his registry so he could have the points.

 

Yes that happens too. In my post I was suggesting people would update their sets only if they received favorable (or at worst neutral) results.

I will add that it is possible for multiple people to have the same coin in their registry given that it has multiple cert numbers.
However, that was not my main point in discussing population increases.

 

I'm gaining a better understanding of the depth of the problem, thank you for your insights and sounding the alarm long ago.

 

I'm not denying what was said, but am saying that without proper context, it muddies his point while coming off as rather petty and infinitely one sided. Although it still would have been cherrypicking, I would have much rather seen examples given of NGC performance for the exact same coins and grades over the same period. Yes, I can do this on my own, of course, but should I really have to? In my opinion no, I shouldn't, nor should anyone else and is why I added the part about having grown tired of mostly meaningless finger-pointing about how bad the other guy is all while no evidence of how good the one making the claim supposedly is. NGC is clearly implying they're better and that their coins have not suffered the same as select PCGS coins have, so why not make a proper case instead of relying on said implications? If NGC is truly outperforming or at least not suffering the same as PCGS is, they'd be much better served by simply presenting the proper evidence, with equal comparisons (as is possible), and even giving examples of where PCGS coins have preformed better. The fact they didn't suggests there's less meat to this bone than is implied.

My point and views on this approach are in no way meant to be pro-PCGS. If PCGS presented the same argument against select NGC coins in the same manner, I would see it no differently. The proof is in the pudding and as it stands we've little more than an empty, or at least a half-eaten container.

 

Wouldn't the guy with the top pop, who now has 3, be shooting himself in the foot? His $80,000 coin is now worth a quarter of what he gave for it, simply because he exploded the population by resubmitting. I find it hard to believe that someone who holds that type of coin, wouldn't have enough sense to let that happen, though deep down I would question his intelligence for paying $80 grand the first time.

 

I feel there are two worlds in the grading coin universe just like in our society. There those of us who collect what we can afford and there is the market of the elite level coins where the rules of economics seldom apply. I watched a coinweek video where the gentleman was talking about his liberty seated set and the fact that he resubmitted a couple so they could get DOWNGRADED because he only wanted PQ coins in his set. We're not talking about Kennedys here. When you have enough money to buy a million dollar coin you have enough money to take a $200000 hit on it.

 

Regardless of the coin or value, would you honestly rather have a presently maxed out coin, or one PQ for its more conservative and arguably proper grade? As a collector yourself this is an important question.

 

That sounds a lot like something TDN would do with his set, I am going to assume that was the set.

 

I agree to a point, but nobody lives in the slums if they can afford not too.

 

Hmm... I wonder. Perhaps by comparative analysis as opposed to the presented self-serving examples and skewed deflection? Maybe try a more objective approach instead of the usual anti-PCGS subjectivity, and perhaps this will make sense. Of course I doubt you'll see this because, well, it's par for the course.

 

I would rather have the best coin I can afford. I do understand there is a deeper culture of people who seek out the best coins in the abitrary grade, but this is just a number. "Buy the coin" should apply to coins both overgraded and undergraded. If there is an overgraded coin at a good price, IMO it is no different than an undergraded coin at a premium price. Most will disagree as I feel it is a sense of pride in their collecting to seek out those PQ coins and display them to reflect their discerning taste. But understand this violates the "buy the coin" mantra, because you are conscious of the grade on the holder. However, I understand why it is done and PQ coins have a far easier time being resold than ones that are overgraded. But obviously people wouldn't be cracking out coins and resubmitting them if they ascribed to these values, so money always comes into play.

 

But people will tear down a slum and put up a new house just as easily.

 

That was meant to illustrate that NGC is, like PCGS, a part of a larger consortium which grades and evaluates more than just coins. You'll note that what I quoted mentioned nothing about whether PCGS was a publicly-held corporation or not.

 

They may, but they won't trade the new house for another slum.

 

This has been an interesting read. My opinion is the same as a lot of others on here. That the crackout and resubmit is one of the biggest problems going on with population reports. The cat is out of the bag now and there really is no way to correct the pop reports without the TPG's offering an incentive.

A big leg up that PCGS has over NGC is the TrueView images. As others have said, you can look through the TV images on CoinFacts and see several that appear multiple times. PCGS, should decide to do some house cleaning on their end. I know that will only affect coins that have been imaged, but it's a place to start.

 

I'll agree, BUT I have had 3 returns on coins with Tru views because the buyer said, "it doesn't look as good as the pictures." And that is a problem.