so in words because of new technology anything that is not secure plus is actually insecure. the moment i go away for a few pcgs starts another riot. if it was not sad it would be funny. : BTW GD have you learnt to use the laser yet? my coin future needs to be secured
the popularity of your posts goes higher after i make an appearence so at least in this case you should be happy with my regal presence
Very good point...similar to the point you made in Post #12. You must have missed my use of quotations...but point well taken, none the less. I think I understand the general aspects of the Secure Plus "finger printing" process (quoted...No, PCGS doesn't actually put ink on the coins, youngsters ). Since I don't know the extent to which the Secure Plus identifies coins (number of unique data points, etc), I was wondering how "laser treatment" of coins affects the Secure Plus process. Does anyone have any insight into the Secure Plus identification process? (perhaps I should have just asked that question and left out all the extraneous verbiage). :foot-mouth:
Like Conder said, it's like a fingerprint. Only it's for coins instead of people. All they do is take a very high resolution photograph of the coin. This picture captures every little teeny tiny - everything - on the coin, down to the minutest detail, by a laser scanning process. That information is then entered into a database. After that it works the same way that using fingerprints to identify specific individuals works. The coin "fingerprint" is used to identify that one specific coin. And just like if somebody cuts their fingers and puts scars on their fingertips, they can still be identified even though their fingerprints have changed somewhat because there are still enough unique points left of their fingerprints. Coins are the same way, every single one is completely, 100%, unique. So even if a doctor removes some hits or hairlines on the coin with his laser, that coin can still be positively identified by the remaining portions of the fingerprint. That's all there is to it.
From the responses here I have not seen that lasering stands out as a big no-no, or a significant ethical issue. One dealer indicated that he had heard back from a grading service that they did not want to see more of the lasered coins he had submitted in the future, in other words they were on to him, had probably flagged his account as being a major submitter of such coins. So probably they are not too concerned with coins under, say, $2000, generic gold coins, but are concerned about high end rarities appearing in the auctions. Does anyone know how prevalent the practice is?
It is a HUGE no-no ! Using a laser to doctor coins is one of the primary reasons that PCGS started their lawsuit against coin doctors. It is as bad or worse than tooling, adding mint marks, altering dates, or doing anything else you can think of to scam unsuspecting buyers. Get caught doing it and it will get you kicked out of the ANA, PNG and any other numismatic association or club. And to suggest that they (the TPGs and numismatic associations) don't care about it being done on generic coins is a very poor assumption on your part. As for how prevalent it is, most will never know. Fo rone thing the equipment to do it is not cheap. So not just anybody is doing it. It takes a great deal of experience to even recognize it. And without high magnification you can't recognize it. You can pretty much bet that there are a lot of lasered coins in collections out there.
So dealers get banned from submitting coins to the two major TPGs and from the ANA. It must be a difficult position to be in when you go to coin shows or run ads to make a living but find yourself in a predicament by being on various lists that you don't want to be on. Occasionally the ANA lists members banned for egregious conduct.
Yeah I suppose it is difficult, but that's what crooks deserve. If I had my way, doing stuff like using a laser, tooling, altered dates and mint marks - all of that would be a felony crime as well.
Doug, I was glad to read your description of Secure Plus, and its capabilities and weaknesses. Because virtually everyone gets it wrong. But your post was 100% correct. Good for you. PCGS has said that the will use the Sniffer, and possibly even the SP fingerprint device, on occasion, for coins submitted through its regular service. "When conditions call for it." I.e., when they suspect a treated surface, perhaps on a high dollar coin. They have other reasons, no doubt, and I wouldn't be surprised if they used the scanning device and Sniffer for coins submitted by certain "suspect dealers". Another misperception folks have about SP is that if the coin goes through SP a second time, and it is ID'd but there are no new issues, the coin will receive the same grade. These PCGS machines do not grade coins. The detect, they scan and compare, but they do not render grades. So it is entirely possible for a coin's grade or color assessment to change the second time around. A drop in grade would invoke their guarantee, of course. A lot of us feel that until PCGS uses the coin scanner on every coin there will continue to be holes, and the value of the technology under-appreciated. E.g., crack the SP coin, doctor it, and submit it for regular grading. Finally, the other concern is that for the scanning to be done, and for the Sniffer to sniff, coins have to be handled, placed in mechanic trays, etc. and the possibility of errant damage increased. It is a little disturbing to see the handling in PCGS promotional videos. Lance.
That's similar to what you said in an earlier post...but even if they're evaluating flow lines, two coins struck close in time from the same die would produce nearly identical flow lines...I would think. I've been studying silver Washington Quarter die deterioration and I've noticed that, due to the design, die cracks appear in similar areas across a wide variety of dates and mints. Oftentimes I see similar flow patterns as dies deteriorate, also. Granted, I'm not suggesting that my 53 year old eyes are any match for Secure Plus, but I can imagine where "not too much" variation (lasering) of key features could begin to produce false returns. I have a little experience with biometric scanners (specifically, eye retina scanners) and most scanning mechanisms have a certain number of False Positive/Negative responses and are adjustable to minimize false returns...bringing the skill of the operator into the mix. Biometric scanning tools undergo significant testing under controlled conditions to determine false positive/negative thresholds under various conditions. I would be surprised if Secure Plus hasn't undergone similar testing and would be interested to know the results...not that I ever expect to see any. I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative...just saying I wish I knew more specifics.
I don't think you're being argumentative at all. Good questions. According to Don Willis, PCGS tested thousands of coins of all metals, sizes and designs, including incuse. He said they would have been quite happy with 99% accuracy. But the scanner never made a mistake. 100% accuracy, always, is a little much to expect. But it seems the technology is highly reliable. And I don't believe there are parameters for operators to tweak. It looks like a mindless, clerical job. Of course I'm just going by what I've read and seen. Some collectors have asked pointed questions about the technology and, not surprisingly, PCGS was not interested in publicly sharing details. They said they spent $millions on this service and prefer to keep much of it in confidence. Lance.
Thanks, Lance. WOW! Never made a mistake...that's impressive. I would be interested to know their test scenarios. I would expect they would first test extremes (various levels of damage/toning), then define use cases that describe known attack vectors...meaning, known alteration techniques at varying levels of sophistication. If they're 100% accurate under all those conditions, that's impressive!
