I'm sorry if this was discussed before: NGC welcomes prominent numismatist and coin grader Miles Standish as vice president. http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=4917&?utm_source=marketo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15-NG-1919MilesStandish&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonuajAZKXonjHpfsX57uokX6Cg38431UFwdcjKPmjr1YIDRMJ0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEOTLbYV6Z6t60PWQ== Full disclosure, I use both NGC and PCGS services (as well as being a Collector's Universe CLCT stockholder). guy
It's neither here nor there since I'm certain that Miles signed a non-disclosure agreement with PCGS prior to getting on board with NGC. As for owning CLCT Stock? Not for me since it really has no upside. No preferential treatment or else their ethical code of conduct goes right out the window not to mention the fact that companies with public offerings are beholding to their stock holders. Not their customers. As such, to keep the stock viable, public companies have to do things such as trim overhead (which PCGS has done to the point of almost being like eBay with regard to sellers) or cut heads and salaries. Do people REALLY want some young grader that has no real world experience grading their coins just to keep the stock prices solvent? The entire grading experience and even the grading scale itself is based upon "market values" and experience. If not, then how could a coin with obvious MS64 hits grade at MS65 or even higher due to some toning? I would be curious as to why Miles parted ways but I suppose we'll ever know why? Maybe he didn't like the new forum Format of FuseTalk 4.0??
I'm not sure of the significance, but now Rick Tomaska will have to send ASE's to NGC to get Miles signature.... It's no secret that I prefer NGC to PCGS. Just my personal choice. I'm glad another industry established numismatist joined them. I'm not sure of the title he had at PCGS, but my guess is he left for the VP title and all that goes with it. He might not have been afforded the same opportunity at PCGS, so he bolted. Only speculation on my part.
And Rick Montgomery left PCGS some years ago for NGC; I don't know what to make of the changes. Probably the classic coins are diminishing, and the moderns which Standish is focusing on are still an active and growing field, though most serious collectors are not that interested. I have zero interest in moderns.
Zero?, Talking about yourself, or serious collectors as a group? If as a group, let me see your statistics? That is quite a statement, I know many very serious collectors who specialize in the complexities which many "moderns" present. And by "moderns" do you mean coins of the world since 1900, or US coins since 1964, or what? Be more specific. Again lets see the evidence behind your lamentation. Or were you just voicing your uninformed opinion? Gary in Washington
Sounds a little snobbish to me .... Who says that "most serious collectors are not that interested" in modern coins?
Maybe he saw the "writing on the wall" for the past few years CLCT has been paying out in dividends more than their Earning Per Share. Not sure if a Company can survey long doing that.
I guess he means that we're not serious Caleb. But then maybe his definition of "serious" is a little skewed?
Yes, you're probable right ... He may have a collection of culled "Liberty Nickels" and thinks he is a "serious" collector...
Some of the modern coins give collectors a lot of pleasure; I have a friend in a re-hab facility who orders a lot of inexpensive certified moderns and a few classic commems. and cheaper Morgan dollars. He is enjoying the hobby. But I don't know any dealer who collects moderns or pays real premiums for them above rock bottom dealer wholesale buy prices; they are just a means to profit for them. I am in this hobby because the precious metals basis for numismatics is written into the Constitution. How the US mint has flooded the collectibles market with more and more stuff is just obscene.
Who says ? Most serious collectors And if you want to define "modern", the TPGs use 1964 as the dividing line. Post '64 equals modern. As a matter of fact until 2001 NGC refused to even grade any coins minted after 1964. That's how strong the bias against "modern coins" was for many, many, years. And to a very large degree that bias still exists. Now is that snobbish ? Yeah, maybe it is. Nonetheless it is quite real. And if you doubt it is real go to a coin show sometime, and see how many dealers you can find that are selling modern coins. Or look at the auction archives, and see how many moderns you can find in proportion to classic coins. Look and see how many coin books you can find written about moderns. They are few and far between. And no, I'm not being snobbish, there was a time when I collected moderns too. What I am being is realistic and relaying the facts. And the fact is the vast majority of coin collectors see moderns as being so much junk that is not worth collecting. And keep in mind, this is nothing new. It has been that way for hundreds of years. Personally, I believe that you should collect what you like. So if you like moderns, more power to ya. But don't expect to be thought of as a serious collector by most of those in the hobby, because you won't be.
That's a good one. Got another one? A nitwit can market grade as good as these TPGs, and probably be just as consistent. Market grades are what the grader forecasts the coins will trade at in the market, based on auction results, that's all.
I thought he was dead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Standish Myles Standish (c. 1584 – October 3, 1656; sometimes spelled 'Miles' Standish)
I wish Miles the best. He has been around for many years and can grade with the best of them. You never here anything bad about the guy. I think David and Don messed up letting him get away. Guys with his type of knowledge don't grow on trees.
Eh, John Albanese left PCGS to go to NGC as well. It happens. When you only have 2 or 3 companies to choose from, you're bound to get a good bit of cross-pollination.
When buying graded coins, I've only ever strictly bought PCGS coins. I think with this info about NGC and other info I've read about NGC throughout the CT forum, I have been convinced that NGC is just as good as PCGS. Perhaps some good deals could be obtained buying NGC graded coins because I think that many out there are still thinking the same way I "did" about PCGS being the better grading company. I realize the regulars here already know all this, but I am somewhat new to the "grading game" regarding higher grade coins, and as usual, perception isn't always reality. Thanks for the info!
Maybe, but I feel that any coin after 1964 is ultramodern. Any gold after 1932, US coins after 1860 (US Civil War in 1861), or British coins after 1837 (coronation of Queen Victoria 1837) is modern. Then, again, I spend most of my time thinking about Ancient times or British politics from the Glorious Revolution (1688) to the American revolution (1776). guy
Stephan, PCGS is all about marketing, market-influence, and sucking you into that culture that says only they know how to market grade. You just fell for it, that's all. Don't let it bother you, as you're not the only one.
What ever happened to buy the coin not the holder? I guess with moderns under $50 it's no big deal. But the bias toward PCGS gets pretty ridiculous; and there are plenty of nice accurately graded coins in Anacs and ICG holders too. It comes down to the graders and the business managers. But with top quality graders like Standish, Salzburg, Montgomery, etc. at NGC, and comparable experts at the other services they don't make many mistakes. And when people keep spewing the kool-ade that PCGS is best and most marketable sets up people to try to chisel down sellers with coins in other holders as not "worth" as much. I can't help but think that the grading services will be running out of classic material before too long, I sure as heck will not be floating their boats much with submissions.
