One way exclusivity of registries could be less of a problem for collectors and TPGs would be for NGC and PCGS to offer a sticker option for crossover grading. At the option of the submitter, when a coin crosses, a sticker indicating agreement with the grade could be put on the existing slab instead of reslabbing the coin. Say a MS64 PCGS Morgan is submitted to NGC for grading. At the option of the submitter, NGC would place a NGC sticker on the slab if their graders think the coin is MS64 or better. The NGC sticker would have a NGC cert. no. on it. Vice versa for a NGC coin submitted to and successfully crossed by PCGS. Such dual-graded coins could be entered in both registries if desired. A policy like this would generate a big burst of coins submitted to both services as many collectors would like to have coins certified by both. The services could charge the same for crossover with reslabbing or stickering, but the latter would less costly for them. It would probably take some business from CAC. If a coin is certified by both NGC and PCGS, how much need would there be for CAC certification? The services already sticker GSA holders, so they can't say they don't have the technology to sticker each other's slabs. They might have to consider slabs from other services to avoid antitrust accusations, but that is something for their legal departments to determine. One thing the services should avoid is putting a grade on the sticker. The sticker should simply indicate that the grade is equal to or better than the one on the slab label. Under no circumstances should the sticker have a grade different from the one on the slab label, either explicitly or implicitly by a different color label. This would lead to endless confusion and extra work. A coin graded MS63 by one service and MS64 by the other would probably by advertized by sellers or auction houses at the higher grade. Buyers and bidders would have to read the small print (if provided) to see the lower grade. Cal
I like your idea. I guess fortunately, however, the TPGs don't communicate as well as we would like them to for true census purposes - if you cross a coin from one to the other, it still exists in the original TPG's database. You could list the same coin in both registries this way.
Considering the turnaround time for one TPG is on the order of 21 business days people like me might have gone to the Great Slab in the Sky before the coin ever got back to the submitter..
I think branding the slab with a non-removable imprint might be a good idea. Then another could add a approval imprint on the slab,soon the slab would look like a chop marked Trade Dollar. Well maybe not. I could heat up my moose punch and stamp the slab.
Your idea contradicts the essential reason that the TPGs have made their registries exclusive: its all about the brand. They think this exclusivity is going to drive people to cross coins into their holders in order to participate in the Registry. Looking at what PCGS has done, they have built their brand around this exclusivity, and it has worked for them. NGC is hoping to do the same, but they have angered their customer based in doing so - NGC's customer base enjoyed the freedom and openness of the NGC regsitry. Putting a sticker on the competitor's slab erodes the instant brand recognition and leads to confusion. If you read Salzbergs misguided statement, he says the reason they are doing this is because he believes PCGS' standards are slipping. He thinks NGC is the better grader. So putting a sticker on a slab to say they agree with PCGS' grade would completely undermine everything he is hoping to accomplish with this shortsighted action.
I would think it would also be pretty easy to make counterfeit stickers. But Jason is correct, it really is all about the brand - nothing else. The whole registry thing is nothing but a gimmick to entice collectors to use one or the other, always has been.
Just as easy to make counterfeit CAC stickers. I've heard a couple of rumours about them, but I'm surprised that threat never really materialized.
I think the number one motive for TPG services is to make a profit now and in the future. Without a positive bottom line, they'll go away. Exclusivity of registries forces those who want to participate to choose one service or the other. I think many collectors who have chosen one service would like to compete in the other too and are willing to pay for a crossover sticker to do it. As far as one service thinking the other has inadequate grading standards, why offer any crossover service at all if that is the case? I've crossed plenty of coins in both directions and had about 80% success rate in crossing (either way), so their standards are similar. I think NGC has multiple reasons for making their registry exclusive. I think saying the standards of other services have declined and not naming any is a politic way to make the announcement so as to cause minimal upset and avoid lawsuits. There are likely other motives for the move including irritation that PCGS has never opened their registry NGC coins. I think if you ask execs of either service if they have the toughest standards, all will say yes, as in the past and forevermore. It's normal commercial puffery. It may be too that the percent of PCGS coins in the top sets in the NGC registry has been rising. Probably only NGC has the data to support this theory as its unlikely that anyone but NGC has been keeping historical data on the registry composition. NGC may fear that eventually the percentage of PCGS coins in the top sets could become embarrassing. I would guess that NGC is hoping for an increase in crossover submissions from collectors who choose their registry over the PCGS registry. This is most likely to occur with registry participants whose sets are predominantly NGC but still have a few holes to fill. It will be offset by having rare coins currently in NGC holders cross to PCGS because the owners decide to go with the PCGS registry. This won't have an immediate monetary effect on NGC, but in the long run, having more of these coins in PCGS holders may affect the perception of quality of the two services. There would be an increase in profits for both services if there was an increase in crossover submissions, which there would be with a sticker option. Registries aside, the increase in market value that would inevitably occur for dual certified coins would drive increased crossover submissions. I have many coins that I would submit for dual certification. It may be antitrust considerations that have prevented crossover stickers from being available so far. NGC and PCGS might willing to sticker each other's slabs if they agree with the grade. It's pretty obvious if you study their websites that they consider themselves to be the top two services. However, they may not be willing to sticker a SEGS slab even if they agree with the grade on the label. Stating that they would only sticker each other's slabs might bring on legal or regulatory action. As far as counterfeiting stickers goes; well counterfeiting of coins, slabs, and stickers (CAC, GSA, or crossover) will always be attempted. There are anti-counterfeiting measures in place already, and there are even more effective ones that could be used if needed. I haven't heard of counterfeiting yet being a major problem with CAC or GSA stickers. If the services are happy to sticker GSA slabs, there should be no additional concern about security in putting stickers on the slabs of another service. Cal
