Big One = PCGS Secure Plus

Interesting point, Matt. I share your concern.

Yes, if they're using this to ID stolen coins the concern of a "false positive" is valid.

My understanding is they intially do this for $3,000 and up; maybe someday it will be all coins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My questions is:

Where does all this extra value come from that they keep speaking of?
And who is paying for it?

 

At least I found an oasis of reason in this thread of cyncism. I agree with Breakdown completely and emplore everyone to keep and open mind about the new service until they have the opportunity to use the service before rendering judgement.

Given the price structure involved and the fact that the price guides have already been established, it seems logical that PCGS designed this service for dealers to submit what they perceive as PQ (premium quality) coins. Just as the TPG's leveled the grading playing field with their inception in the 80's, this service will level the PQ playing field.

How many times have you seen a dealer list a coin a PQ with a premium price tag. Of course you had no guarantee that the coin was PQ, it was just that one dealers opinion. This service will put PCGS's stamp of approval that the coin is PQ for the assigned grade and deserved of a premium price. Currently, dealers have a hard time moving PQ inventory unless they have a very knowledgeable collector base that is able to recognize premium quality when they see it and willing to pay premiums for it. This service will make PQ coins much more liquid in the marketplace and I imagine that dealers who have PQ coins in their inventory will gladly spend the increased submission fee to ensure both the higher price and increase liquidity.

The laser security feature seems like a gimmick to me since from my understanding that it only applies to coin identification and has no impact on the grading. However, if the laser feature can be proven to assist in counterfeit detection and help weed out he crap coming from China, it may become very worthwhile in the future.

Regarding the CAC, I am interested to see how they will handle the plus designated coins. It would seem to me that if a PCGS plus coin is good for the assigned grade according to the CAC, it should merit a gold sticker. If a PCGS plus coin had only a green sticker it would mean to me that the CAC did not agree with the PQ status but did agree with the coin being good for the grade.

In the end, I will reserve my judgement of the service until I have had a chance to use and personally evaluate it.

 

You mean all those Redfield Morgans that say 65 on the holder and are priced at 65 aren't 65?

Sorry, couldn't resist that little bit of sarcasm, especially since every Redfield I see at shows is priced at 65.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's the case.

The gold sticker is reserved for coins CAC feels are under-graded by at least 1 grade. The CAC green sticker means the coin is either an A or B coin for the grade. So with the plus designation meaning a coin is "premium quality" (which PCGS calls, a coin from .700-.999 within the grade), I believe a green sticker would be the right sticker to use.

Now if there was a gold sticker on a PCGS + coin I believe that would mean CAC disagrees with the grade. For example, PCGS calls a coin MS65+ which means it's a 65.700-65.999, if CAC gives the coin a gold sticker they think the coin is at least a 66. If the same 65+ coin has a green sticker it means CAC believes it's at least a B coin and can be as high as an A coin.

 

Actually, No. IIRC, the Redfield Morgans were dispersed in the coin market prior to the inception of the TPG's. At the time, the grading choices were MS60 or MS65 for uncirculated coins which is why you see so many MS65 graded Redfields in those old paramount holders. Now if you have modern dealers trying to peddle MS63 Redfields at MS65 prices, that is not a PQ coin with a PQ premium, it is a ripoff.

I am speaking of dealers claiming they have PQ coins for sale. The easiest would be Legend Numismatics since they come right out and tell you they have submitted coins looking for an upgrade from PCGS. It would also not surprise me if Legend had something to do with this newest initiative from PCGS. Lets see how long it takes for a whole bunch of these SecurePlus coins to show up in the Legend Numismatics inventory.

http://www.legendcoin.com/cgi-bin/inventory/itemlist.pl?category=Gold

 

Dual grading was already done a long time ago by the then-American Numismatic Association Certification Service (ANACS) with a grade for the obverse and one for the reverse.

 

There was a time that you could find the definitions of the green and gold stickers on CAC's website. I just searched the damn site and can't find it. IIRC, the gold sticker was supposed to mean that the coin exceeds the standards set by the CAC for that numerical grade but they were careful not to say the coin was undergraded because they had no control over the actions of the TPG. IMO, that is the same as calling the coin PQ for the grade.

I thought the new plus designation by PCGS was supposed to be for the top 10-15% of the grade range. I think the CAC should stop using the gold sticker for undergraded and use it instead to confirm PQ status for the grade. After all, I still have never personally seen a gold stickered CAC coin.

 

Yeah, I was just looking for the definition too, the only thing I found was a page from Scott Travers book: Google Books At CoinFest John Albanese had a session on CAC, I believe he said the gold sticker was for coins that CAC believed was at least 1 numeric grade higher, but I could be wrong.

I agree, I think it would be a good idea for CAC to distinguish between B coins (solid for the grade) and A coins (PQ coins, coins PCGS would give +). Maybe if they did something like Green (for B coins), Silver (for A coins), and Gold (for under graded coins). Just my crazy idea. I think CAC is going to have to do something in response to the plus grades.

 

And don't forget on the post 1986 certificates you got the obv/rev opinions of EACH of the four graders along with opinion of the quality of the surfaces, strike luster, and eye appeal. You used to get a LOT more professional opinion on the coins with the old ANACS certificates.

 

It was indeed a more thorough approach.

 

You are very kind, but Q. David Bowers deserves the greatest credit with his prolificly and well-researched literature.

 

The Redfield hoard was auctioned some time in the mid 70's, so definitely before PCGS and NGC.

But yes, pretty much any coin in a Redfield holder is hawked as PQ or MS65 or "just because it's in a Redfield holder it's worth more".

As Sherm Potter might say, cow cookies!

 

Man, I took a break for a few months, and whammo, PCGS and NGC are doing their best CAC impression.

(only a joke)

Hope you all are well...Mike

 

As I said on another thread,

And holy cow, welcome back Leadfoot (Mike):thumb:. You were missed.

I was worried the PCGS copper guarantee revocation had driven you away for good! Glad to see it didn't.

 

Meh, PCGS had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I am not bashing CAC

But here every thing I could find on John Albanese,with just a quick ck on Google.


http://z-rectory.com/people/Albanese_John_4983796.aspx

 

It was 1974 so it was also four years BEFORE the ANA published the official MS grading system. At the time Paramount was about the only company using the MS 60 and 65 designations. Everyone else was using Unc, BU, Gem BU, BU+, Choice BU, Gem Unc, Unc+, Unc++ etc.