Spend an hour with these old professionals and get your own thoughts! http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?universeid=313&artid=4641 Hopefully PCGS will not make this link unavailable before you can view it. Watch this just to see the talent present!
I got the idea that Julis Liederman ( perhaps I spell his name wrong ) eluded to the fact that the TPG's actually thrive on re-submissions. Maybe I mis-understood.
You are right- but I think it's because PCGS overgrades re-subs rather than undergrading in the first place. Re-submissions probably have a lot to do with why David Hall is so aggressive about changing to a 100 point grading system.
They do thrive on re-submissions, but you need to ask yourself why the re-submissions occur in the first place. Is it becuase the TPGs purposely undergrade ? Is it because the re-submitters of these coins can't grade themsleves amd mistakenly believe that a given coin should be graded higher than it is ? Is it because the re-submitters are looking for a lucky break and a way to make a quick buck ? Is it because the grading standards have changed and are currently less conservative than they were in years gone by ? Is it because some of the TPGs have very poor consistency and cannot grade the same coin twice in the same way ? Or is it a combination of the above ? When you can answer those questions and adequately satisfy yourself that the answers are correct - then you will understand the grading game.
Are you sure about this? I talk to David on a daily basis and have never heard him even allude to this. If you are sure, do you have any sort of citation, as I would be eager to read about it.
Sometimes PCGS may appear to overgrade due to the deterioration of the coin while it is encapsulated in the holder. Take this chocolate coin for example. (click image to enlarge) Over time, the sugar has begun to seep out of the coin, and into the surrounding plastic. I'd be willing to bet that when the "professional talent" first graded it as "Gem Proof", it looked a lot nicer. Of course, it's current condition could have something to do with the fact that it is a shipwreck recovery coin. I'm not sure what affect sea water has on candy.
Actually he (David Hall ) has stated publicly that he is against the idea. He has however initiated several discussions on the subject. I'm not sure exactly why someone who is against doing something would initiate discussions about doing it though
Perhaps to demonstrate the follies of such a system? Think of the margin of error in grading there would be on a 100 point scale. Even the professionals would have a much harder time remaining consistent with their grades, and adapting the scale. I personally feel it is a bad idea.
I feel it's a bad idea too Zane. But I am still confused by David's comments & actions for I can recall when the subject of a 100 point grading system was first brought up. Oddly enough, it was David who did it
I am naive in this case. Is this one of these coins " The S.S. Central America...coins sold exclusively by Heritage, David Hall, Bowers and Merena and others, mostly PNG members/PCGS dealers. Over 5,000 coins that had been buried at sea for over 120 years encrusted with coral were treated with all kinds of chemicals to remove the encrustations, were miraculously restored to PCGS MS-65 at $15,000.00 a coin. The PCGS holders do not say SEA SALVAGED nor SALT WATER nor CORAL ENCRUSTED, no they have been graded by PCGS as MINT STATE. " Or is it really chocolate?
OOP's My Bad. In re-playing the panel discussion, David said "the 70 point system is totally illogical", but later said "I don't think we should change it.". Sorry.
To get a bunch of Kool-Aid drinkers to jump up and scream how great they are, they're the best, no need to change, we love you all, etc. It's a free way of getting some press.
When speaking of "standards", we must also realize that not everyone follows the same standards. I personally follow along the ANA Standards, which IS different from the PCGS "standards". And the SGS "standard"...I don't think we want to go there! Yet, even internally, PCGS is very limited in any drastic changes to their own "standard" (especially without publication of such), unless they feel like paying out another $$million settlement to Uncle Sam again. To leave themselves open to be able to change their standard, they offer a grading guarantee, simply in order to curtail any possible run-ins with the FTC again. And here is where I believe the main reason for "under-grading" lies with the PCGS. If they initially undergrade the specimen, and subsequently make changes to their "standard", then the possibility of having to "pay out" on a Downgrade Resubmission, lessens. Also, because greed drives many people, there will be those who may grade according to a different standard, and thinking they have stumbled across some easy money, may resubmit for a downgrade, only to have it return. More money for PCGS. Rather than "changes to standards", I am more led to believe that the inconsistencies in grading by the PCGS has more to do with their 3 man consortium grading practice and the fact that the same three people are not always, if ever, going to grade the same coin twice. And since grading is subjective...who knows what you may end up with. At least at SGS, they've proven themslves quite consistent. Just send any coin out of your pocket and you'll be practically guaranteed an MS70 :goofer: Off topic: I enjoy the way PCGS has elevated sites like eBay and Yahoo! Auctions to the level of being a "trading network" where you can buy your PCGS graded coins in confidence "sight unseen". I think somebody there has never used eBay before :computer:
