Don't Understand - PCGS Secure Plus & CAC

I think it's just the latest gimmick to make people think they've come out with something new and great they just have to have. Companies that don't come out with new stuff, even if it's not really anything new at all, et el, PCGS's new "Secure" feature, customers get bored and go elsewhere. It's about the money....your money.
Guy~

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A fair perspective. However, let me ask you this question -- if one opinion is good, why aren't two better?

 

Especially when you consider the fact that PCGS and NGC are very inconsistent with their grading of coins. One day they'll grade the same exact coin MS65, the next day MS64, then maybe an MS63 and then maybe an MS67 (note that the previous progression is based on an actual experience!!). Part of the reason for the inconsistency is that different people (with different standards) may be grading your coins on different days. So with that in mind, a second opinion for an extra $10 is money well spend for some average collectors.

Of course, with SecurePlus, the wide variance in grades will stop once PCGS identifies a coin that has been resubmitted as their initial opinion of the grade will be virtually locked. That still doesn't mean that their opinion accurately reflects the grade of the coin.

 

Good point. I guess SecurePlus will make PCGS consistently wrong!

 

Maybe, but at least they'll be consistently inconsistent.

 

In theory, a coin should CAC more readily than it should get a +. This is because CAC stickers a little less than 50 percent of the coins it reviews (A and B coins for the grade, but not C coins for the grade). PCGS is supposed to give a + to coins in the top 20 percent or so for the grade.

However, CAC is an independent opinion from one of the most respected graders in the business and Albanese has said he will ignore the + for whether he stickers a coin or not. I have had good luck buying CAC coins and no experience with + coins. For now, I will put more stock into a green sticker than a plus on the slab.

One positive for plus-graded coins is you will be able to tell if the coin was considered for a + by the holder. Conversely, you cannot tell whether a coin without a sticker has been considered for a sticker or not.

 

Well, if it received the "+" and the CAC sticker than logically, you'd take the 20% premium plus another 20% premium for the sticker, making 40% above list the only logical premium to pay for it.


(I just had to get in here and stir the pot with a few people that I'm sure are hating this thread. )

 

What Doug points out is correct, but I remember when I read it, thinking that PCGS (or any TPG) is never going to admit that once a coin is slabbed, they will never change the grade. Although David Hall says they don't want to deal with the crackout artist and the dozen resubmissions of a single coin, I'm guessing they wouldn't mind maintaining a certain volume of resubmissions.

The first part of Illini's statement is almost certainly true -- when you resubmit a coin that PCGS knows what grade it has assigned previously, there is almost certainly going to be much less grade variation than prior to SecurePlus.

 

Ngc & Pcgs are reacting to ads like the one below .there is 5 or more full pg in Coin World weekly ads.this one is cropped but and the middle of the page,big name selling have note how CAC has improved the sales

 

OMG Doug! You are way too experienced to fall for that. What you posted is a marketing campaign, nothing more. Do you really think the ego's at PCGS will public admit that they were wrong and change the grade of a coin but once in a blue moon? Yes, they will change the grade of an obvious goof up, but that is it. The statements you posted are an effort to encourage resubmissions for which they will charge, collect, and assign the same grade.

Illini420 is right when he stated the grade is virtually locked. I guess that less than 5 out of every hundred resubmissions of secureplus coins will change in grade. I wonder if PCGS will divulge the percentage of secureplus grade changes at the end of each year?

 

Doug,

Do you enjoy playing devil's advocate? When you post "the vast majority get the same grade they had going in" it makes it sound like PCGS is so consistent that we should never even question their assigned grades. This coming from the one person (you) who questions their consistency more than any other on this forum.

If collectors are submitting graded coins in PCGS holders to PCGS for grade review, then I agree with you. However, if we are talking about coins that were cracked and resubmitted, I don't. I would guess that PCGS is in the area of 75-80% accuracy with their grading. Secureplus is going to improve that accuracy to at least 95%. Whether it will stop gradeflation depends on how many coins are submitted for the service. Their effort would be much more effective if they did it for every coin they graded.

 

As far as playing devil's advocate. Should I post a poll in another thread asking the members of CT if they consider 80% a vast majority. My vote is no it is not a vast majority. Do you really think that they would grade 9 out of 10 coins that were resubmitted the same grade?

If it makes you feel better, I will accuse you of questioning both their consistency and accuracy more than any one else on this forum. OK PITA!

It makes no difference if the graders don't know the grade. Miraculously, even if they grade it differently, it will end up back in the same grade holder that it was the first time they graded it. If you believe otherwise, then their marketing efforts have worked. I ain't buyin it Doug!

 

Doug,

Regarding the questions on the PCGS site. Here is the most important one related to this discussion.

My response is that they CAN change the grade but they WON'T more than 5% of the time. And only time will tell if I am right. If you guys want we can place our bets now as to how many secureplus resubmissions get changed, assuming PCGS decides to share that information with the public.

 

I think it is pretty clear from the following that PCGS will consider past grades before assigning a new grade:

"All that is for certain is that we will have the grading history of the coin and we will be able to refer to it before the new grade is assigned."

Now it is not entirely clear what PCGS is going to do when it refers to the earlier grade, but they clearly are going to refer to the earlier grade BEFORE they assign the new grade. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with this -- PCGS will actually have the individual grader numbers underlying the earlier grade and will be able to compare that to the three underlying numbers of the resubmission. Maybe PCGS will average the six or throw outliers out, not sure. But I don't see anything insidious about having more opinions on a single coin and am willing to give PCGS the benefit of the doubt while we see how SecurePlus plays out.

For the record, I have a higher opinion of PCGS than either of you fellows. Still the best TPG for the series I collect.

 

I think they will probably have a policy that if the pre-existing assigned grade is one grade away from the new assigned grade then the pre-existing grade will be kept. If the new grade is two or more grades different, they will have a human finalizer make the decision about the new grade. I understand you thinking that it might put them out of business but so will having a statistic get out that only 60-70% of original grades are accurate if that happens to be the case.

I don't think that 80% is bad. There are so many coins that I look at when trying to grade and think it is either a high end for one grade or low end for the next grade that I wouldn't be upset if the coin was holdered in either grade. These coins could easily come back a higher grade if resubmitted 4-5 times. And sometimes they are submitted 4-5 times, hence, gradeflation. Now if a coin was graded MS64 and is resubmitted and the graders all grade it MS66+, obviously, the coin was graded incorrectly the first time around and a new grade would have to be assigned.