TPG Test?

I don't like the idea of letting failing TPGs off the hook for not doing the job or doing it poorly. If this is a consumer protection test, the consumers need to know who is taking their job seriously and who is not.

It's like finding out that Bordens ran tainted milk and just saying an unnamed dairy company ran tainted milk. Those who had no problem are tainted with the same fear as the ones who did.

Yes, it might adversely affect those who have decided not to invest in actually providing the service they sell, but those that do should be rewarded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Pretty much every first-world business that makes widgets for civilian and military use employs Statistical Process Control to measure how well they meet their quality control criteria. I kinda doubt that the TPGs do this for counterfeits and altered genuine coins (AGCs) but they probably employ something like SPQ for regular grading.

I would be interested in knowing what the raw numbers are for known counterfeits and AGCs for the four TPGs. I doubt there is a valid data base, but given the thousands of coins that go through their hands every week, I would surmise the counterfeits and AGCs they miss are statistically miniscule.

Even if we limited the dataset to those coins minted before, say 1850, the error rate still is probably very small.

We just have no way to rationally judge how well they are doing. Anecdotes won't cut it for me.

That said, I applaud and support the efforts to make the TPGs better.

 

Pretty much every first-world business that makes widgets for civilian and military use employs Statistical Process Control to measure how well they meet their quality control criteria. I kinda doubt that the TPGs do this for counterfeits and altered genuine coins (AGCs) but they probably employ something like SPQ for regular grading.

I would be interested in knowing what the raw numbers are for known counterfeits and AGCs for the four TPGs. I doubt there is a valid data base, but given the thousands of coins that go through their hands every week, I would surmise the counterfeits and AGCs they miss are statistically miniscule.

Even if we limited the dataset to those coins minted before, say 1850, the error rate still is probably very small.

We just have no way to rationally judge how well they are doing. Anecdotes won't cut it for me.

That said, I applaud and support the efforts to make the TPGs better.

 

To me, the most interesting way to approach this — if you’re willing to spend the money — is to submit one or two counterfeits to all four top grading services and see who catches the fakes.

One question: Are you risking legal liability? After all, counterfeits are against the law, though you wouldn’t think so by looking at eBay.

 

You can send in all the counterfeits you want, you just aren't allowed to sell them to anyone knowing they are counterfeit.

To me, any reputable service should have the goal of ZERO counterfeits making it through and pursuing whatever technology it takes to get there. There is a lot of money spent on this service and it should be fairly transparent to the customer without anyone's feelings getting hurt.
I understand it's a tough job and they're already behind but you don't want stuff getting through that shouldn't or all credibility will eventually be lost. Maybe it is a miniscule amount as someone else said? I don't really know. I am thankful for what gets weeded out. There will surely be more and better ones as time goes on.

 

I'm not sure whether they would be considered counterfeit or fake since we went off the Gold and Silver standards and copper was never part of those standards.

I'm sure you'd have no problem finding lawyers to argue both sides of the case.

 

I understand your point of view, BUT if it is a "gotcha" when I do it (and I won't sell it after being slabbed) what is it when the counterfeiters do?

I am not sure of the best way to see if the TPG's are getting it, and eventually maybe the perception of reality changes and these just blend in with "genuine" examples to the general collecting public.

And maybe the TPG's guarantee is really all that matters at the end of the day...

 

When you do it knowing that the coin is counterfeit and you are merely trying to test the TPGs and to publicize their error, it has the "optics" of a "gotcha"; i.e. trying to catch someone out in a mistake. Whether that's your intent or not, it just has that sense to it.

A counterfeiter does not want anyone to know they have played a scam. They want to have the fake slabbed and then sell it on as a genuine coin with no one the wiser. The last thing they want is for the TPG or the public to know of their chicanery.

 

CAC can do it ..

 

it is a fair test. there are many enterprises where such precision is needed and depended upon. Graders take on this responsibility and truthfully, we can do this with nearly 100% accuracy with proper photography and AI.

 

I would suggest that the appropriate base on the study is not Counterfeits missed as a percentage of total coins processed (or date range processed,) but rather Counterfeits missed as a percentage of Counterfeits submitted.

For this type of analysis, a quantity of known counterfeits would have to be submitted WITHOUT forewarning the authenticaters. This reflects the future threat to the hobby. The former reflects the current financial exposure to the TPGs.

It's up to the individual TPGs to determine which exposure, present or future, is of more concern to them at the present time. Most only look to the next quarterly report for measuring their success.

But the current climate indicates it is easier for TPGs to attack or ignore the reports and reporters than to address the problem. So this becomes a test of INTEGRITY as well as DETECTABILITY.

My desire would be that they simply emphasize the insurance side of the "authentication" and eliminate the numerous exceptions to their insurance protections.

 

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses!

I have no malice for any of the TPG's and am not interested in a public antagonistic relationship with any.

I did have a conversation with one where I was villainized, and he couldn't see past my "test" or acknowledge his groups failing in their service...

 

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Keep up the good work.

 

This is not directly related to your question, but is indirectly related. First is an example of a basic attribution mistake by a TPG. I've seem many, but this is convenient because it's in my collection:



This is a BASIC Type ID error. It is called a Reverse of 94, when in fact it is a Reverse of 97. I suspect the error was caused by the Red Book emphasis on the single leaf/double leaves distinction between Reverse of 94 and Reverse of 95 and the later combining of both types as Reverse of 96. The attributor was likely an excellent researcher who is just unfamiliar with the series and did not realize the Reverse of 97 also has double leaves.

The second thought is that these high quality counterfeits/fakes may place an even greater premium on the provenance of the coin. Being able to locate past sales and a pedigree might add more value than it has in the past.

 

YOU were villainized?

All the more reason to hold their feet to the fire. At what point in time did you offer a service, where you charged a pretty good price to perform, add a guarantee to the mix, and not only weren't held accountable but were made to look like the bad guy for trying to get an improved product from the service provider?

Their disdain for your attempt to help the consumer only reinforces my opinion that your TPG test is a good start to holding them accountable. I've said it a few times in multiple posts, and it bears repeating, they are not beyond reproach. Although they try to come off as untouchable, they are not the be all, say all, do all they want to believe they are.

 

Supposing they grade it. It's hot for the market, now. And you just knowingly participated in that.

I think I recall a guy years ago who submitted five to PCGS he "AT'd" and they all graded. That's different, as those standards are arbitrary and capricious. These standards aren't. There's actually such a thing as a counterfeit. There's what's all wrong with this idea.

 

I like this idea/process but I am willing to bet that NOT ONE will agree to it. I would hope they would but call me a doubting Thomas.
Phil

 

C'mon, now, we all know that PCGS is infallible. Courtesy of CoinHelpU.

 

There are several examples of putting the wrong coins into the plastic. Sometime both wrong holders are paired together. I know one of the Sheldon NCs is holdered this way.

I think the problem is post holdering inspection. But that doesn't surprise me since many of the temp jobs I have had involve inspecting a product I have never seen before. But they can say they are inspected in their advertisement and reports.

 

Truthfully, I'd be more interested in a blind grading contest (posted on YouTube) of the same coins between NGC and PCGS graders, with a third party "judge" (e.g., CAC or select panel from ANA) to evaluate the accuracy of grading of the same coin by NGC and PCGS, or even open it up to include ANACs and ICG graders. Include "details" coins in the lot of coins to be judged. Have the coins to be judged be of substantial number and breadth of types of coins. Likely never to happen, but that would be very interesting and enlightening.