What is something you wish TPGs would recognize or certify, but they don't

That's funny...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's a few of them on ebay right now in their current style holder, but if they have been going back and forth on it that is really strange. That's even weirder to take plugged coins but not holed. If you put a small cork in the hole would they do it then?

 

I actually asked the ANACS rep at a local show if I could just stick some chewing gum in the hole, but he only laughed.

As I recall, ANACS did lose some business from me on that one; I would've done a show-special submission batch with 8 or so other coins if I could've included that one, but without it, it wasn't worthwhile. I'm sure ANACS authentication would've given the eventual buyer as much confidence as PCGS.

On the other hand, I got to do business with @C-B-D, who kindly volunteered to include the coin with one of his PCGS batches, and that was a good experience.

But, yeah, that's the coin I had to submit to PCGS because ANACS was too exclusive to consider it...

 

Mine is less of how much more business that they could do, But instead what they could be doing better to even the playing field not nessasarily between TPG's, but also between the TPG and the Collector.
Adjust there posted standards to better reflect what constitutes the Market Grading Standards that they use. I guess that in order for me to actually send them coins? I need a little more transparency, if you know what I mean.

I was a little grumpy @CoinCorgi didn't mean to get in your face with that one.

 

@Pickin and Grinin No worries...I was joking and knew exactly what responses I would get. I've turned off most of my filters today...so I might have a hangover tomorrow.

 

Often, graders are hesitant to certify items without a well-recognized reference on the subject. I'm not familiar with challenge coins (although I have a couple). Is there a standard reference on the subject?

Very much yes. I recently started a thread on the PCGS forums asking them for that. I haven't gotten a response yet, but there seems to be wide support for this: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1012435/an-open-letter-to-pcgs-please-consider-designating-all-us-coins-as-prooflike

 

This is a beef I have with NGC. Their selection of approved reference books for world tokens is rather anemic. I even had a token that was in one of the guides they listed and submitted it with the catalog number, only to have it be returned ungraded because it wasn't in the edition of the catalog they had on hand... really NGC? I'm paying for grading and encapsulation. Just put Token on the label and grade the thing.

Sometimes tokens and medals are difficult to attribute! The more obscure pieces that are harder to attribute are the ones rare enough to warrant encapsulation! This is where some additional business is going to come from, but they need to be willing to do a little legwork. I've even submitted some tokens with photocopied pages from catalogs that described and attributed them, along with information about the catalog (the legwork is done!) and they've still refused to grade and encapsulate them. Oh well, after a number of times going through this song and dance, they lost my business for world tokens and medals. I submit the ones I have that are worth slabbing through PCGS now, and they have only returned one token unslabbed. I can't even fault them because I'm not even positive as to what it is.

 

Brett responded to you. It's going to be under consideration this year

 

I just saw that. I am very curious what must be considered, and why they can't start designating PL sooner than later.

I have to say, the fact that Brett actually responded is a fantastic improvement over the old PCGS. Who knows what the outcome will be.... but it just got interesting.

 

PL designations for US coinage will make PCGS more credible

 

Persistance pays off! I would have loved to bear witness to the "hounding" that took place!

 

I like this guy. He may still be reigned in by the board, but he's a breath of fresh air, for sure.

 

I'd imagine it would probably be making sure everyone is on the same page with it. I know at least with NGC quite a few people have been unhappy with their inconsistency with it on world coins. Or we may be overthinking it and it may just be anticipating all the why isn't my coin PL calls?

That said I do think we will see some expansion of it this year, whether or not that is everything or just US coins or just some US coins we will have to wait and see. Brett does seem like a pretty down to earth guy that does actually have an interest in suggestions

 

I mean, there really is no debate to the subject. If it's PL(i.e. it meets the standard of a PL Morgan), then why not recognize it as such, no matter what type of coin it is? All we want PCGS to do here is properly describe the surfaces, after all.

 

Yea I was just completely guessing on what may be the reason. Whatever it is they do have a reason. Either way it's nice that suggestions especially popular ones at least get acknowledged and considered.

 

1. Lack of existing standards
2. Training the graders

 

Fortunately, the beer was free at the luncheon.

Chris

 

....and beer gets things DONE!

 

I’d like to see more consistency especially in pcgs and I’d love to see them certify of the period alterations like love tokens and potty dollars