Hall speaks on NGC coins in PCGS Registry

[Android]

This one is really gonna start the fur flying!

 

Andy

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=142847

[EVillageProwler]

LINK

[keithdagen]

David needs to take a course in statistics, but other than that, he at least provided some numbers to back his "findings." And his stance makes sense for his company at this time.

[Tradedollarnut]

I would expect nothing else. Except, I must profess, that I collect coins - great coins -not statistics! When I find such a coin, I no longer care which of the top two holders it's in.

 

Let NGC's Registry maintain the advantage of allowing both holders - it'll serve them well.

[dragon]

Mr. Halls logic in using those statistics is so incredibly flawed and arbitrary that he is either not very bright (not likely) or he speaks to all the PCGS state quarter groupies like they will believe anything he says.

 

Dragon

[Android]

He is most certainly preaching to the choir! I think that we've finally discovered who MIXES the Kool-Aid!

 

Andy

[Oldtrader3]

Aside from that even. PCGS is so all over the map on certifying gold coins, that I am surprised they can identify any trends, except that they undergrade gold! His "stats" are the typical response of a man in desperation reaching for the last straw that has escaped his grasp. I do not know if he is dimwitted or being evasive. Someone help me with that!!

 

I would guess, without statistical back up, that they purposfully do not grade gold as high as NGC, which in this case only means that they have cheated their customers out of multudinous bucks by doing so. They are not the heros (Clap, clap) but the bad guys because of their policies (boo, hiss, David).

[IrishMike]

Well, I couldn't resist the suggestion to him that they crack out their coins, send them to NGC, put them in a Bowers sale and make a ton of dough based on his statistics he quotes. He implies that anywhere from 67-80% should upgrade. Oh wait that would increase submissions to NGC, he probably won't take my advice.

[jtryka]

I admit I am biased against PCGS just because I see so many gorgeous undergraded gold coins in their holders, but his use of statistics to lull the masses is pretty low. I just replied to his post, basically putting to words what all of us are thinking.

[nwcs]

His statistics are flawed, which is obvious. I doubt any company's population reports can be relied upon to gather anything but the most broad generalizations. However, I can make a case for both including and excluding competitor's products:

 

Including:

The registry is a tool for inventory, a service for users, a way of allowing users to showcase their best coins, a friend to the numismatist and hobbyist and YN. It allows for the case of comparing best against best.

 

Excluding:

The registry is a tool for the company to promote its products. It's a way of allowing PCGS customers to track their PCGS collections and provide some measure of competition. It promotes the brand and also promotes interest in sets and types and coins.

 

To me, I think this is a business decision. I don't mind it being exclusionary because I keep my inventory at home. I wouldn't mind it being inclusionary, either, to compete against others. But ultimately, until there is a consistent grading standard in place by the various grading companies, there are only two generally fair approaches to the registry conundrum:

 

1. Include all slabs and do not weight by grade (I call this the Whitman Folder registry)

2. Use only one company's slabs and make the assumption the coins are graded consistently

 

The other approaches create increasingly errant results for comparison.

[EVillageProwler]

Honestly, I could care less if CU allowed in NGC slabs. If someone wants a mixed set, they can play here.

 

All I want is for DHall to stop with the underhanded gamesmanship. If he doesn't want to include NGC slabs for whatever political or business reason, fine. Just let him say so without all the other nonsense.

 

EVP

 

[jtryka]

All he really needed to say was "I think PCGS is better, it's our site, and it makes sense for business as it will encourage folks with other holders to submit to PCGS" at least then I would believe him and have a little more respect for him. Obfuscation through flawed statistics only makes him look like a scammer.

[keithdagen]

Well, I couldn't resist the suggestion to him that they crack out their coins, send them to NGC, put them in a Bowers sale and make a ton of dough based on his statistics he quotes. He implies that anywhere from 67-80% should upgrade. Oh wait that would increase submissions to NGC, he probably won't take my advice

 

Mike,

 

Haven't found an ostrich yet who'll make a fortune like you are telling them to do. Apparantly they aren't complete believers in the bull they spew.

[keithdagen]

All I want is for DHall to stop with the underhanded gamesmanship. If he doesn't want to include NGC slabs for whatever political or business reason, fine. Just let him say so without all the other nonsense.

 

The ultimate post-1964 ostrich of all, Wondercoin, was appalled that PCGS wouldn't let PCGS/NGC mixed sets into competition at these Showdowns, but was one of the first to claim that NGC product is inferior to PCGS.

 

At the time, I told him that since PCGS was running these things, it didn't make business sense to allow someone else's stuff displayed, as it is advertising.

 

Same concept applies here. PCGS Registry is a marketing tool for PCGS, and the ability of ANY grading service has nothing to do with its inclusion or exclusion. Hall would have won points with me if he admitted that instead of trying to show his product was superior.

[braddick]

Ostriches are the fasted two legged animal on the planet. I just learned that last night on "Animal Planet".

[EVillageProwler]

so now you know what ``he'' looks like?

 

 

evp

 

[RotatedRainbows]

You better watch it EVP, some real ostriches might resent that remark.