NGC graded coins ONLY in Registry Sets (US and World) 0

[Afterword]

“After seeing the dramatic changes at other grading services over the last few years, however, I am no longer confident that their current standards are equal to their former standards or to those that NGC has maintained for nearly 30 years.”

 

 

If what he says here is true, is he not doing what is honorable? Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

 

Considering the fact that PCGS coins regularly demand a premium over NGC coins, which he must be aware is true, is he not doing what is honorable despite the likelihood that many collectors might be reluctant, at best, to cross their PCGS coins over to NGC holders, and, instead, might actually do the opposite and cross their NGC coins over to PCGS holders, given the choice between the two options?

 

So is what he states above true? Which of the two TPGs has maintained their standards the most consistently?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

[coinman_23885]

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

I am shocked that you were issued a refund. It suggests that NGC still does care about customer service and customer opinion contrary to your other statements. In fairness, maybe Salzberg had followed one too many color bumped monster toners in recent sales that biased his over all perspective.

[Afterword]

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

 

 

Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

 

 

Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

 

If he truly believes that NGC is so superior, and he is willing to risk his company and his reputation on that fact, then yeah, go for it. He'll be proven right in the end if that is actually the case. I disagree with him, but the fact is that he is more powerful in this hobby than I will ever be.

 

But he should also listen to his customers and supporters who are telling him that this is a bad idea

[Afterword]

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

 

 

Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

 

If he truly believes that NGC is so superior, and he is willing to risk his company and his reputation on that fact, then yeah, go for it. He'll be proven right in the end if that is actually the case. I disagree with him, but the fact is that he is more powerful in this hobby than I will ever be.

 

But he should also listen to his customers and supporters who are telling him that this is a bad idea

 

 

 

I am certain he has been and is still listening. I am equally certain it was not an easy decision to make for that very reason.

[MJ]

Mark is dreaming. Love him but please.

 

mark

[Afterword]

Given who he is, it is reasonable to assume he could know things of which we are unaware. Some seem to believe he is acting out of desperation, when it could be quite the opposite.

[BillJones]

To be absolutely blunt, I would like to have more NGC graded coins in my sets, but I have not been able to find pieces that pleased me in their holders of late. Part of the reason for that is that so many of the good NGC coins have been crossed to PCGS, but that is not all of the problem.

 

Both services have let their standards slip. Too many coins have been cleaned and are optimistically graded from both services. That is why CAC exists although I have issues with their grading too.

 

My most valuable coin, and the one for which I paid the most money by far is in an NGC holder. One of my Panama Pacific $50 gold coins is NGC graded. My 1792 half disme is an NGC holder. I have been a loyal NGC supporter, but I can not agree with the contention that PCGS coins are now over graded and therefore not appropriate for the NGC registry. That is a smokescreen that the NGC executives have built to support this registry power play.

 

The net result of this will tend to drive me more toward PCGS, not away from them. If I want to post my coins in the sets that I am currently building in a registry, I might as well finish them with PCGS coins since most of them are PCGS graded. This registry move has decreased my interest and loyalty in the NGC product, not enhanced it.

[MJ]

Well said Bill. Really well said.

 

Mark

[Afterword]

"The net result of this will tend to drive me more toward PCGS, not away from them."

 

 

 

So unless you believe he could possibly be unaware of this, he must have good reason to do so despite that knowledge.

 

But perhaps you and others are right and he simply does not know what he is doing. He is totally unaware that PCGS coins demand a premium over NGC coins and would likely result in more NGC coins being crossed over to PCGS.

 

Or perhaps he believes it is the right thing to do regardless of possible consequences.

 

Or perhaps it is one of many more necessary measures to come in an attempt to keep NGC solvent.

 

Are neither of these last two possibilities more important than the comparatively minor inconvenience it creates for registry participants?

 

One thing is for certain, he will find out how many loyal registry members there are.

[CSdot]

What surprises me is why either company cares about the registry? There couldn't be more than 250 active collectors on this registry forum? Most of the TPG revenue (I'd estimate 90%) has to come from dealers, who mostly don't care a lick about online registries.

[MJ]

What surprises me is why either company cares about the registry? There couldn't be more than 250 active collectors on this registry forum? Most of the TPG revenue (I'd estimate 90%) has to come from dealers, who mostly don't care a lick about online registries.

 

Just PCGS has 81,000 registered sets

 

Mark

[Afterword]

"Most of the TPG revenue (I'd estimate 90%) has to come from dealers..."

 

 

 

Whatever the percentage is, it is only possible because of collector interest. Providing the means for promoting collector interest, such as registries, is a sound business tactic.

[BillJones]

 

 

What surprises me is why either company cares about the registry? There couldn't be more than 250 active collectors on this registry forum? Most of the TPG revenue (I'd estimate 90%) has to come from dealers, who mostly don't care a lick about online registries.

 

The registries have generated a ton of money for the two leading third party graders. PCGS especially has prompted many dealers to submit coins for high grades and the much coveted "POP 1" status. The registry concept has probably been one of the most successful numismatic marketing strategies in the last two decades.

[CSdot]

Color me surprised. Must be a ton of people actively entering coins on the registry that are basically ignoring these forums then. I could log in once every 24 hours and read all of the new posts in 10 minutes.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think it is my fault. I am sorry.....

[BillJones]

Color me surprised. Must be a ton of people actively entering coins on the registry that are basically ignoring these forums then. I could log in once every 24 hours and read all of the new posts in 10 minutes.

 

Yes, the PCGS forum is much more active as is the Coin Community Family to which I have belonged for about eight months.

 

There are many registry people who don't participate in forums like this. Given the prices that they sometimes pay for coins that are high up in the condition census pecking order, some of them might have more money than brains.

 

As a dealer, I was only on the edges of this market. If you can get the material, which is usually very difficult to do, you can get some very high prices for "Top POP" coins. These prices can make auction results look like a class of pikers.

 

Those prices can also be like an ice storm in July. They can melt very quickly if more coins are graded at the high levels, which has happened to some modern issues.

[CSdot]

Color me surprised. Must be a ton of people actively entering coins on the registry that are basically ignoring these forums then. I could log in once every 24 hours and read all of the new posts in 10 minutes.

 

Yes, the PCGS forum is much more active as is the Coin Community Family to which I have belonged for about eight months.

 

There are many registry people who don't participate in forums like this. Given the prices that they sometimes pay for coins that are high up in the condition census pecking order, some of them might have more money than brains.

 

As a dealer, I was only on the edges of this market. If you can get the material, which is usually very difficult to do, you can get some very high prices for "Top POP" coins. These prices can make auction results look like a class of pikers.

 

Those prices can also be like an ice storm in July. They can melt very quickly if more coins are graded at the high levels, which has happened to some modern issues.

 

Bill-

 

I will say that your registry sets have been a motivation to me and many here. It is nice to see what can be put together by a person with a passion for the hobby over a lifetime of collecting. Even if our host curtails the registry after this year, it has been an honor viewing your collection online.

[BillJones]

Thank you for the kind words, CSdit.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Every coin stands on its own merits regardless of whether the top experts agree it is "all there" for grade. I would think that allowing CAC, "eagle eye", etc. coins in from PCGS would have been a reasonable accommodation. For me the business decision would come down to risk management and if CAC or another company is willing to back up grades with money then that should be enough IMO.

[RWB]

The system belongs to NGC. You have no option but to play by their rules; exactly the same at PCGS.

 

It seems very generous on NGC's part to permit entries through the end of the calendar year.

[Zebo]

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

On a positive note -- Dena is great to work with and she represents the company well.

[comicdonna]

On a positive note -- Dena is great to work with and she represents the company well.

+1

[Keigwin]

I too am very disappointed. It is sad to see the demise of the one place where all top-tier-graded coins can be assembled and ranked against one another.

 

This was the beauty of NGC's registry design. It encouraged collectors to buy the coin regardless of TPG. And it lent a sense that NGC cared more about the coins and having a relevant registry and less about which brand housed them. It was righteous. Unselfish. Collectors valued and appreciated the NGC registry flexibility.

 

Now we are left with two disparate systems. Collectors must decide which direction they're going. Some will choose and cross coins. But my guess is many will simply stop playing and that's bad for NGC and bad for the hobby.

 

My NGC registry sets consist of either all NGC or all PCGS coins. I like set consistency. Maybe I'm not harmed as much as some (very sorry, Bill!). I too have gone to great effort to photograph every coin and document variety types, die marriages and offer a bit of history about most of them. I tried to contribute to the enjoyment of studying and collecting the series.

 

I guess I will take down my sets because they will soon be out of date and it is clear they are no longer welcome.

 

Yes, it's NGC's business and I respect their right to make decisions like this. It's just disappointing.

Lance.

[Brol]

I contacted one website building company and they told me that coins registry project would start from $5000 and every add-on would cost more, more and more.

Would be nice if ANA would make such a neutral registry.

[Conder101]

According to a response on another forum on this topic the ANA DOES have some sort of neutral registry.But it isn't widely used.

[Lastufka Collection]

According to a response on another forum on this topic the ANA DOES have some sort of neutral registry.But it isn't widely used.

 

The ANA doesn't have a registry, they have a section where you can upload photos of your coins, like photobucket or collectivecoin. This could be developed into a registry at some point, but it is not currently anything close to a registry. Just wanted to clear that up for anyone who hasn't logged in to their ANA account to check it out.

[Lastufka Collection]

For anyone considering building their own independent competitive registry (there's been quite a bit of talk about it here), it would be nearly impossible. Neither NGC nor PCGS offer an API for their certification look-up tools, so you couldn't authenticate that any given coin is the grade the user says it is. Meaning there is a lot of room for abuse (I create a collection of double eagles and say they're all MS 70, who can prove me wrong? Or I create a type set and add all of Bill's certification numbers in my slots, will your software stop me? Will you offer enough customer support to address Bill's concerns when he writes to you about it?).

 

At best you could hire someone to manually look up the certification numbers and approve listings as they come in, but that would be a full time job (and the registry definitely would not produce enough traffic to pay for itself, let alone hiring someone on salary). And then you'd have to add in ANACS and ICG, again, no API tool for certification look ups (and remember, everyone wants the registry to be inclusive so the top four at a minimum should be included).

 

Then there are the competitive sets themselves. How do you go about building those with everyone wanting so many specialized sets, and people arguing over which coins should be included and which shouldn't. Me personally, I'd use some kind of third-party standard, like the Red Book. If it's listed in the Red Book, it's in the competitive set. So if you want your highly-specialized variety in the competitive set, petition the Red Book, not the registry. But that only works for the US. There is no Red Book for Canadian coins, or Australia's mint, etc.

 

Then the scoring... population reports are changing every day, and again, no API tool. So how do you determine the score for any coin in any grade? PCGS's approach of grade x multiplier for rarity is a bit cleaner than NGC's algo, but still requires you to assign a rarity multiplier to every single coin.

 

Taking the above into consideration the only real choice is to build a showcase site, non-competitive, that lets you build custom sets. But CollectiveCoin and even Photobucket already allow you to do this, so I'm not sure there's a need for yet another site.

 

All that to say, I own registrysets.com but I'm not sure there's anything that can be done with it.

 

 

[asdfgh]

If you required a photo you could get around the lookup portion. Yes I know someone could copy other person's coin photos. However I don't think there are that many people who would go to that length to get in a registry. Have the user enter the grade, cert number, cert company, photo, and denomination (pick list). Then pick from a list of other attributes (roosevelt-FT,Jefferson-5steps,6steps). Clearly state that extra attribute must be on the holder. As for Competitive points, there are plenty of schems to choose from.

Edited November 20, 2016 by asdfgh