• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

A question of ethics, would you...
1 1

45 posts in this topic

Use a PCGS cert in the PCGS registry after you had crossed the coin into NGC plastic or vice versa.  Do you consider it perfectly fine or do you see an issue with doing so, this was brought up just a few minutes ago on a thread ATS (where one member who has proclaimed this action to be perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover in a previous thread) again gave this action his stamp of Okie Dokie.  Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Use a PCGS cert in the PCGS registry after you had crossed the coin into NGC plastic or vice versa.  Do you consider it perfectly fine or do you see an issue with doing so, this was brought up just a few minutes ago on a thread ATS (where one member who has proclaimed this action to be perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover in a previous thread) again gave this action his stamp of Okie Dokie.  Thoughts?

I didn’t see a comment from the other poster indicating that he thought it was “perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I didn’t see a comment from the other poster indicating that he thought it was “perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover.”

 

That's because you omitted part of my statement which lost the context, my full statement in my op is:

" perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover in a previous thread"  The last four words you omitted are important,  He made those comments in a prior thread a year or two ago.

 

Edited to add:  And in todays thread he has brought up the old conversation that revolved around the MS66* that crossed at MS66, at the time of the first thread he expressed that he felt it was fine to use the old MS66* grade in the NGC registry even tho the new PCGS grade was MS66 upon crossover.

Edited by Coinbuf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pet Dalek is shouting "Exterminate! Exterminate!" - well, Daleks can't really shout, but you get the idea.

into_the_dalek_.0.0.jpegF

(FYI - Yes, those two protruding arms with black cups on the end were made from re-purposed toilet plungers. Pet Dalek's really do have some useful features around the house !)

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not, but I'm fine with a person keeping the Cert # in there inventory. 

What if.... Someone competing in the NGC registry had a PCGS graded coin in their set, crossed it to NGC but left the PCGS slab in the set. No harm no foul?

If these TPG's would communicate crossovers and not leave it up to the coin owners this would go away and the population reports would be more accurate. That's were my annoyance lies, you can't rely on individuals to report crossovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a coin in my set right now which was originally in NGC plastic, but is now in PCGS plastic. During the interlude where NGC was not allowing PCGS coins into the registry, I had no choice but to use the old NGC number. 

I'd probably prefer not to do this, but if the number was assigned to the coin, I see no problem with it even if the coin is now in some other plastic. If the number is still valid in the NGC database, then use it. 

Now, what should happen is when a coin is crossed the TPGs talk to each other and remove it. This is one reason why the census is not terribly reliable. But that's not what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I have a coin in my set right now which was originally in NGC plastic, but is now in PCGS plastic. During the interlude where NGC was not allowing PCGS coins into the registry, I had no choice but to use the old NGC number. 

In fact you had three choices; first you were not forced to cross the coin and could have left it in the NGC holder.  Your second choice was to remove the coin from your set as you no longer have an XX coin graded by NGC you now have an XX coin graded by PCGS.  And the third option was the one you chose which was not to update your set to accurately reflect what is in the set.  As I said ATS I find this dishonest and fraudulent as you are misrepresenting what is in your collection, yes you still own the same coin but in a different plastic which could have an effect on the NGC registry, see below.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'd probably prefer not to do this, but if the number was assigned to the coin, I see no problem with it even if the coin is now in some other plastic. If the number is still valid in the NGC database, then use it. 

Your though mirrors what one member ATS said, the coin has not changed and you still own the coin so no big deal.  But lets say that by keeping that one coin in your set your set is just over the threshold of the 75% NGC graded coins needed to qualify for the major awards which it would not be if you deleted the coin from your set.   By using a PCGS graded coin with an old NGC cert number you can sidestep the 75% requirement and be considered for major awards even though your set does not meet the requirement.  Step into the opposite shoes and how would you like it if your set was the runner up for a major award to a set that shows as mostly NGC coins but in reality those coins had long ago been crossed and are in fact in PCGS holders.  Would you still feel good about this practice as the runner up that would have won had the winning set been legit and accurate, or would you be somewhat upset to learn that.  Now I realize that this scenario is the extreme but I also think it is very possible that it may have happened at some point in the past.  It may have not been a big issue in the past but the major awards have been growing in value each year and thus the incentive for this type of fraud increases as well.  This same issue could happen in the PCGS registry although I suspect that due to the current difference in market prices between the two brands it is far less likely. 

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Now, what should happen is when a coin is crossed the TPGs talk to each other and remove it. This is one reason why the census is not terribly reliable. But that's not what happens. 

I 100% agree with you that the TPG's should handle this internally and not rely on the submitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I have a coin in my set right now which was originally in NGC plastic, but is now in PCGS plastic. During the interlude where NGC was not allowing PCGS coins into the registry, I had no choice but to use the old NGC number. 

I'd probably prefer not to do this, but if the number was assigned to the coin, I see no problem with it even if the coin is now in some other plastic. If the number is still valid in the NGC database, then use it. 

Now, what should happen is when a coin is crossed the TPGs talk to each other and remove it. This is one reason why the census is not terribly reliable. But that's not what happens. 

This is a sign of a not terribly ethical person. Sorry, he’s just not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

In fact you had three choices; first you were not forced to cross the coin and could have left it in the NGC holder. 

Let me clarify - I bought it in the PCGS holder, and while researching the coin found the same coin in an NGC holder. 

If it were graded differently, I would agree that there could be issues. It's quite common for a coin to be plus-or-minus a point between the two holders. In my case, the coin graded exactly the same at both services. I see absolutely no issue with this. If it had graded differently, then I would have an issue. 

In the case you originally presented (MS-66* vs MS-66) I also see no issue - the Star is a unique attribute from NGC. Any coin that grades MS-66* will of course cross to PCGS as  MS-66, because they don't recognize the star! This is a no-brainer. 

And, if I were on the borderline of the 75% mark as you describe, I could see there being some implications. However, I'm not. In my set, I have only 2 PCGS coins (one admitted before the exclusion, one using the old NGC number). I understand the concern, and if I were using it to fraud the system, I'd be concerned - but I'm not. 

 

Edited by physics-fan3.14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

I would not, but I'm fine with a person keeping the Cert # in there inventory. 

To what end?  This only bloats the inventory as you would now have bot the old NGC and the new PCGS in your inventory, same coin listed in your inventory twice.

9 hours ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

What if.... Someone competing in the NGC registry had a PCGS graded coin in their set, crossed it to NGC but left the PCGS slab in the set. No harm no foul?

In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry.

9 hours ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

If these TPG's would communicate crossovers and not leave it up to the coin owners this would go away and the population reports would be more accurate. That's were my annoyance lies, you can't rely on individuals to report crossovers.

Again I 100% agree, if the TPG's had done this all along the pop reports would be much more accurate and usable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Walkerfan said:

I don't think it's ethical BUT, with that being said, I KNOW for a fact that there are plenty of 'PHANTOM SETS' out there. 

I wouldn't do it but some people DO.    

You are correct there are phantom sets in the registry, some on purpose (I know of one that I suspect) and some that happen due to the death of the owner who's heirs are unaware and do not retire or delete sets.  Usually those latter sets trickle down the list as some of the coins are bought and placed into sets or inventories, however not every coin is bought by an NGC registry user and some get crossed and the certs not turned in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coinbuf said:

To what end?  This only bloats the inventory as you would now have bot the old NGC and the new PCGS in your inventory, same coin listed in your inventory twice.

 

In my inventory spreadsheet, I track every known appearance of a coin that I can find. Having the PCGS, NGC, ANACS, or whatever other numbers associated with helps me track value/price, provenance, changes in appearance over time, prove its history... etc. The "knowledge of a coin" is not limited to the current plastic it wears. The coin is the same, despite whoever may have put a hammer on its case. 

 

4 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry.

 

For its entire existence, PCGS has never allowed NGC coins into its Registry. For many misguided years, NGC didn't allow PCGS coins in. 

The point is, its the same coin. You've paid for the opinion (or, someone has). There is documentation that this coin received this grade by this company. You own the coin. Why is it wrong to use the number assigned by that company to that coin in their registry? 

Now, if you're going to sell the coin... you should absolutely use the current plastic. The perceived value of a coin is (rightly-or-wrongly) adjusted by the current clothes it wears. If I were to sell you a PCGS 66 and it shows up in NGC 66* clothes, you may or may not be upset.

But on the Registry, it is entirely valid to say that NGC evaluated the coin as MS-66*, even if PCGS currently calls it an MS-66. 

That's my opinion, and I don't think its unethical despite what some politician wannabees might say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry.

And what about their PCGS set, where NGC coins aren't allowed? Sure, update the coin to the NGC number on the NGC set. Great. But do they have to remove the coin from their PCGS set? 

Should they be punished because they crossed the coin to NGC? 

They still own the coin, and PCGS called it MS-xx. Why remove the coin from their PCGS set simply because the coin changed clothes? 

I see absolutely no reason for this. And thus, your so-called "ethical" argument is closed in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

In my inventory spreadsheet, I track every known appearance of a coin that I can find. Having the PCGS, NGC, ANACS, or whatever other numbers associated with helps me track value/price, provenance, changes in appearance over time, prove its history... etc. The "knowledge of a coin" is not limited to the current plastic it wears. The coin is the same, despite whoever may have put a hammer on its case. 

This would be very confusing to me but if it works for you then I can understand using it that way.

2 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

 

For its entire existence, PCGS has never allowed NGC coins into its Registry. For many misguided years, NGC didn't allow PCGS coins in. 

The point is, its the same coin. You've paid for the opinion (or, someone has). There is documentation that this coin received this grade by this company. You own the coin. Why is it wrong to use the number assigned by that company to that coin in their registry? 

Because you are representing that you have X coin in X grade in an NGC holder, but you don't what you have is X coin in X grade in a PCGS holder.  Everyone knows that once you crack out a coin the TPG will not just simply reholder the coin at the same grade, the old cert is invalid and the coin must be regraded.   Once you have the coin in its new plastic it should be represented as it is not as it was.  I understand the way you and the member ATS view this but I do see it as less than ethical, even if that is not your intent you are misrepresenting what is in your set as you do not have X coin in X grade in the old NGC holder. 

2 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Now, if you're going to sell the coin... you should absolutely use the current plastic. The perceived value of a coin is (rightly-or-wrongly) adjusted by the current clothes it wears. If I were to sell you a PCGS 66 and it shows up in NGC 66* clothes, you may or may not be upset.

But on the Registry, it is entirely valid to say that NGC evaluated the coin as MS-66*, even if PCGS currently calls it an MS-66. 

That's my opinion, and I don't think its unethical despite what some politician wannabees might say. 

Again you don't have a coin in an NGC 66* holder so its wrong in my view to say you do on the registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

And what about their PCGS set, where NGC coins aren't allowed? Sure, update the coin to the NGC number on the NGC set. Great. But do they have to remove the coin from their PCGS set? 

Should they be punished because they crossed the coin to NGC? 

They still own the coin, and PCGS called it MS-xx. Why remove the coin from their PCGS set simply because the coin changed clothes? 

I see absolutely no reason for this. And thus, your so-called "ethical" argument is closed in my opinion. 

Yes the same theory works for the PCGS registry as for the NGC, if the coin is crossed it should be removed, so in my opinion the ethical issue is very much open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coinbuf said:

This would be very confusing to me but if it works for you then I can understand using it that way.

It depends on how you have your inventory set up, I suppose. Do you collect plastic, or do you collect coins? 

2 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Because you are representing that you have X coin in X grade in an NGC holder, but you don't what you have is X coin in X grade in a PCGS holder.  Everyone knows that once you crack out a coin the TPG will not just simply reholder the coin at the same grade, the old cert is invalid and the coin must be regraded.   Once you have the coin in its new plastic it should be represented as it is not as it was.  I understand the way you and the member ATS view this but I do see it as less than ethical, even if that is not your intent you are misrepresenting what is in your set as you do not have X coin in X grade in the old NGC holder. 

You see, I think you and I are viewing the world a bit differently. 

I have X coin in Y grade in an NGC holder. 

I have X coin in Z grade in a PCGS holder. 

Either way, I still have X coin. 

NGC called it Y and I'll call it Y in their registry. PCGS called it Z and I'll call it Z in their registry. Either way, its still X coin and its mine. (if they both call it the same grade, then the difference is immaterial, in my opinion)

Are we collecting coins, or are we collecting points? 

 

6 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

it should be represented as it is not as it was

If I were selling it, then absolutely yes I agree. I would describe the coin completely as it currently is, clothes and all. 

But wouldn't you also want to know what it was formerly clothed in? That sort of history/provenance is incredibly important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

Yes the same theory works for the PCGS registry as for the NGC, if the coin is crossed it should be removed, so in my opinion the ethical issue is very much open.

If the coin were removed from the PCGS census, as I discussed earlier, then the issue would be very much closed. 

But they aren't. 

The implications from that are clear to me, as described above. Some may disagree, and I can see where fraud might creep into the system... but in my opinion, the average collector using the system as I have been describing is not being fraudulent or unethical. Despite what some might think, I am not unethical. I am not dishonest, and I am not trying to cheat the system. I'm merely using a coin that I bought in PCGS clothes but later found in my research to have resided in NGC plastic in the formerly-closed NGC registry. 

Edited by physics-fan3.14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 10:03 PM, MarkFeld said:

 “I think it would be improper to use any label in a registry for a coin that’s no longer in the holder the label was in.”

As a sometime Troll and unapologetical rank amateur, I find the very fact such an unseemly matter requires discussion. Remember Joseph N. Welch's query: "Have you no decency, sir, at long last?" Numismatics ought to be above such goings-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

It depends on how you have your inventory set up, I suppose. Do you collect plastic, or do you collect coins? 

I have my inventory setup just as I do my excel spreadsheet, the registry inventory is just a redundant backup of my excel file.  I'm a plastic collector of old plastic (when the coin inside is nice) but first and foremost a coin collector, therefore all prior clothes a coin might have had is irreverent what it has today is what it should be represented as selling or not, to do otherwise is fraudulent and wrong in every sense.  You have convinced and rationalized to yourself that its fine because it is what you want not because it is right.

Quote

You see, I think you and I are viewing the world a bit differently. 

I have X coin in Y grade in an NGC holder. 

I have X coin in Z grade in a PCGS holder. 

Either way, I still have X coin.

You are correct we do see the world quite differently, you do have X coin but you want to show it as though you have 2 examples of X when you only have one X coin.

Quote

NGC called it Y and I'll call it Y in their registry. PCGS called it Z and I'll call it Z in their registry. Either way, its still X coin and its mine. (if they both call it the same grade, then the difference is immaterial, in my opinion)

Are we collecting coins, or are we collecting points? 

You seem to be very into collecting points by representing that you have the same coin in two different holders, and you do not.

Quote

If I were selling it, then absolutely yes I agree. I would describe the coin completely as it currently is, clothes and all. 

But wouldn't you also want to know what it was formerly clothed in? That sort of history/provenance is incredibly important. 

It makes no difference if you are selling or holding you have one coin in one brand holder period.  And no I could not care less about the gradeflation that happened to coin X prior to my owning it, as I said I'm a collector not an investor.  What matters to me is that I like the coin and I paid what I feel was an appropriate price for the coin.  I never care who may have owned it in the past. completely unimportant to me.  But then I've never been one to worship players, or movie stars, or coin collectors; they are all just people that put on their pants one leg at a time just like me.

 

3 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

If the coin were removed from the PCGS census, as I discussed earlier, then the issue would be very much closed. 

But they aren't. 

It should not matter once the coin leaves the holder the cert is dead to the TPG, as I said they will not reholder a cracked out coin without rendering another opinion so once cracked the old opinion is void.  Loopholes are how ethics get compromised even if one's intention is not to intentionally defraud.

Quote

The implications from that are clear to me, as described above. Some may disagree, and I can see where fraud might creep into the system... but in my opinion, the average collector using the system as I have been describing is not being fraudulent or unethical. Despite what some New-England A-$$hol3s might think, I am not unethical. I am not dishonest, and I am not trying to cheat the system. I'm merely using a coin that I bought in PCGS clothes but later found in my research to have resided in NGC plastic in the formerly-closed NGC registry. 

I did not say that you set out to cheat the system but the effect is you are; you are showing two opinions for the same coin, even if the opinions align you are still gaming the system.   Basically it seems that you have no issue with this because in your mind the outcome is not intentional yet the outcome is the same no matter the intent.   I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other to change views on this, you feel good with your actions and I see them as improper and unethical.

Edited by Coinbuf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...kilt wearers might take exception to the one leg at a time comparison...skirt wearers as well...

truth is all registry entries, pcgs or ngc, are solely based on the paper label inside the plastic and the numbers there on not the coin, otherwise there would be registry sets with coin photos only (can you just imagine the threads from that?)...after all, registry sets require certifications, certifications require dollars spent and dollars spent are the intent of TPG, otherwise it would all be free...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zadok said:

...after all, registry sets require certifications, certifications require dollars spent and dollars spent are the intent of TPG, otherwise it would all be free...

Do you mean that lunch is not free ? Not even if I buy a nickel beer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first question: Are there explicitly stated rules banning the practice of using a deholdered slab insert in the registry?

If no, and it's still a question of "ethics", the next questions that come to my mind are: Who will be harmed?  And to what extent?

My suspicion is, since the registry is meaningless to me (and almost certainly most collectors), and nobody is really going to be harmed, then I'm not concerned that there's an ethical question here at all.

(Of course, since I do not participate in the registry and am unaware of the rules, my answer is based on a lot of assumptions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 5:43 PM, Coinbuf said:

Use a PCGS cert in the PCGS registry after you had crossed the coin into NGC plastic or vice versa.

What kind of monster would do this? The Registry is sacred and the reason so many collect... Personally I'm not going to give much thought to it. If someone wants to collect internet points so badly that they will cheat, I've got more important things to worry about.

Years ago I knew of a somewhat high ranking Registry Set that was only inserts. Assembled by crackouts. There were outright angry people because I wouldn't report it to. Hateful emails and PMs to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James_OldeTowne said:

My first question: Are there explicitly stated rules banning the practice of using a deholdered slab insert in the registry?

If you look at the registry info:  "All NGC-certified coins are eligible for the NGC Registry".  So my question to you is once a coin is cracked out of a slab is it still NGC certified?  If you believe that a cracked coin to still be certified as true then have you sold a raw (or entombed in another brand slab) coin as NGC certified and if not why?

Quote

If no, and it's still a question of "ethics", the next questions that come to my mind are: Who will be harmed?  And to what extent?

My suspicion is, since the registry is meaningless to me (and almost certainly most collectors), and nobody is really going to be harmed, then I'm not concerned that there's an ethical question here at all.

(Of course, since I do not participate in the registry and am unaware of the rules, my answer is based on a lot of assumptions.)

This is the argument and the way to rationalize putting one's ethics on pause that I see used often, "nobody is going to be harmed right".  Maybe and maybe not but the thing is if you have to ask the question or make an excuse for the behavior is it really the right thing to do.  Yes your correct that the registry is a very minor thing in the overall scheme of life, but if someone is willing to pause ethics for this what else are they willing to pause ethics for.  Once you start down the path of what ifs, and its ok just this one time, where do you then draw the line; things don't have to be illegal or outside explicitly stated rules to be wrong.

Edited to add:  Not to rub salt in a wound but when you had your little bump in the road with PCGS I would guess that you expected them to act in an ethical manor.  I wonder if at some time in that process was "its only X dollars does it really matter" thought by someone at some time.

Edited by Coinbuf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1