| Author |
Replies: 42 / Views: 5,607 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
New Member
United States
22 Posts |
I suspect it's much more common for large orders to receive special treatment, which is a lesser evil, than graders being 'in the know' about who the dealer is.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Yeah, if it exists at all that's my read on it, too.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1660 Posts |
OK, if it was a LEGITIMATE request for grade review, it would've been submitted in the original holder, and reholdered with a new grade and retained the Newman pedigree.
JMO, YMMV.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1913 Posts |
Good point. You'd think that if NGC found out that someone cracked out a coin and resubmitted it, they would give it the original grade simply based on principal. You could infer from the response I received that they knew, but I don't think that would necessarily be correct. In my opinion there's just too much potential for liability and reputation damage for NGC to be in on it. I think they had one pulled over on them. They (and PCGS) really need to use some sort of scanning software to prevent this sort of thing.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
All it would take is a rewrite of the same software used for fingerprint matching, and controlled imaging circumstances which should be assumed since they're using the same equipment for every shot.
The optical technology exists to create digital images of the entire face of the coin, to a resolution capable of picking up the die markers used for variety identification. Many here are capable of that with their personal imaging equipment used to post coin pics here.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36800 Posts |
Quote: OK, if it was a LEGITIMATE request for grade review, it would've been submitted in the original holder, and reholdered with a new grade and retained the Newman pedigree. Bingo.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 861 Posts |
"It's more like a business doing what's in the best interests of the business, taking care of their best customers"
In a nutshell, this statement says it all.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Nobody knows how subjective this whole thing is better than a professional grader. You get jaded after a while, especially since a substantial portion of the people who pay your salary - the collectors who keep the high-end dealers in the business - are throwing around discretionary money which makes even the graders (6-figure salary) look poor. They don't know from coins, they don't care from coins.
For every Newman there are ten fat cats who wouldn't know a die crack if one clamped onto their....
Anyway, you get jaded. No, this is not right, but it isn't difficult for me to walk in their shoes. They're handling stuff worth 5 and 6 figures on an assembly-line basis, and it all really doesn't mean that much to them on a personal basis. I don't think many graders are also collectors, even if employment covenants allow them to be.
Perhaps I'm wrong, I hope I am. I want graders to be coin geeks who pore over their own coins when they get home at night, but how are you going to buy coins when most dealers represent a conflict of interest?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1913 Posts |
Quote: All it would take is a rewrite of the same software used for fingerprint matching The software that was developed to match the marks that are left in ammunition case heads by firearm breech faces would be perfect. It has pretty much fallen by the wayside as a law enforcement tool due to it having a very poor return versus the $$$ and hours involved (and being politically motivated), but I think it would be perfect here.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
Quote: Let me modify his statement somewhat to compensate for his modesty. It should read, "I've been a pretty bigtime dealer myself for almost half a century and I've forgotten more about how the system works than most readers have ever learned."
You're hearing truth here. I already stated that I am sure this thing happens in this business but just because you know it happens in general doesn't mean you know case by case. Since grading and even labeling things like "Cleaned" or "Edge Damage" are subjective and your average joe (see my first post) can have this happen to them I would think it's best to avoid slandering someone on a specific crackout unless you know more than just the general "favoritism in coin grading exists". And my comments are not just based off this one thread as I have seen others by this poster that were similar in nature over the months.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
C'mon, man. You're being as abusive of him as he was of the seller. Physician, heal thyself.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
Quote: C'mon, man. You're being as abusive of him as he was of the seller. Physician, heal thyself. I don't really see how I'm being abusive but I'll drop it nonetheless.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5208 Posts |
Buy the coin, not the holder. Let's ask a few questions. So what is real world value of an AU58 coin? What is the real world value of a non pedigree AU58 details coin? The known dynamics are the same coin with the Newman pedigree sold for $5K and the same coin without pedigree is "VALUED" accord9ng tot he seller at $20K. What is the off the record unspoken agreement between PCGS and NGC if you send in a coin from the other camp and disagree with a details grade? Do they automatically body bag it or for certain high dollar coins would they want it in their slab with a clean grade for bragging rights? As to preferred dealers / HSN submitters since the coin was originally from the Newman collection I'm not sure how much more clout you would need for a TPG to bend to your side / favoritism if there was any question about details vs clean grade.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The scanning software you speak of has been in the hands of at least PCGS for a LONG time. It was part of ther Expert system that they rolled out in 1991. It was to scan every coin submitted and create a digital "fingerprint" for it so that if it was ever resubmitted when the computer scanned it it was be recognized as a resubmission and given it's original grade. When they dumped the computer grading idea a few months later they dumped the scanning idea as well.
Jump forward to about 2007 when they introduced their "Secure Plus" tier. Along with the "coin sniffer" they also reintroduced the scan and digital fingerprint concept "as a new inovation". But now instead of being used on all coin it will only be used on coins submitted for Secure Plus grading. So if a Secure Plus coin gets cracked out and resubmitted it won't be recognized unless it is again submitted for Secure Plus. A resubmission under a lower tier won't be identified.
I suspect they dumped the idea back in 91 because it would cut into the crackout game profits.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I actually have copies of PCGS' patents on my HD, Conder. It was my thinking back then that the technology really wasn't up to the task yet. I may be wrong.
|
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 42 / Views: 5,607 |
Page 3 of 3
|