Rare 1574 Paper Siege Coin Severely Damaged By PCGS During Certification

See, and I have mostly found the opposite to be the case .




You're right, it shouldn't, the coins I am talking about are one that have clearly circulated for a time (not just spent once or twice) with obvious wear and major lustre disturbance getting MS grades.




I agree with the market setting the standard, however the TPGs setting the standard just seems "iffy" to Me. Isn't the whole point of having a third party, to have an unbiased partie's opinion? (And yes I am also aware that TPGs are more than just that). But why is it that they set the standards? Just seems odd to Me.

We agree its not a science.

Personality also enters the issue. Some peoples' personality/mindset makes it such that they are willing to put faith into a non-scientific approach. To each his own.

Making grading a science would be part of a marketing plan that would have definitely not produced near as much profit. Businesses have to make money.




I can understand being hesitant to send the coin back to them, but I also agree that when I wrong someone, I need to personally see what was done to assess and make sure I compensate adequately for the other person. The difference here being you are not dealing with an individual - which might be easier. When the wrongdoers are a large business, its easy to have something like this go unresolved.





If you could go back in time and be the one to successfully pull off the making of a system such as the TPGs, then it would be YOU making the standards. They started it, so they are the ones who have made the rules. Just like all areas of life, some people are willing to question the rules ("iffy") thinking there may be room for improvement, and some like to say "if it isn't broke, then why fix it?" I personally think it all depends on how much faith a person puts in the word "expert."

TPG are part of their own construct/invention. Their world has made great strides since the internet came into being, hence they have enough followers now to continue with their system the way it is. There is now a generation of collectors who have never known coins without ebay and slabs, so the idea of questioning the system is foreign to them.

The only way to get rid of the "iffy" is to convert to a repeatable, standardized science. Art is something you have to take on faith. Many people have put a lot of money and faith into the grading system as it is, and so updating to make the system be an actual, repeatable science is a very scary thought to them.

Besides, the TPGs sure do not want to become scientifically repeatable. A very obtainable scientific standard would mean once a coin was graded with scanners and algorithms, the "iffy" would be gone. The coin would always get the exact same grade (unless deteriorated or damaged). However; the only thing left between seller and buyer would be how much the price tag was good for representing eye appeal - which is solely up to the buyer anyway!

But even then, the algorithms used for the grading would be subject to the whim of who was making the algorithms. Just how much accuracy is "enough?"



I see how my statement


Could have made for the response of:






Let me clarify that I was making the point specifically that it is a shame casualecollector won't have written records because his emails were not answered. The non-answering of emails is non-professional when a company gives out an email address so people will assume they can get a decent and timely (its email after all) response. I don't care what the subject matter is, this is a poor business practice.





A sincere question.where do you get all your information?

As I have said, anyone who thinks grading can be a hard science does not understand grading or how to grade.

It cannot and will not ever be a hard science no matter how much you want it to be from your bias to attack the system.

There's honestly no other way to put it than I have. I may be blunt but it's the truth and anyone thinking it can be a hard science should be ignored for the benefits of the readers of this thread as to not mislead readers because someone typing has no idea how to grade.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

...also considered in legitimate debate to be a finality to the legitimacy of the position of the person initiating the response.

QED


Applying science is not about understanding the methods and mindset of the system as it sits. Its about realizing the scientific method can be applied to coins as well as to every other manufactured item in existence.

Evidence:
Every day countless factories use machines to scan small fabricated parts down to a thousandth of a millimeter. The machine does not care what the item is made of, the item's shape, the item's purpose etc. These machines scan and evaluate surfaces, inconsistencies, errors, blemishes, percentage of detail, contact marks, inconsistencies with a set norm, etc.

All of these characteristics (and any other physical attributes) are able to be logged(important)/assessed. Since coins have physical attributes - there is no reason why it would be impossible to scan them just like any other item.

The only thing the machines cannot tell is how pretty the item appears to a human. Humans cannot even agree on that.

Accountable, repeatable, professional (in a different way), and totally different in method related to current methods.

Why not?

Regarding the OP's situation....
Maybe PCGS would commit to returning the coin after examining it. That would allow them a legitimate opportunity to determine how the damage occurred and to come up with a fair offer for compensation.
Seems clear PCGS needs to take responsibility here, and there should be no compelling reason why the OP couldn't retain possession.

A couple of thoughts here...

As the under bidder of piece damaged, for historical reasons, I am extremely disappointed to see such a historical piece damaged. I can also confirm, that when I viewed it in person, such damage did not exist.

I also doubt PCGS will be able to do anything without viewing in hand. I also think it is wholly appropriate for them to do so. I understand the OP's concerns, but they do have the right to confirm visually what they they have done.

My main concern would actually be that they base any compensation off of the value of the recent auction sale, rather than your declared value...

As for all the other stuff regarding TPGs in general, that's for another thread...

I have an interesting side note to this conversation. I was talking to a friend at church today. He's a big time collector but also made his living as an investment counselor. He sold all his stock in PCGS' patent company recently because of things like this. In early Feb, the stock lost 40% of its value. He said they cut their dividend in half and he took that as a sign of an unhealthy-ish situation. So incidents like this seem to be harming them in the market as well.