PCGS President Says PCGS Will Not Drop "First Strikes"
Tuesday January 16, 2007
I had a wonderful time in New York last week for the NYINC coin show. Perhaps the most embarrassing moment for me came when I strolled past the PCGS booth during the Professional Preview day on Thursday. There were three people sitting behind the PCGS table, one of whom was offering verbal grades for some coins being handed to him by a customer. After hearing a few MS-64s and 65s being opined, I asked one of the people behind the table if the man doing the grading was a PCGS grader, because I have long wanted to ask a technical question relating to ultra-high MS grades. Suddenly everyone was laughing politely, and I was told that the man offering grading opinions was none other than PCGS President Ron Guth!
Naturally, I was horribly embarrassed (and kicking myself in the butt mentally for not paying more attention to the name tags everyone was wearing!) I edged over to him, introduced myself as a journalist, and stammered something about wanting to ask this technical question, when the REAL thing everyone wanted to know sprang forth from my lips: “NGC has stepped up to the plate and taken the lead in getting rid of the First Strikes designation. Does PCGS plan to follow suit?”
Mr. Guth stated that PCGS has no plans to stop using this designation at all; that they plan to stand by it. As if I could maybe convince him, I explained that the collectors don't like this designation, and that it is misleading and dishonest, but Mr. Guth replied that it’s not misleading at all, that the PCGS Web site and other materials clearly explain what the designation means, and that there is strong support for it in the coin collecting community.
So, I repeated myself, to be perfectly clear, and asked if PCGS plans to keep issuing this misleading designation indefinitely, even though NGC has stopped. Mr. Guth said that yes, PCGS will continue offering the designation. However, when I asked him if I could quote him on that, he side-stepped and said that I could state with confidence that PCGS will not be changing its plans for the continued use of the First Strikes designation.
Perhaps this is technically nitpicking, but I am not quoting Mr. Guth, merely relating the contents of my conversation with him. I just know a LOT of collectors are asking this question, and since I identified myself as a journalist and handed him my card at the beginning of my conversation with him, and he didn't tell me anything was “background” or “off the record,” I feel it's fair to relate this important information. I am saddened and greatly disappointed at PCGS's decision to stick with this misleading term.
What do you think about the PCGS position on this? Should PCGS make the step toward more honest designations, or is it all right to call things anything they want as long as they disclose what the definition means (even though most collectors will be misled because they never read that fine print?) Please share your comments below.
Naturally, I was horribly embarrassed (and kicking myself in the butt mentally for not paying more attention to the name tags everyone was wearing!) I edged over to him, introduced myself as a journalist, and stammered something about wanting to ask this technical question, when the REAL thing everyone wanted to know sprang forth from my lips: “NGC has stepped up to the plate and taken the lead in getting rid of the First Strikes designation. Does PCGS plan to follow suit?”
Mr. Guth stated that PCGS has no plans to stop using this designation at all; that they plan to stand by it. As if I could maybe convince him, I explained that the collectors don't like this designation, and that it is misleading and dishonest, but Mr. Guth replied that it’s not misleading at all, that the PCGS Web site and other materials clearly explain what the designation means, and that there is strong support for it in the coin collecting community.
So, I repeated myself, to be perfectly clear, and asked if PCGS plans to keep issuing this misleading designation indefinitely, even though NGC has stopped. Mr. Guth said that yes, PCGS will continue offering the designation. However, when I asked him if I could quote him on that, he side-stepped and said that I could state with confidence that PCGS will not be changing its plans for the continued use of the First Strikes designation.
Perhaps this is technically nitpicking, but I am not quoting Mr. Guth, merely relating the contents of my conversation with him. I just know a LOT of collectors are asking this question, and since I identified myself as a journalist and handed him my card at the beginning of my conversation with him, and he didn't tell me anything was “background” or “off the record,” I feel it's fair to relate this important information. I am saddened and greatly disappointed at PCGS's decision to stick with this misleading term.
What do you think about the PCGS position on this? Should PCGS make the step toward more honest designations, or is it all right to call things anything they want as long as they disclose what the definition means (even though most collectors will be misled because they never read that fine print?) Please share your comments below.
Comments
That an organization whose first name is Professional would opt to keep the first strike designation is very disappointing. PCGS is running the risk of compromising their integrity as a first-tier grading service by standing behind this ridiculous marketing hyperbole.
I have been collecting for about 55 years. I have always been content with the G, VG, F, AU, UNC, etc. The only reason for these new designations (VF20, MS63, MS70, First Strike, etc) is to run up prices to the pseudocollectors that circle around the auction sites like vultures. “Mine is MS70 and yours is only MS69. If you don’t get an MS70 you will have to join a different clique.”
My 2006 coins are UNC or Proof and I don’t care about yours.
I use the term ‘pseudocollectors’ because they are really not collectors. They are simply devising new ways to inflate the prices.
I agree that it is misleading and fraudulent. The only way to stop it is for the real “coin collectors” to stop supporting it.
i am glad to hear he was asked but sad to know what he said. that could makes proof like and dimples less valvued.
The “First Strike” designations should not be supported by any grading company. The true collector values the history of coins just as much as ($$) value of his collection. PCGS should realize this and not be supportive of the “First Strike” designations. I applaud NGC for their decision.
I agree with those than think the ‘First Strike’ label is a FRAUD…even the Mint does not know which coins were struck first…it’s just a marketing ploy by PCGS & NGC…who, by the way, are ’suppose’ to be the “most trusted” grading services…shame on them!
I am new to coin collecting, and have a couple of coins that I have been considering having graded. I will never use PCGS now. Their position on this issue has guaranteed that. Even if they were to give in to pressure and change their position. I do not trust anyone who was ‘forced’ to change policy. They will never get my money. PCGS – you have lost your integrity, as far as I am concerned. Perhaps you should change the P in PCGS from Professional to Pompous.
Allright, collectors, lets get past the right or wrong of PCGS regarding this First Strike episode. Lets go to core of the issue: what happens AFTER the judges’ ruling in the Francisco lawsuit. Lets say the judge rules PCGS cease making such determinations in the future, AND, REPLACE those CURRENTLY identified as First Strike. How many of you out there are going to give “back” your First Strikes? Hmmm, it appears your noses are starting to grow longer! Me, I hope you ALL give them up, because I am KEEPING my BUNCH of First Strikes!
It is a shame PCGS is not doing the right thing by ending the first strike fraud–and that is what it is–but it is even more shameful that greedy dealers (read “flippers”) and stupid collectors (read “idiots”) still buy into it despite the designation’s having been proved deceptive by the action of NGC in rightfully changing the label to “early release,” which is no more than such coins are. It amazes me that so many stupid people continue to pay a premium for a fancy PCGS label! If this is harsh, that’s just too bad.
I am one of the stupid collectors who took the bait of the “First Strike” designation. I too paid a premimum for the Gold Eagles that I purchased from an “International” gold firm. I just found out that even though gold has significantly increased in price since I purchased my Gold Eagles they are still not worth the price that I paid for them. What a dumb ass I was!
First strike ms 69’s sell at a premium assuming that items struck with the fresher dies are more ammenable to upgrade. Seeing as how this market is pushed primarily by the casual collector how frequently do you think this assumption is tested? Its much easier to see how flimsy this designation is when you see vendors selling first strike 70’s at enormous premiums when regular strike 70’s for the same date may number into the hundreds. Even the US mint is taking advantage of collector frenzy by issuing commemoratives for everything you can think of. Burnished dies are are just another way of creating demand.
In the past the mint has specifically pointed out how careful it is in ensuring that only properly manufactured coins leave its facilities for circulation. With recent issues however there has been such a rash of errors and varieties Ive been wondering wether the phenomenon is a deliberate attempt to maintain high demand for its products. Taking advantage of collector frenzy as well as the controversy surrounding inconsistent, arbitrary and perhaps even
manipulative coin grading points us back to the thing which has always been true but is too easily and too frequently ignored. Buyer beware! The thing that all of us coin buyers need to keep in mind is that much of the numismatics industry nowadays is functioning as a matter of seperating
the ignorant from thier disposable income.
Lets make one thing VERY clear PCGS is only interested in the $$$$ they can make. I have well over 1000 PCGS graded coins and have been supporting them for several years but I’m ready to actually quit collecting because the number one rated coin grading company is extremely inconstant in their grading of coins. I have sent three different PCGS graded coins into them to be graded three times each and of the (9) separate gradings only (1) coin came back graded the same way twice.One coin was graded twice and the third time it wasn’t graded and they said it was ( Questionable Color ). I even find this hard to believe but one coin came back twice graded MS63RB & the third time came back graded MS65RB ! How can the #1 grading company be so far off in their grading. If you ask “ANYONE” that sends lots of coins into PCGS to be graded I will guarantee you they will give you the same horror stories. I find that the coins they are grading now are almost all graded one full grade under what they were grading these same coins at one year or more ago.
Very Upset With No Were To Turn.
I have saved coins for several years. I have been very nervous about getting them graded. However, this year, I decided to start getting all of them graded. I probably have over a thousand old coins. I joined PCGS because they were rated one of the top two in the nation. I watched the video and was happy to see that they grade the coins withouth being bias. Therefore, they do not know whose coins they are until the end of the process. After I sent two groups of coins in to get graded by PCGS, I received an e-mail from Mr. Guth stating I overgraded one group of my coins and asked if I still wanted them graded. Because I was very surprised he knew they were my coins and hadn’t graded them yet, I asked Mr. Guth, ‘How did you know they were my coins if no one is suppose to know whose coins they are until after they are graded. This is to ensure that the company is not being bias when grading the coins.’ I never did receive an answer. When I received the group of coins that was graded, but did not receive the ones that were not graded and supposedly over graded by me, I tried to contact Mr. Guth as to where my coins were? Over the course of about two weeks, I sent several e-mails and left several messages with no reply from Mr. Guth. I also talked to a very polite and professional gentleman from their Customer Service. Mr. Guth would not reply to him either. Finally, I was able to get Mr. Guth’s cell phone number and called him on his cell phone. He had told me that the coins were lost. I told him that they were not lost, and that I better receive my coins by UPS the next day. Then, Mr. Guth told me that the coins were in a vault and that they (?) couldn’t find them. But, now that they knew where they were, he would have them send them back to me ungraded (of course). Ever since then, I feel like I do not have anyone I can go to get an honest answer as to what coin grading company that may be ethical enough where I do not have to worry about sending my coins and getting my coins grading without being bias.
PCGS has registered FIRST STRIKE as a trademark, in an attempt to make the words not mean what they mean in a numismatic sense. That’s like a cigarette company making GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH a trademark. David Hall and PCGS have shown what money hungry snakes they really are.
This is just more risk and why bank on it? PCGS is known for its last minute ultra-control integrity in grading. However, when it blew out collectors by making a major devaluation in the 20th Century Silver Eagle sets – upgrading to 70 the MS coin, something assured would never happen – it took my breath and my confidence away.
Someone said the P should now stand for Pompous. David Hall really runs PCGS and he is a pompous ??? who once said he didn’t deal with collectors who had less than $50,000 to spend. That was right around time he started PCGS. However PCGS coins do generally sell for a higher premium than those by NGC or ANACS. Read last years financial report for Collectors Universe(PCGS) and you can see he is out of touch, with modern world.
Coins are valued by how small the quantity in whatever group one buys. Just as when the mint makes an error in strike it adds to value because people want something that no one else has. First strike or early releases, which are both date based add value to the coin for collectors who want coins with a smaller census. The designation really isn’t important as long as everyone knows what it requires to get that designation.