|
Howdy Folks -
There have been some developments recently in
the numismatic world that should be for the better. For the first time since its inception
the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC), has a full roster. The Committee recently
released to Secretary of the Treasury Snow a report which included possible future
commemoratives. I say possible future because not all of the commemoratives included in
the report have any current or pending legislation in Congress at this time. The list is
as follows -
|
2005
- Secretariat - the 35th anniversary of the racehorse's birth.
- American Railway - 175th anniversary of the first US built railway train
2006
- San Francisco Mint - the 100th anniversary of the 1906 San Franciso
earthquake
- Benjamin Franklin - 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth
2007
- Jamestown - the 400th anniversary of the first English settlement in America
- Agustus St. Gaudens - the 100th anniversary of the 1907 High Relief $20 gold
piece
2008
- American Numismatic Society - the 150th anniversary
- Model T Ford - the 100th anniversary of the famed automobile
2009
- Abraham Lincoln - the 200th anniversary of the President's birth
- Norman Rockwell - the 115th anniversary of his birth
|
I don't know about the rest of you - but
there's a couple commemoratives in there that I will be anxiously awaiting ! Bet you can't
guess which ones ;-}
The precious metals markets are back on the
rollercoaster ride. Gold has been steadily increasing and may even test previous recent
highs. Silver on the other hand has been going absolutely nuts ! It has approached highs
not seen since 1988 and some say may yet surpass those seen in 1987. Needless to say, the
bulls in the precious metals market have been having a heyday.
As I am sure most are aware of by now AGC,
ASA-Accugrade, has filed suit against a veritable list of Who's Who in numismatics. I have
searched the web site for the local courts in Seminole County, Florida where the suit was
filed but was unable to come up with any of the particulars as to what the suit is about
or why it has been filed. Apparently the suit is yet too new for the particulars to be
available on-line. The list of those named in the suit is known but I will not mention
them here at this time until more information is forthcoming. I will provide updates on
this subject as the facts become known.
PCGS is back in the news again - but this time
for a different reason. Recently the PNG, Professional Numismatists Guild, an organization
comprised of coin dealers, took bids on which grading company would receive the
organization's endorsement for use on their slabs. This is similar to the process the ANA,
American Numismatic Association, uses every few years to decide which grading company will
receive their endorsement.
In the past, PCGS has always won this
endorsement in the bidding process. But this year, NGC won. NGC is also the current
grading company which receives the ANA's endorsement. NGC, upon winning the bid, made a
simple announcement on their web site and on their message boards to that effect. NGC Named Official
Grading Service of the PNG
But to anyone who frequents the PCGS Coin
Forums it certainly seemed as if David Hall, President of PCGS, was not quite so happy
with the results - perhaps understandably so. The following is a copy of a post made to
the PCGS Coin Forum by Mr. Hall.
homerunhall
Collector
Tuesday March 23, 2004 2:52 PM
"For the past 5 years or so, PCGS has been the "official grading service" of the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG.) This month the png accepted bids for a three year exclusive contract to be their "official grading service." PCGS bid $504,000 for the three year period in the form of $60,000 a year in cash and the remaining amount in free grading slots for png members. NGC bid $544,000 for the three year period in the form of $65,000 a year cash the first year and small increases in that cash amount for the second and third year along with free grading slots for png members. The bids were supposedly "sealed."
So NGC outbid PCGS for the right to claim they are the "official grading service" of
the png. NGC is also the "official grading service" of the ANA. That too is a paid
endorsement, and NGC outbid PCGS on than endorsement too. Apparently NGC values these paid
endorsements more than we do. Perhaps they feel they help the TV sales of NGC modern 70
coins.
The bottom line is that an endorsement can be bought. Respect and value in the
marketplace must be earned.
David Hall "
|
This post caused a great deal of turmoil on
the PCGS Coin Forum and the NGC Coin Forum. Comments from the various members of both
Forums were flying fast and furious with the fans of both companies speaking for their
favorites. Accusations of impropriety because of Mr. Hall's comment about the bids being
"supposedly sealed" as well as his reference to TV sales were drawing heated responses. It
was then that Mr. Hall apparently had a change of heart for he decided to edit his
previous comments. They are as follows ;
homerunhall
Collector
Tuesday March 23, 2004 2:52 PM
" For the past 5 years or so, PCGS has been the "official grading service" of the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG). We had been paying the PNG $40,000 per year, or $120,000 per three years.
This month the PNG accepted bids for a three year exclusive contract to be their
"official grading service." They accepted bids from two grading services, PCGS and NGC. We
made the business decision to bid a lot higher than the previous contract because of the
competitive positions of the two grading services involved. PCGS bid $504,000 for the
three year period in the form of $60,000 a year in cash and the remaining amount in free
grading slots for PNG members. NGC bid $544,000 for the three year period in the form of
$65,000 a year cash the first year and small increases in that cash amount for the second
and third year along with free grading slots for PNG members. The bids were supposedly
"sealed."
So NGC outbid PCGS for the right to claim they are the "official grading service" of
the PNG. NGC is also the "official grading service" of the ANA. That too is a paid
endorsement, and NGC outbid PCGS on that endorsement a few years back. We are not upset
that we did not get this endorsement as we bid what we thought it was worth to us, all
things considered. We did however, feel that buyers of third party certified coins deserve
to know that these are paid endorsements...hence this post.
The bottom line is that an endorsement can be bought. Respect and value in the
marketplace must be earned.
David Hall
Edited: Wednesday March 24, 2004 at 8:24 AM by homerunhall
|
Now why Mr. Hall felt it was necessary for him
to go back and edit his comments is anybody's guess. Perhaps he felt bad for taking a
cheap shot at NGC with the TV sales comment. You see, NGC slabbed coins are sold on the TV
shopping network shows. Perhaps in his anger at losing the bid he thought that would make
NGC look bad in some way. But I guess he remembered then that PCGS slabbed coins are sold
on these TV shows as well.
It was shortly after this that David Lawrence
of David Lawrence Rare Coins, and a member of the Board of Directors of the PNG visited
the PCGS Coin Forum and made a post.
David Lawrence
Member
Wednesday March 24, 2004 11:47 AM
As a member of the PNG Board, let me explain my personal opinion of what the PNG is, and our mandate. This is not an "official" statement but just my opinion, and why I believe the PNG is a great
organization:
Plain and simply, the PNG is the ONLY professional organization of coin dealers that
organizes itself for the betterment of the hobby. Just like the Chinese "bundle of sticks"
proverb, as coin dealers we are stronger as a group, and every industry needs a watch-dog
organization to keep it's participants honest. As a board, I can attest that all of us
take our role very seriously and with the fullest integrity. When a PNG member dealer
falls on suspicion, we are called upon to weigh in on the gravity of the situation.
Likewise, scores of potentially litigious issues are settled privately and (affordably)
through the PNG arbitration process.
The PNG is NOT:
1. an organization trying to make a profit
2. armed with any agenda beyond the integrity and consumer safety of numismatics as a
whole
There is no smoking gun here. Mr. Hall was given ample time to bid on the "sponsorship"
and NGC's bid simply came in higher. As a board, that's all we were presented with. If
there are any accusations to be made beyond that scope, I would love to hear them in the
proper forum.
The only direct response I will make to Mr. Hall is this: As a board member, I am offended
that you would advertise (in negative fashion) to the world that "The bottom line is that
an endorsement can be bought." I feel 100% certain that these comments would not have been
made if you had won the endorsement, so why make them now? But I will let the readers of
this thread come to their own conclusions.
The main reason why PNG allows sponsors (and why I think it's a good idea), is that --
like other non-profit industry orgs -- we are always running a deficit. What a boon for us
that a major grading service will sponsor us which helps us create more programs and do
positive things for the hobby. We never intended for this to become a battle; quite the
contrary. In has even been suggested by officials at PCGS that we allow multiple grading
services to become sponsors in future years. I think that's a great idea, but it was never
proposed until this contract was closed.
As all of the readers of this thread are avid collectors, dealers, and otherwise related
to the hobby, we must all agree that our industry needs a responsible organization looking
out for the overall guidance of the hobby. The ANA specifically acts ONLY in the interests
of the collector, which is great, but dealers need a common voice as well. And, as
collectors, you benefit from the ability to voice your grievances to the PNG as another
medium to the ANA.
-------------------------
John Feigenbaum,
President David Lawrence Rare Coins
DLRC Auctions
Edited: Wednesday March 24, 2004 at 12:45 PM by Collectors Universe
Moderator
|
To be honest I don't know why Mr. Hall said
what he said or why he decided to edit it later. Nor do I know why Mr. Feigenbaum's
comments were also edited by a CU Moderator. I do not know what Mr. Feigenbaum's original
comment was - only that it was edited.
But in my opinion Mr. Hall did little except
to damage his and his company's reputations by acting so childishly. He tried to make out
like it was no big deal that his company lost the bid, but yet his reaction at the news
infers otherwise. He then tried to make sure that the collecting world knew that it was
nothing but a paid endorsement, but he neglected to mention that it always has been and
was the same when PCGS had the endorsement of the PNG. But to insinuate that everything
was not above board in the bidding process in a public forum - well that to me is totally
uncalled for, worthy of reproach and only goes to damage the entire numismatic
community.
I can only speak for myself, but this incident
has gone a long way towards removing the last of any respect that I once held for PCGS and
its leadership.
Well that's it folks - until next time
;-}
Doug
|
