Talk:Professional Coin Grading Service

NPOV issues?
I'm a bit suspect of the prominent but poorly-integrated mention of an incident that occurred almost 17 years ago. This relatively old element of the company's history would be appropriate in a more complete article on PCGS, but its prominent placement in this stub (with lots of capital letters), seems more intended to cast PCGS in a negative light. I also doubt the factual accuracy of the use of the word "probation" here: is it meant to suggest that the entire organization was placed on "probation"? At any rate, my cursory search for information about the incident yielded absolutely no mention of probation; it seems to me like it is an invented detail. This page indicates that PCGS agreed to "submit its advertising to the FTC for review for the next five years," but as far as I can tell that was the extent of it.

I think this particular item should be removed until it can be integrated (with proper prose and citations...) into a more complete and less biased article.

Any objections / other comments? - Mr. Accident 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. Would like to keep it, maybe shortened and defiantly with a reference link.   Jo  e  I  20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. I removed the paragraph and added a brief mention of the affair, and an external link to a NYT article. Hopefully this is much less overt but still informative. Also, I think the Coin World investigation could use a citation here. I didn't find anything with a brief search (Coin World doesn't seem to keep very extensive archives), but I plan to look a little harder when I have more time. Mr. Accident 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I independently came to the same conclusions about this page regarding quality and NPOV, so I have added REFERENCE and POV tags, after having created a header to group the controversies. IMHO, if the statements in the Controversies section are factual and properly referenced, I would have no problem with keeping them here.  However, as Mwakin21 stated, the writing needs an overhaul if it is to be kept.  I also think that this article needs to include additional relevant material about the actual company and its service.  From my perspective, all it says at the moment is they grade coins and have allegedly had issues.  I invite anyone familiar with PCGS to add new sections with appropriate information to make this article more useful.--CheMechanical (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! This is probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Is this 2012 or is it 2006. I'm putting in some seriously-needed fixes to soften the ridiculous POV on the page. Hanxu9 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect some disgruntled coin dealer got bad ratings on their coins from PCGS and came to Wikipedia to push through their grudge. Hanxu9 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This page looks horrible
Someone needs to organize and edit this piece into specific sections. Also, the content of the entire page needs to be purged and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwakin21 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I revised and expanded the intro paragraph and provided additional sections detailing more about PCGS as a company and its impact on numismatics. I resisted the temptation to hack into the Controversies subsection for the time being, even though I agree that its size and the issues mentioned are decidedly out of proportion to their overall significance in the grand, cosmic scheme of things. I tried not to make my entry look like I was paid off by PCGS President David Hall, but PCGS and their rival NGC deserve a much better treatment given their contributions to professional numismatics than just a brief blurb followed by all the pot-shots taken at them over the years. Scottgardener 14:00, 28 Aug. 2009 (UTC)


 * I just donated some of my time to fixing this ugly, gross article. I'll be back at a later date to work on it some more. Hanxu9 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived stuff from controversies section
I have deleted the following paragraph which seems as if it can't be fixed:
 * "PCGS claims it was founded in response to perceived inconsistencies in the appraisal of rare coins, however in truth PCGS can have little if any impact on coin appraisals since dealers base their appraisals on supply, demand and their inventory needs and surpluses. Though the American Numismatic Association had published by 1977 its standard grading rules using the 70-point Sheldon coin grading scale, individual interpretation of a particular coin's placement on this scale in terms of degree of preservation and condition was found to be highly subjective. Between any given prospective buyer and seller, a difference of opinion could, in the case of particularly rare coins, represent differences on the order of hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars. Several prominent coin dealers and numismatic professionals in 1986 decided to form the Professional Coin Grading Service as a way of providing an independent grade to aid in the transaction."
 * "PCGS claims it was founded in response to perceived inconsistencies in the appraisal of rare coins, however in truth PCGS can have little if any impact on coin appraisals since dealers base their appraisals on supply, demand and their inventory needs and surpluses. Though the American Numismatic Association had published by 1977 its standard grading rules using the 70-point Sheldon coin grading scale, individual interpretation of a particular coin's placement on this scale in terms of degree of preservation and condition was found to be highly subjective. Between any given prospective buyer and seller, a difference of opinion could, in the case of particularly rare coins, represent differences on the order of hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars. Several prominent coin dealers and numismatic professionals in 1986 decided to form the Professional Coin Grading Service as a way of providing an independent grade to aid in the transaction."

It's full of point of view, original research (nothing cited here) and frankly smacks of someone with a bone to pick with the organization. This stuff belongs in a controversy section with CITATIONS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to rant. Hanxu9 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this part until it can be fixed:


 * "In the May 26, 2003 edition of Coin World, the hobby newspaper had announced they had contracted investigators to conduct a year-long, comparative study of PCGS, ACCGS, NGC (Numismatic Guaranty Corporation) and several other grading services, each known as a Third Party Grader (TPG). In their investigation, several of the same coins were sent to each grading service over the course of a year, each graded by all Third Party Graders sent to. Their findings: In no case did the grading services agree on the grade of the many coins sent in, and in some cases the difference in grading was seven points off on the standard Sheldon coin grading scale of 1 to 70.  The Coin World article cited several cases, such as a case where ACCGS had correctly noted that a coin had been cleaned while the other services had overlooked this aspect.  ACCGS graded the coin several points lower than PCGS, while PCGS had not noted the same coin was cleaned although it clearly had been, evidenced by wire brushing.  This was neither the first nor last time PCGS had failed to note when coins had been cleaned.  In June 1998, PCGS had failed to note on their holders that thousands of shipwreck coins had been cleaned, although the coins slabbed by PCGS had been encrusted with sea debris and barnacles, and subsequently cleaned in acid baths prior to grading by PCGS.
 * "In the May 26, 2003 edition of Coin World, the hobby newspaper had announced they had contracted investigators to conduct a year-long, comparative study of PCGS, ACCGS, NGC (Numismatic Guaranty Corporation) and several other grading services, each known as a Third Party Grader (TPG). In their investigation, several of the same coins were sent to each grading service over the course of a year, each graded by all Third Party Graders sent to. Their findings: In no case did the grading services agree on the grade of the many coins sent in, and in some cases the difference in grading was seven points off on the standard Sheldon coin grading scale of 1 to 70.  The Coin World article cited several cases, such as a case where ACCGS had correctly noted that a coin had been cleaned while the other services had overlooked this aspect.  ACCGS graded the coin several points lower than PCGS, while PCGS had not noted the same coin was cleaned although it clearly had been, evidenced by wire brushing.  This was neither the first nor last time PCGS had failed to note when coins had been cleaned.  In June 1998, PCGS had failed to note on their holders that thousands of shipwreck coins had been cleaned, although the coins slabbed by PCGS had been encrusted with sea debris and barnacles, and subsequently cleaned in acid baths prior to grading by PCGS.


 * "It is standard for professional numismatic dealers to note when coins have been cleaned or treated in acid baths. Not doing is often considered unprofessional and unethical by most professional numismatists, according to Coin World's May, 2003 articles.  Further, in U.S. Numismatics, it is standard to grade coins on a point-scale from 1 (poor) to 70 (perfect) and to note on the coin holder if a coin has been cleaned or poorly mishandled, or in many cases, to reject it for encapsulation or "slabbing" if the coins have been cleaned harshly." Hanxu9 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also removed this:



In September 2004, members of the American Numismatic Association reported seeing counterfeit PCGS slabs at the Long Beach Coin Show. More were reported on eBay in the years following, but PCGS did not address the issue until March 27, 2008 with the following acknowledgments on the PCGS website:


 * "The counterfeit PCGS holders are well-executed, but with minor differences from a genuine holder. PCGS anticipates that authentic coins will eventually be placed into counterfeit PCGS holders in the future, perhaps with elevated grades and/or inappropriate designators.


 * The following list of coins and certificate numbers have been seen in fake PCGS holders:


 * China (1916) Silver Dollar, Y-332, Cert #10712316 (valid)
 * China (1923) Silver Dollar, K-677, Cert #11354470 (valid)
 * China (1923) Silver Dollar, K-678, Cert #11285683 (valid)
 * China (1923) Silver Dollar, Y-336.1, Cert #13835186 (valid)
 * China Republic (1912) 20 Cents, Cert #21981173 (invalid)
 * China (1916) Gold Dollar, Pn-44, Cert # 11072163 (invalid)
 * China (1923) Gold Dollar, Tsao Kun, K-677, Cert #11354470 (invalid spec, valid cert�used above)
 * US 1858-O Half Dollar, Cert #03884338 (valid)
 * US 1800 Silver Dollar, Cert #03859118 (valid)
 * US 1795 Silver Dollar, Off-Center Bust, Cert #22030856 (valid)
 * Mexico 1761-MoMM 8 Reales, Cert #05763936 (valid)b


 * "Valid" means that the correct information shows up under Cert Verification."


 * The above listing consists of only the counterfeits known or reported by PCGS as of March, 2008. Other PCGS counterfeit holders have been reported in eBay forums and more may be reported by other firms and individuals, since PCGS anticipates that authentic coins will eventually be placed into counterfeit PCGS holders, and counterfeit holders may multiply and improve over time.  PCGS offers no reimbursement liability for the prices paid for coins in their counterfeit holders.  PCGS has an online link to verify the Cert numbers.  On January 7, 2008 Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) posted a notice on their website that high-quality counterfeits of their holders had been purchased on eBay :  "Most frequently Trade Dollars and Bust Dollars are found, although Flowing Hair Dollars and foreign coins have also been seen. A range of grades is also represented."   Caution is advised when purchasing coins in PCGS and Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) holders as the seller can disclaim liability due to the "third party" nature of the counterfeit holder.  Additionally, it may be too late to request refunds from eBay sellers before Cert numbers can be verified as counterfeits."

Look, the problem here is that this material needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view and with a formal tone, neither biased against PCGS (and the other coin grading agencies for that matter) nor in favor of it. It's also way beyond being excessive in the amount of details given. The material also needs to be cited correctly.Hanxu9 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversies Section
The controversies section needs to be pruned down and stripped of the content that is non-notable and the content that is original research (and there's plenty of both in there). Hanxu9 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm now thinking the ridiculous controversies section should be deleted until it can be recreated properly. Any thoughts? Hanxu9 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took the liberty of removing the stuff that's neither written from a neutral point of view nor backed up by an accepted source. Unfortunately that didn't leave much left in the controversies section. I have archived the stuff on this talk page, however, so that it can be fixed. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I added a few references to the controversies section. I now think that this part is acceptable and worth mentioning and will be useful for the public. JustTheFacts707 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The controversy section in Wikipedia is supposed to be when the disagreement and disapproval of or about someone or something is prolonged and public, and nothing that was in the controversies section other than the FTC matter rose to that level. You've got an agenda that biases you against PCGS -- I get that. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the proper outlet for your agenda. You can create a blog for free these days (do a search on Google or Bing for providers of that), so that's what you're going to need to do rather than continuing to vandalize the PCGS article here on Wikipedia. Hanxu9 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper!
Ref: What Wikipedia is not. The non-sourced "facts" that I have just deleted from the controversies section do not belong in any encyclopedia. A possibly biased, non-scientific study of a few dozen coins graded by grading services 15 years ago is not a valid sample of the 70 million-plus graded by them to date. Info about such a study barely belongs in a newspaper, much less Wikipedia. Also the inclusion of a list of counterfeit holders is likewise a violation of Wiki's polices: What Wikipedia is not. Please do not revert any edits until they are first discussed on this page.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Axe to Grind
A troll with a probable axe to grind continues to make libelous and improper edits to this article. Said troll uses a fake IP address, apparently hiding behind a VPN or proxy chain to conceal his identity. For instance, the troll falsely indicates that the subject of the article is "unprofessional and unethical" because they use professional conservation methods (an accepted industry practice), a libelous claim which is not supported by the noted but unlinked source. Such defamation violates WP:LBL and could subject the contributor to a lawsuit. Also, not even one of the edits is properly sourced, and many are not in any way backed by the mentioned but unlinked source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: WP:NOT. And adding lists of trivial facts and reports of minor newspaper stories, and giving uninformed (or any other) opinions, likewise violate: WP:NOT.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

How much does Pcgs charge for authentication of coin
Wondering how much pcgs charges per coin and how long it takes? 2601:196:4902:16A0:E15A:3F19:B434:10A7 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)