CGS "membership" Fee

[azda 973]

Apparently Bill Pugsley is NOT exempt from the wrath of Semra, he has slabbed 4000 coins with CGS and has just mentioned he has to pay the fee.

Also another problem has arisen when you have to submit to an agent, you post to the agent and the agent posts to CGS and again in reverse, so that will incur 4x postal charges, it's going well already

[azda 973]

This was Bill' comment

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by azda

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Not your problem Dave ......You dont send them any and wonder why you constantly go on about how bad they are....it does get boring

You might see some changes in the near future.......maybe your not interseted and thats fine.

If you  dont want to use them .........Just chill its only a coin 

[azda 973]

Not getting your comment at all Pete, I thought this was a TPG discussion about TPGs, if you don't want to comment with something constructive instead of negativity towards my post then feel free to jump out of the discussion, and for the record I have used them twice.

 Chill......

Edited June 6, 2016 by azda

[azda 973]

Oh an PS, that was Bill Pugsley who wrote that, someone who has slabbed 4000 coins with CGS and was sharing HIS info, hope that's ok with you boss. Also this is a forum of opinions and not Pete' forum...

Edited June 6, 2016 by azda

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Not a problem.

I am not going down that route.

I am chilled 

I

[azda 973]

Good man, I was only offering more info on the new CGS submission mess, nothing more...

Be calm ?

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Was trying to be polite and respectful.

Your comments .... Not Pete forum......bit condecending if thats the word.

Will let you be a bit out of order this time 

Next time you will get me full on.

[Sword 1,330]

CGS is making a real mistake if they doesn't listen to their star supporter Bill Pugsley. 

The trouble is that when a few of their big customers pay the £499 fee, it will be harder for CGS to make changes (as they might have to make some sort of refund to them). 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Sword

[Nonmortuus 848]

29 minutes ago, Sword said:

CGS is making a real mistake if they doesn't listen to their star supporter Bill Pugsley. 

The trouble is that when a few of their big customers pay the £499 fee, it will be harder for CGS to make changes (as they might have to make some sort of refund to them). 

Would that be the case though given the £499 basically is you paying for a number of slabs upfront? If they did change the rules again would they not just say those that paid had the slabs in the bank as it were? Or have I totally misunderstood how this fee will work? I do not see what they hope to gain bar pushing the customer service bit out to agents which they seem to few as a hassle.

[Paulus 1,942]

7 minutes ago, Nonmortuus said:

Would that be the case though given the £499 basically is you paying for a number of slabs upfront? If they did change the rules again would they not just say those that paid had the slabs in the bank as it were? Or have I totally misunderstood how this fee will work? I do not see what they hope to gain bar pushing the customer service bit out to agents which they seem to few as a hassle.

I guess if they did away with the fee, albeit it is effectively a pre-payment, then those that had paid it would be justified in expecting a refund of their balance, returning to the obviously preferable pay-as-you go basis.

I honestly think there will be more changes to this business / pricing model, as it is clearly not viable.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Paulus

[PWA 1967 1,841]

1 hour ago, azda said:

This was Bill' comment

 

 

I am amazed you took it upon yourself to have a conversation with someone and then put it on an open forum.

Bill i am sure said it was ok to post on PRE DECIMAL ?.

[azda 973]

Pete, the conversation was between various people on a platform that has 1 billion members, so allowing you to read it would make that 1 billion and 1

As Paulus has also been quoting Bill in previous posts (without any moaning from you) i don't see any problems, the reason i sent a screenshot was that i was using my phone and couldn't copy and paste, you don't see Bills name anywhere in the screenshot...

 Anyway, back to the £499 charge. The downside i can see is that £499 is basically a coin purchase, only those who might slab regularly and with high quantity might use it, but for others who simply want to buy coins i think they might shy away from it as they see it as a coin purchase instead, Bill has also stated that he isn't going to be sending anymore to CGS right now until they resolve all the issues, and Bill is CGS man through and through, he still likes how they grade but not the issues right now...

[azda 973]

8 hours ago, Paulus said:

I guess if they did away with the fee, albeit it is effectively a pre-payment, then those that had paid it would be justified in expecting a refund of their balance, returning to the obviously preferable pay-as-you go basis.

I honestly think there will be more changes to this business / pricing model, as it is clearly not viable.

Totally agree with this point Paul, but then again, Semra seems quite the hard head and her stubbornness could swing things into the abyss. I don't think this has finished yet, not for a while at least. If they don't receive many submissions due to the new price/submission model then there could be various variants of it...

[Nonmortuus 848]

I clearly sent my coins in at a bad time as its now 3 weeks on and still no invoice/ invoice number, still no coin progression, still no updates. I am reluctant to chase them given whats going on with the changes to the pricing model. I know others are now into week 7/8 of waiting for coins to come back so they still have 34 ish days left to turn them around. At least these people have an invoice number and can see coin progression. I am hoping that now the June LCA is out of the way they will get the CGS side moving.

I honestly think, still being relatively new to this, that if they offered a good quality of customer service and a reasonable turn around of day 30 days they would see far more people using them. Part of the reason they get so many calls saying "where are my coins?" is because their communication and customer service doesn't fill you with confidence.

Once my current batch are returned I won't be sending anymore until we know where CGS are going with their pricing model and, more importantly to me, their customer service.

[azda 973]

I was speaking to the eBay seller goldgiinea who slabs most of his stuff with CGS, he was telling me that he has been given exemption from the £499 fee and is an elite member, he has had fewer coins slabbed than Bill, so I've no idea how CGS are picking and choosing who is exempt and who's not.

[Sword 1,330]

2 hours ago, azda said:

I was speaking to the eBay seller goldgiinea who slabs most of his stuff with CGS, he was telling me that he has been given exemption from the £499 fee and is an elite member, he has had fewer coins slabbed than Bill, so I've no idea how CGS are picking and choosing who is exempt and who's not.

I  have no doubt that Bill Pugsley can easily get an exemption from the fee if he wished. It is probably irrelevant to him anyway since he spends so much on slabbing and will quickly use up the £499 credit. However, he really care about the success and future of CGS and is giving them a strong protest if he is not currently sending coins to them.

[Rob 3,002]

3 hours ago, azda said:

I was speaking to the eBay seller goldgiinea who slabs most of his stuff with CGS, he was telling me that he has been given exemption from the £499 fee and is an elite member, he has had fewer coins slabbed than Bill, so I've no idea how CGS are picking and choosing who is exempt and who's not.

Is goldguinea doing the grading for them? That might explain the exemption, which has to be predicated on some basis. It isn't as if CGS have just started, so there has to be a quid pro quo.

[azda 973]

3 hours ago, Rob said:

Is goldguinea doing the grading for them? That might explain the exemption, which has to be predicated on some basis. It isn't as if CGS have just started, so there has to be a quid pro quo.

Not sure who does the grading Rob, but he said he'd sent 19 in for grading on the old format, so I'd have to assume not...

[PWA 1967 1,841]

t

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by PWA 1967
daft

[azda 973]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

t

 

 

Yes please,. 2 sugars, 1 milk ta...

[Rob 3,002]

1 hour ago, azda said:

Not sure who does the grading Rob, but he said he'd sent 19 in for grading on the old format, so I'd have to assume not...

I know Alex does some grading, but assume that there must be a pool of people used if you intend to show expertise in all areas. I don't know all the people involved, so thought a discount or exemption from any fees might be a suitable reward if the remuneration for agents postulated earlier has any basis. A gift of £500 is usually matched by a spend considerably in excess of that sum, so LC have to gain business considerably in excess of the income foregone.

[azda 973]

I thought it was people from LC that did the grading for CGS?

[Rob 3,002]

4 minutes ago, azda said:

I thought it was people from LC that did the grading for CGS?

I only know one person who does grading for them, so can't comment on anyone else.

[Peter 615]

I know for a fact Fred Karno is involved.