By Greg Reynolds for CoinWeek…
On March 25, 2010, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) officially announced the PCGS SecurePlus™ program. While the program was initially known for its new “plus” grades—such as 45+ or 63+—its most significant feature is its focus on security. The rival company Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC) soon followed with its own plus grades, and the PCGS later made plus grades available on standard submissions, making the security features of SecurePlus the true centerpiece of the program. In my opinion, these security aspects are revolutionary and will have tremendous implications for the rare coin market.
This article provides a clear, educational overview of the PCGS SecurePlus program. While the PCGS website’s explanation isn’t extremely clear, and many collectors I’ve spoken to are confused, this column aims to simplify the details.
This article is divided into a few sections:
-
- The PCGS SecurePlus Program: A definition of the program.
- Coin Identification: An Explanation: A breakdown of the benefits of the coin identification technology.
- The Two Tiers: An overview of the SecurePlus program as an option alongside standard submissions.
- Don Willis Responds: PCGS President Don Willis responds to my analysis and questions.
- Secure All PCGS Submissions?: The views of industry experts on making the SecurePlus program mandatory.
- The Future of SecurePlus: My concluding thoughts on the program’s potential.
1. The PCGS SecurePlus Program
The SecurePlus program introduced three new security technologies to coin grading:
- Coin Scanning and Identification: The program uses CoinAnalyzer devices from Richard Haddock’s CoinSecure firm. An image and data from each coin are saved to a database, allowing PCGS to identify the coin if it is ever submitted again.
- “Sniffer” Technology: This technology is designed to detect foreign substances or alterations on a coin’s surfaces—common signs of “coin doctoring,” where a coin is deliberately harmed to deceive experts into assigning a higher grade. PCGS has already begun implementing this technology and plans to phase in additional applications over time.
- Anti-Counterfeiting Inserts: New inserts with anti-counterfeiting features are placed inside the PCGS holder. Each SecurePlus holder contains a paper insert with a gold eagle and shield, making it more difficult for unethical businesses to create forgeries of PCGS holders with misleading grades. While important, this feature is less significant than the coin identification and sniffer technologies, which are the core of the program.
2. Coin Identification: An Explanation
When coins are submitted under the SecurePlus program, they are scanned by CoinAnalyzer devices for identification. If the same coin is submitted again, the CoinSecure software will find a match in the database, and the new scan will be compared to the previous image.
My understanding is that when a coin is identified as a resubmission, a PCGS Finalizer—the last person to review the coin—will compare the old and new images. If the coin’s appearance has changed, the Finalizer will investigate the reasons why. Not all changes are due to doctoring; many coins naturally and gradually tone over time.
According to Richard Haddock and PCGS President Don Willis, testing has shown that the CoinSecure software can definitively match a previously scanned coin to a new scan in “100%” of all cases, even after the coin has been dipped, doctored, or damaged. This technology is therefore useful for identifying resubmitted coins and providing clues as to how a coin has changed. For example, if a gray area on a coin is now blue, the Finalizer can closely inspect that specific area.
This technology can also help identify stolen or lost coins. If a coin certified under SecurePlus is stolen, the owner can notify PCGS, and if the coin is later submitted, it may be identified.
It is a misconception that a SecurePlus grade is “secured” and can never change. Like all PCGS-assigned grades, it is guaranteed, meaning if PCGS later determines a coin was overgraded, the company will compensate the owner for the reduced grade or buy the coin at a price commensurate with the original, higher grade. Willis emphasizes that the SecurePlus program is designed to prevent a coin from being upgraded for “the wrong reasons,” but that a coin that was previously undergraded may still receive a higher grade upon resubmission.
This additional information from past scans and images should dramatically reduce the probability of a recently doctored coin being graded and lessen the likelihood of coins being upgraded or downgraded, leading to more stability in the grading process.
It’s not unusual for the same coin to be resubmitted to PCGS or NGC multiple times, often by different dealers hoping for a higher grade. The SecurePlus program should make it much less likely for dealers to “crack out” coins from their holders and resubmit them, as the probability of getting an undeserved upgrade will be significantly lower. The use of CoinAnalyzer scans enables PCGS Finalizers to catch such mistakes before they result in overgraded coins being certified and shipped.
III. The Two Tiers
PCGS submitters can choose between the SecurePlus program and the standard program for coins valued under $100,000. It’s assumed that standard submissions are not subject to the same scanning and sniffing processes as SecurePlus submissions.
The difference in fees between the two tiers is substantial. For typical submissions of coins valued at $3,000 or less, the standard fee is $30 per coin, while the SecurePlus fee is $45—a 50% increase. For more expensive coins, the difference is smaller but still significant. Coins already certified by PCGS can be moved into SecurePlus holders for a “reholder” fee of $20 per coin.
Many in the industry, including myself, find this two-tier system problematic. While I understand that PCGS has invested heavily in these new technologies, these are necessary expenses to offer a better product for collectors. When a company develops a superior product, it’s not always logical to continue offering the inferior one, especially when the latter allows for practices that are detrimental to collectors.
In the short term, PCGS gains from the resubmission of coins, but in the long run, this practice harms both the company and collectors. Grade-inflation diminishes the value of grading services and discourages people from collecting. Additionally, coins submitted through the standard program are much more vulnerable to doctoring than those submitted through SecurePlus. If SecurePlus were the sole option, PCGS’s grading services would become far more valuable.
Under the current system, dealers can continue “cracking out” coins and resubmitting them. If a coin was previously graded MS-65 nine times and, on the tenth submission, gets an MS66 grade, no one but the submitter will know about the previous grades. Even worse, doctored coins can be sent in with the hope of a higher grade, even though such coins should not be graded at all.
SecurePlus-certified coins are not yet selling at a large premium over standard-certified coins, largely because most collectors don’t understand the benefits of the program. Curtailing grade-inflation and minimizing the number of doctored coins that are graded are tremendous goals that would be of great benefit to coin buyers.
IV. Don Willis Responds
I recently spoke with Don Willis, the president of PCGS, who was a coin dealer before his career in information technology. I’ve always found him to be honest and willing to address controversial issues.
Willis confirmed that my explanation of the SecurePlus program was “correct” and stated that in its early stages, SecurePlus “is being driven by the collector community.” However, many collectors are not familiar with the problems of grade-inflation and coin doctoring. Furthermore, many submissions come from dealers, not collectors.
Willis noted that PCGS has seen “many finest known and top quality sets submitted for SecurePlus grading.” He cited the Simpson and Dr. Steven Duckor collections as examples, mentioning that Duckor’s set of Barber Half Dollars sold for record-breaking prices at auction. While Duckor’s support for the program is strong and his coins sold for high prices, it’s not clear to what extent the SecurePlus holders themselves played a role in the prices, as the Duckor pedigree often adds considerable value on its own.
Willis states that “the pace of SecurePlus submissions and the expansion of SecurePlus services will be determined by collector demand just as original PCGS submissions were back in 1986.” I find this reasoning problematic. In the late 1980s, the demand for PCGS-certified coins was driven by investors and trading funds, not collectors, who had to be persuaded. Today, a large percentage of submissions still come from dealers, many of whom engage in problematic practices. It is unrealistic to expect collectors to fully understand these issues or for dealers to explain the benefits of SecurePlus holders to their buyers. It makes more sense for PCGS to expand the SecurePlus program now for the benefit of collectors and the coin community at large.
V. Secure All PCGS Submissions?
Many in the industry believe the PCGS should mandate the SecurePlus program for all submissions.
John Albanese suggests that if PCGS can solve the grade-inflation problem, it should use this technology on all submissions. He argues, “Why discriminate for the benefit of the higher-end coins? A $600 coin may be more dear to some collectors than a $100,000 coin is to others… They should protect all coin collectors, not just wealthy collectors.”
Mark Feld shares a similar view, stating that if PCGS won’t use these technologies on every coin, they should be used on “the vast majority.” He believes the “current loophole” of non-Secure options “severely diminishes the potential effectiveness and benefits of the SecurePlus tier.” Ira Goldberg, co-owner of a leading auction firm, agrees, noting that there are “very few doctored coins in PCGS Secure holders.” He has observed that SecurePlus has been highly effective in rejecting doctored coins, even if it has also resulted in rejecting some coins that should have been graded. In my opinion, it is far better to reject a potentially gradable coin than to grade a doctored one.
Jeff Garrett and Ira Goldberg both agree that the two-tier system is confusing and that it would be better if all rare coins were submitted under the SecurePlus program. Goldberg suggests this would be ideal if the fees were reasonable—a little higher than standard fees, but less than the current SecurePlus fees. I suggest that if SecurePlus became the sole program for rare coins, the costs of the new technologies could be averaged out over many more coins, making the cost per coin substantially smaller over time.
Grade-inflation is a serious problem that will eventually harm the entire coin business. Under the current two-tier system, dealers are incentivized to resubmit the same coins repeatedly, to the detriment of collectors who eventually buy doctored or overgraded coins. While Willis believes that collector demand will dictate the market, I believe this is problematic. The values of coins in standard holders affect the values of coins in SecurePlus holders. It is not beneficial to the coin community that some wholesalers spend most of their time “cracking out” and resubmitting coins for upgrades. As one expert dealer told me, he spends around $25,000 a month on grading fees, with 80% of his income coming from “getting upgrades.”
Willis’s public declaration that “the market works like a perfect machine, just follow the money” is not true. In theory, a perfect market requires all buyers and sellers to have total knowledge, which is impossible for most collectors who will never become expert graders. It is also unrealistic to expect most dealers to explain the nuances of the SecurePlus program to their buyers.
VI. The Future of SecurePlus
The problems of grade-inflation and coin doctoring are extremely damaging, but they are also containable, and the SecurePlus program can play a central role in containing them.
I applaud David Hall, Don Willis, and Richard Haddock for their efforts to address these issues. They have done more than I ever thought was possible from officials at a major grading service. The importance and potential of coin identification and “coin sniffer” technologies cannot be overstated.
Willis has announced that PCGS will be making several “very important announcements relating to SecurePlus” at the upcoming FUN show in January. I hope these announcements will lead to a shift from standard to SecurePlus submissions. The value of each rare coin in a PCGS Secure holder is positively correlated with the number of other rare coins in Secure holders.
I believe PCGS should choose to make less profit in the short term by lowering fees and applying these new technologies to all scarce or rare coin submissions. I predict that this would make the company more profitable in the long run. Collectors and PCGS would benefit from the SecurePlus program more and more as time passes. I also hope that NGC adopts similar scanning and sniffing technologies.
* * *
This article was updated for clarity and context in September 2025.
