What is Code "88" PCGS?
braddick
Posts: 24,180 ✭✭✭✭✭
peacockcoins
0
braddick
Posts: 24,180 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Well, it's not graded, so there's a clue.
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Best to call PCGS for confirmation but I believe 88 means questionable authenticity...
88 isn't on their current code list.
Agree
Code 88 means “questionable authenticity”.
These are the codes for a "no holder" which wouldn't apply to your coin.
They would not grade a coin "Gem Proof" if it had questionable authenticity.
There's nothing wrong with that coin. It is likely another marketing company coin that was submitted for a no grade.
If the authenticity is questionable, they would not have slabbed it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Screen shot of the PCGS cert
Agreed. I stand corrected and that is why I prefaced my comment both with I believe and to call PCGS directly 😉
It appears 88 is code for "gem proof" and 89 is the code for "gem uncirculated"
peacockcoins
Yes. I perused ebay and noted the proofs were all 88 and the unc 89.
'89' is a code that PCGS uses mainly for 'bulk submitters/dealers'. It means BU, and represents a grade range, rather than a specific grade. Apparently, '88' is similar.
The last time I asked (MAY-2023), PCGS said that they had no plans to add '89' to their website, because it is mainly used for bulk, or by dealers, not customers.
IMHO, this information SHOULD BE posted on their website. The lack of public disclosure is potentially harming subsequent owners. If you do not believe that this could happen, just look at this thread. People are confused by, and potentially 'passing' on items, because these codes are not clearly defined on the PCGS website.
Edited.
As already stated, a generic ungraded GEM Proof number. Not sure why they don't list it on the website under their number codes. Here was a previous discussion about the 88 code when they used it on an UNC quarter. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1086527/the-rarest-of-the-bat-coins-2020-w-gem-proof-quarter-now-available-for-only-125-000/p1
I always thought "gem proof" means PR65.
If only our host would bother to provide their collectors and the coin market with a comprehensive guide to their codes and designations... Unclear why they insist on keeping these hidden/secret.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I am guessing 88 is Genuine Proof and 89 is Genuine UNC. The Choice and Gem would be simply tag text qualifiers added, but not necessary, as it remains ungraded. Real old school dealer grading standards minus the slider deception. Find more with the 89 code. I am thinking not all of them say Gem as well.
alefzero: What is the "slider deception" ?
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
The old days when AU would be claimed to be BU, a big part of what TPGs were to clean up.
This is done under Market Grading which is used by some TPGs and taught by the ANA today.
I wish they would just spell it out for us.
This code bla bla bla, just give us the news already.
Interesting... I learned something today...
A good day already. Cheers, RickO
I am NOT well versed in "adjectival" grades. So, I had to look for a conversion table.
It appears that PCGS sub-divides the "uncirculated" tier into multiple levels (i.e., BU, Choice BU, Select BU, Gem BU, and Superb BU). Reference
Assuming PCGS applies the same prefixes to proof coins, you are correct (i.e., "Gem Proof" approximates PR65 on the Sheldon scale).
Thanks for the post. I learned something new today, as well.