A few cross-overs from NGC

TwoKopeiki

I don't submit as often these days, but wanted to share my recent cross-over experience. All grades are as expected with 4 out of 5 crossing at a lower grade and one crossing at grade.

1. 1772 Mexico 8 Reales with assayer (FM) and mint mark inverted - NGC58->PCGS58. Bought this one from Kent along with it's cousin, the rare MF assayer combination that crossed a while back also at grade (that one went 55->55).

2. 1784 Mexico 8 Reales with some pleasant cabinet toning and very soft luster. NGC58->PCGS50. I suspected a 50 at PCGS as they often punish for the weak strike, but hoped for a 53, but it really doesn't have enough luster to bring it up further.

3. 1785 Mexico 8 Reales NGC55->PCGS53. Duplicate date for me, so likely will part with it. Although it is a 5 over 5 minor variety, so who knows?

4. 1804 Mexico 8 Reales. CARLUS misspelled King name variety. First one certified at PCGS and only second one certified between both services. There are less than 10 examples known and most are in pretty rough shape. NGC40->PCGS30 as expected.

5. 1806 Mexico 8 Reales NGC63->PCGS62. Nice color and luster on this one. I was missing this date in the set.

P.S. I miss Phil's photography.

Rexford

Wow, those photos are awful. I wouldn’t want to try to guess grades from those.

Re: the 1772 “Inverted Mintmark/Assayer”, I don’t get why this is continuously pointed out by TPGs and in auction descriptions. It’s not a variety. All 1772 Mexican 8 Reales have the mintmark and assayer facing the rim. I’ve always assumed that there is confusion here with the rare MF assayer, and that the actual “inverted assayer” variety refers to MF (i.e. the letters are inverted, not the rotation).

Boosibri

Photos are awful.

TwoKopeiki

@Rexford said:
Wow, those photos are awful. I wouldn’t want to try to guess grades from those.

Re: the 1772 “Inverted Mintmark/Assayer”, I don’t get why this is continuously pointed out by TPGs and in auction descriptions. It’s not a variety. All 1772 Mexican 8 Reales have the mintmark and assayer facing the rim. I’ve always assumed that there is confusion here with the rare MF assayer, and that the actual “inverted assayer” variety refers to MF (i.e. the letters are inverted, not the rotation).

True, 1773 should be the only year with that differentiation as the design changed mid-year. And the images are pretty mediocre. Almost makes me not want to add them to my digital albums.

horseyride

I'm curious why you wanted to cross them over?

Bob13

Wow. Not sure what to say about those photos....

TwoKopeiki

@horseyride said:
I'm curious why you wanted to cross them over?

2 reasons - I like the PCGS grading standard and my primary collection is all in PCGS holders. Images used to be reason number 3, but that's no longer the case.

SimonW

I just have a hard time understanding why they give every pic a sickly yellowish tone. Whitebalance folks! WHITEBALANCE!!!

SimonW

Also, really cool coins!

SimonW

Notice a huge difference?! 😂

SimonW

SimonW

It’s the sickly yellow…one click of the WB button, that’s all it would take! Just a single stroke! But alas, we’re relegated to looking at coins under candlelight.

Abuelo

I do not understand why the large difference. Really from 58 to 50? Makes no sense (and I hope you did not pay 58 for it).

Clio

@TwoKopeiki said:

@Rexford said:
Wow, those photos are awful. I wouldn’t want to try to guess grades from those.

Re: the 1772 “Inverted Mintmark/Assayer”, I don’t get why this is continuously pointed out by TPGs and in auction descriptions. It’s not a variety. All 1772 Mexican 8 Reales have the mintmark and assayer facing the rim. I’ve always assumed that there is confusion here with the rare MF assayer, and that the actual “inverted assayer” variety refers to MF (i.e. the letters are inverted, not the rotation).

True, 1773 should be the only year with that differentiation as the design changed mid-year. And the images are pretty mediocre. Almost makes me not want to add them to my digital albums.

I feel this. I had a coin graded recently and the trueview really stuck out like a sore thumb against the rest of my photos. Fortunately I'd replaced the coin with a better trueview haha.

coinkat

I suppose I am missing the basis for the opinion spread on the 1784- I suspect it really needs to be seen in hand. Sort of illustrates the subjective nature of grading. Nice looking coins

TwoKopeiki

There's a strike weakness component to the 1784. PCGS should have graded it higher, but they value luster above all when it comes to AU grade range and this coin has more of a dull luster muted by nice cabinet toning.

Let me see if I can dig up the Stacks image. It should make more sense.

TwoKopeiki

Here are the Stacks images. You can see the obverse strike weakness better here.

vs PCGS "True View"

TwoKopeiki

In a nutshell - NGC does not punish for weak strike (nor should they, imo), but don't give as much weight to the luster in AU grades as PCGS.

Abuelo

I do not think weakness should be punishable as grade should reflect current condition vs how the coin left the mint. If the strike was soft but the coin is how left the mint should be a 70. However, while I cannot grade from a picture, still cannot understand the massive drop in grading as both companies should be serious and one clearly drop the ball. I do not which one, but one did.