Who has the deeper capability for variety attribution: PCGS or NGC?
AngryDragon
Posts: 76 ✭✭✭
We have a customer who presented a 1795 H10C for sale. Because its authenticity was in doubt (several counterfeits were found in the collection), we submitted the coin on the customer's behalf to CAC for authentication and grading. Unfortunately, CAC came back with "questionable authenticity" which also left us unimpressed with CAC's research staff.
The coin's diagnostics lends itself either to LM-7 or LM-8. Obverse has 7 curls and reverse has no berries. However, placement of star 1 leaves me conclude it is LM-8. While the coin does not display typical die breaks common to most examples, that (in my opinion) does not automatically mean it is counterfeit.
While PCGS has certified nearly twice as many 1795 half dimes as NGC, NGC has variety attributed far more LM-8 than PCGS.
My objective is to obtain a definitive attribution for this coin: either COUNTERFEIT OR AUTHENTIC. Questionable authenticity is an unacceptable outcome. So, which grading service do you consider as having the superior research and attribution service, and why?
Comments
I'm having a lot of issues with basic attribution with NGC right now so I'd be sending that to PCGS if I thought it was real.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Questionable authenticity is an unacceptable outcome.
I have always thought that questionable authenticity = not genuine, maybe I'm mistaken.
And then we have the bungled submission thread complaining about the variety attribution issues that submitter is having with PCGS, I'm not sure one is better than the other at the moment.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Have you established the alloy mix? Have owned a handful of this date and the images instill a pot metal look. Though CAC should have figured that out.
Don’t the major grading companies usually label coins “questionable authenticity” rather than use the word “counterfeit” in such cases?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 are easily ruled out with coinfacts pics based on date position, LIBERTY, and reverse characteristics (centering dot, namely).
It has to be 6 or 8. Only reason there's even a question is that, interestingly enough, I think the VF25 LM6 is a misattributed LM8, look at LIBERTY compared to the AU50 plate coin example. So if it's real, it's 8.
LM8 CF plate coin;
LM8 CF plate coin #2;
LM6 CF plate coin;
LM6 CF plate coin #2;
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
We don't have the means to conduct an alloy analysis. I am relying on TPG service to do that.
On something high end I wanted to get something definitive on, maybe going to the ANA and trying to find someone who could vouch for authenticity would be a possibility. Maybe the grading services aren't paying enough to attract and keep top professionals on staff.
They do, although I have on occasion seen a "counterfeit" label.
2nd LM6...Is not the base of the I being higher than the base of the L indicative of the LM8?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Look at the position and spacing of LIBERTY relative to the definite LM6.
It's definitely not a 6 and looks much more like the 8's I showed.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
We received this response from CAC for clarification ...
Good Morning ,
Thank you for contacting CAC customer care. Questionable Authenticity is a deceptive detailed code we currently do not holder. These coins are those that we cannot, for any reason determine the authenticity with certainty.
It is surely not a 6, not even close. Its definitely an 8, perfectly legit just damaged imo. I believe CAC took the conservative approach and due to its condition they didn't want to go out on any limb, took me awhile to verify the Logan McCloskey number so it is quite understanding . But the piece has problems so really no big deal of any consequence.
For two of series I collect, none of the above. I have experienced and seen additional truly awful errors in authentication from both services. Some very high dollars also.
EDIT: As for the why, I don't think it's fit for public consumption at this time for a variety of reasons, including message board rules.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
NGC can't even attribute an 1846 small date LC I have....the holder claims medium date. Mechanical error or quality control error or worse a basic attribution error.
Make no mistake, ANACS is the leading TPG for attributing varieties.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
No grading company I know of is immune from making similar errors, many of which have been posted and complained about here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agree it looks like an 8.
I think "questionable authenticity" means a coin could be genuine. For reasons that are usually not explained in detail, the TPG doesn't want to risk putting their name on it. If it had been returned "counterfeit", it would mean the TPG identified the coin as a known or obvious counterfeit.
You could try any of the other grading services and see what they say. Don't expect any of them to put in the extra time to perform, or give you, the results of a metallurgical test.
When assessing it, I doubt CAC went as far as some of the forum members here did in narrowing it down to a specific die marriage. If you submit somewhere else, I would note it as LM8 on the submission form. Narrowing down the specific die marriage could help a TPG get on board with authenticity.
As a longtime Morgan VAM collector, I learned long ago to not believe attributions on TPG holders until I confirmed them for myself. In terms of accuracy, I consider ANACS to be head and shoulders above the rest.