@spacehayduke said:
BTW, I just looked at my crossing records. I have only crossed 2 N LSQ's to P. One was N45 and crossed to P45, one was N62 and crossed to P62. I don't recall whether I cracked or crossed in the plastic as I did both about equally. Nevertheless, as I have stated multiple times over the years, my experience for almost all pre-1916 series that I have coins in, whether raw, or whether in plastic, on average, things cross between the 2 TPG's at the same grade. Sure, some go up either way, some go down either way, and most stay the same. And that is for over a 100 coins. But mostly the grades stay the same. So your one result needs further testing IMO.
>
With all the examples presented, it does appear to be a definite difference.
Perhaps when you have bought, you have been extremely selective in buying NGC holders, so that they would cross.
>
In the original OP coins, I definitely agree with PCGS. As I scrolled through the coins I did a GTG for all of them and pretty much nailed the final grades, being slightly off on only one. While definitely not my series, I knew enough to know those NGC grades were high, compared to PCGS, and I don’t believe any would sticker in the original NGC holder. Obviously, many don’t care if it stickers or not.
>
Edit to add- This has been a very informative thread.
Just adding my .02 cents👍
I've had upgrades from NGC, Anancs and Icg with PCGS; plus there is all that puttied gold in the old holders where you have to wait many months for them to conserve and regrade, though they try to argue that the cost should be on the submitter.
@spacehayduke said:
BTW, I just looked at my crossing records. I have only crossed 2 N LSQ's to P. One was N45 and crossed to P45, one was N62 and crossed to P62. I don't recall whether I cracked or crossed in the plastic as I did both about equally. Nevertheless, as I have stated multiple times over the years, my experience for almost all pre-1916 series that I have coins in, whether raw, or whether in plastic, on average, things cross between the 2 TPG's at the same grade. Sure, some go up either way, some go down either way, and most stay the same. And that is for over a 100 coins. But mostly the grades stay the same. So your one result needs further testing IMO.
>
With all the examples presented, it does appear to be a definite difference.
Perhaps when you have bought, you have been extremely selective in buying NGC holders, so that they would cross.
>
In the original OP coins, I definitely agree with PCGS. As I scrolled through the coins I did a GTG for all of them and pretty much nailed the final grades, being slightly off on only one. While definitely not my series, I knew enough to know those NGC grades were high, compared to PCGS, and I don’t believe any would sticker in the original NGC holder. Obviously, many don’t care if it stickers or not.
>
Edit to add- This has been a very informative thread.
Just adding my .02 cents👍
Again, the ONLY way to test this is to now crack them out again and send them to NGC for direct comparison at very similar times. It is well established that BOTH TPG's have been looser at times in the past and they have tightened up NOW bc of CAC/CACG having strict grading. It is NOT a direct comparison bc of large intervals in grading times between the 2 and the ebb and flow of loose/strict.
Also, why did my only 2 liberty seated quarters that I have crossed from NGC to PCGS cross at the same grade? If you buy overgraded stuff in any holder, you might expect downgrades if you cross when the standards tighten up. If you don't buy overgraded stuff, then this is less likely to happen. I very rarely get downgrades when I cross from one TPG to the other at least within the NGC/PCGS grading. I sometimes get uprades crossing from NGC to PCGS and vice versa as the grading standards change.
This is why CAC/CACG is so important IMO, they want to be consistent and strict. So far it seems to be working. And they are incredibly strict with LSQ's. Get one with a sticker or in a CACG graded holder and you have a quality LSQ for sure.
Do my suggested tests and then come back here and show us NGC is still as loose as they were when the OP picked the coins. Then there might be a case to make.
He only shows one grading submission result of a few coins, so yes, yes it is one result...........
You're ignoring the fourteen other examples posted for NGC/PCGS comparisons across the time period of many years!
And your single circulated example of a N45 LSQ crossing to P45 doesn't mean anything. I can continue to post more examples if you'd like.
@spacehayduke said:
BTW, I just looked at my crossing records. I have only crossed 2 N LSQ's to P. One was N45 and crossed to P45, one was N62 and crossed to P62. I don't recall whether I cracked or crossed in the plastic as I did both about equally. Nevertheless, as I have stated multiple times over the years, my experience for almost all pre-1916 series that I have coins in, whether raw, or whether in plastic, on average, things cross between the 2 TPG's at the same grade. Sure, some go up either way, some go down either way, and most stay the same. And that is for over a 100 coins. But mostly the grades stay the same. So your one result needs further testing IMO.
>
With all the examples presented, it does appear to be a definite difference.
Perhaps when you have bought, you have been extremely selective in buying NGC holders, so that they would cross.
>
In the original OP coins, I definitely agree with PCGS. As I scrolled through the coins I did a GTG for all of them and pretty much nailed the final grades, being slightly off on only one. While definitely not my series, I knew enough to know those NGC grades were high, compared to PCGS, and I don’t believe any would sticker in the original NGC holder. Obviously, many don’t care if it stickers or not.
>
Edit to add- This has been a very informative thread.
Just adding my .02 cents👍
Again, the ONLY way to test this is to now crack them out again and send them to NGC for direct comparison at very similar times. It is well established that BOTH TPG's have been looser at times in the past and they have tightened up NOW bc of CAC/CACG having strict grading. It is NOT a direct comparison bc of large intervals in grading times between the 2 and the ebb and flow of loose/strict.
Also, why did my only 2 liberty seated quarters that I have crossed from NGC to PCGS cross at the same grade? If you buy overgraded stuff in any holder, you might expect downgrades if you cross when the standards tighten up. If you don't buy overgraded stuff, then this is less likely to happen. I very rarely get downgrades when I cross from one TPG to the other at least within the NGC/PCGS grading. I sometimes get uprades crossing from NGC to PCGS and vice versa as the grading standards change.
This is why CAC/CACG is so important IMO, they want to be consistent and strict. So far it seems to be working. And they are incredibly strict with LSQ's. Get one with a sticker or in a CACG graded holder and you have a quality LSQ for sure.
Do my suggested tests and then come back here and show us NGC is still as loose as they were when the OP picked the coins. Then there might be a case to make.
He showed one N-CAC that still down graded a point when crossed to PCGS. Grading is subjective and I bet even varies from day to day. Hopefully, not very much.
I dont know if McClure is a valid comp. Some of that was pretty tight because of being off the market for so long collectors/dealers couldnt get their grubby hands all over. There was a bit that was cleaned though many decades ago.
At least he didn't get any details grades on the crack-outs. It would be interesting to do some tests on coins with small problems, whether one service is more likely to straight grade or the other.
@fathom said:
I dont know if McClure is a valid comp. Some of that was pretty tight because of being off the market for so long collectors/dealers couldnt get their grubby hands all over. There was a bit that was cleaned though many decades ago.
All of what I bought CACd.
I think in general I agree with Manifest.
To clarify, are you saying the McClure coins you bought had stickers or are you saying you submitted them for stickers after you bought them?
@fathom said:
I dont know if McClure is a valid comp. Some of that was pretty tight because of being off the market for so long collectors/dealers couldnt get their grubby hands all over. There was a bit that was cleaned though many decades ago.
All of what I bought CACd.
I think in general I agree with Manifest.
To clarify, are you saying the McClure coins you bought had stickers or are you saying you submitted them for stickers after you bought them?
@fathom said:
I dont know if McClure is a valid comp. Some of that was pretty tight because of being off the market for so long collectors/dealers couldnt get their grubby hands all over. There was a bit that was cleaned though many decades ago.
Great observation. I just finished reviewing the McClure Collection on the Heritage Auction website. That was an unbelievable collection! It appears Heritage had great success submitting +$1,000 value coins to CAC and deferred sending those under $1,000.
I think that this is a very interesting thread and discussion. My takeaway is generally NGC grades coins higher than PCGS but the NGC & PCGS price guides aren't that much different. So this is a huge problem for collectors/dealers that use the PCGS or NGC price guide to acquire coins. I think that the only way to value coins are auction prices and again generally, NGC coins auction prices are lower than PCGS coins. The specific coin must be evaluated before buying coins at price guides.
He showed one N-CAC that still down graded a point when crossed to PCGS. Grading is subjective and I bet even varies from day to day. Hopefully, not very much.
>
Yeah, I’ve seen this several times in DEs. I think if I were contemplating crossing a N-CAC gold coin, I would head to CACG.
Or crack it and send in raw to PCGS. But I really hate shipping coins so I try to buy P-CACs when I can.👍
what i am going to post is probably not going to be appreciated, or liked,; so it goes.
The results here are what is called empirical. That is to say the person is making a statement of opinion and has results to support that opinion. My stats professor would tell you that the only stat that has a 100 percent of success rate is one where the tester has a preformed opinion. This is called, "wish fulfillment", and all people are influenced by the want to be "right'.
He would point out that: 1. the tester chose all the subjects. You will inherently choose subjects that will garner the result you want. 2. The width of the pool is small so it is easy to exclude subjects that don't support the opinion. (all coins AU) 3. The subject pool is too small. It takes at least 100 subjects to generate a T value and all T values have a plus or minus of greater than10. To get a Z value you would have to have at least 1,000 subjects; that way you can get a variable below 5 plus or minus. Any non empirical results involving 2 companies that have both graded millions of coins and thousands of Seated Quarters would have to be done by people who are going in without an opinion(good luck finding that), and would have to meet at least some of the metrics I have mentioned. Having said that I actually agree with the original supposition and now perhaps professor Schmidt will get out of my head. James
@shish said:
Crypto provided one of the most detailed yet simple and accurate descriptions I’ve read.
PCGS, NGC, and CAC all use different grading standards. There is absolutely no doubt that for seated and trade dollars CAC uses the most stringent standards.
Thank you buddy, CAC standards are easy to decipher
CAC = PCGS minus 1.5 grades, + or - an additional1.5 grades for eye appeal. Minimal to no Net grade wiggle room for problems or yah-buts
Comments
I see with the lower grade it received a CAC. CONGRATULATIONS!
Thanks!
>
With all the examples presented, it does appear to be a definite difference.
Perhaps when you have bought, you have been extremely selective in buying NGC holders, so that they would cross.
>
In the original OP coins, I definitely agree with PCGS. As I scrolled through the coins I did a GTG for all of them and pretty much nailed the final grades, being slightly off on only one. While definitely not my series, I knew enough to know those NGC grades were high, compared to PCGS, and I don’t believe any would sticker in the original NGC holder. Obviously, many don’t care if it stickers or not.
>
Edit to add- This has been a very informative thread.
Just adding my .02 cents👍
Here's two more examples from my current set that I chose not to crossover to PCGS.
1861-S NGC VF35. Not even close to VF35, more like VF25 at best.
1883 NGC XF40. A great coin, but it's more like VF30 or VF35 at best.
I've had upgrades from NGC, Anancs and Icg with PCGS; plus there is all that puttied gold in the old holders where you have to wait many months for them to conserve and regrade, though they try to argue that the cost should be on the submitter.
Looking through archives from a couple of years ago and found these. I don't even have 3 of them anymore.
VF35
VF35
VF20
VF20
He only shows one grading submission result of a few coins, so yes, yes it is one result...........
Again, the ONLY way to test this is to now crack them out again and send them to NGC for direct comparison at very similar times. It is well established that BOTH TPG's have been looser at times in the past and they have tightened up NOW bc of CAC/CACG having strict grading. It is NOT a direct comparison bc of large intervals in grading times between the 2 and the ebb and flow of loose/strict.
Also, why did my only 2 liberty seated quarters that I have crossed from NGC to PCGS cross at the same grade? If you buy overgraded stuff in any holder, you might expect downgrades if you cross when the standards tighten up. If you don't buy overgraded stuff, then this is less likely to happen. I very rarely get downgrades when I cross from one TPG to the other at least within the NGC/PCGS grading. I sometimes get uprades crossing from NGC to PCGS and vice versa as the grading standards change.
This is why CAC/CACG is so important IMO, they want to be consistent and strict. So far it seems to be working. And they are incredibly strict with LSQ's. Get one with a sticker or in a CACG graded holder and you have a quality LSQ for sure.
Do my suggested tests and then come back here and show us NGC is still as loose as they were when the OP picked the coins. Then there might be a case to make.
You're ignoring the fourteen other examples posted for NGC/PCGS comparisons across the time period of many years!
And your single circulated example of a N45 LSQ crossing to P45 doesn't mean anything. I can continue to post more examples if you'd like.
He showed one N-CAC that still down graded a point when crossed to PCGS. Grading is subjective and I bet even varies from day to day. Hopefully, not very much.
I dont know if McClure is a valid comp. Some of that was pretty tight because of being off the market for so long collectors/dealers couldnt get their grubby hands all over. There was a bit that was cleaned though many decades ago.
All of what I bought CACd.
I think in general I agree with Manifest.
At least he didn't get any details grades on the crack-outs. It would be interesting to do some tests on coins with small problems, whether one service is more likely to straight grade or the other.
To clarify, are you saying the McClure coins you bought had stickers or are you saying you submitted them for stickers after you bought them?
This one had a sticker:
This one I received a sticker:
Great observation. I just finished reviewing the McClure Collection on the Heritage Auction website. That was an unbelievable collection! It appears Heritage had great success submitting +$1,000 value coins to CAC and deferred sending those under $1,000.
I think that this is a very interesting thread and discussion. My takeaway is generally NGC grades coins higher than PCGS but the NGC & PCGS price guides aren't that much different. So this is a huge problem for collectors/dealers that use the PCGS or NGC price guide to acquire coins. I think that the only way to value coins are auction prices and again generally, NGC coins auction prices are lower than PCGS coins. The specific coin must be evaluated before buying coins at price guides.
>
Yeah, I’ve seen this several times in DEs. I think if I were contemplating crossing a N-CAC gold coin, I would head to CACG.
Or crack it and send in raw to PCGS. But I really hate shipping coins so I try to buy P-CACs when I can.👍
what i am going to post is probably not going to be appreciated, or liked,; so it goes.
The results here are what is called empirical. That is to say the person is making a statement of opinion and has results to support that opinion. My stats professor would tell you that the only stat that has a 100 percent of success rate is one where the tester has a preformed opinion. This is called, "wish fulfillment", and all people are influenced by the want to be "right'.
He would point out that: 1. the tester chose all the subjects. You will inherently choose subjects that will garner the result you want. 2. The width of the pool is small so it is easy to exclude subjects that don't support the opinion. (all coins AU) 3. The subject pool is too small. It takes at least 100 subjects to generate a T value and all T values have a plus or minus of greater than10. To get a Z value you would have to have at least 1,000 subjects; that way you can get a variable below 5 plus or minus. Any non empirical results involving 2 companies that have both graded millions of coins and thousands of Seated Quarters would have to be done by people who are going in without an opinion(good luck finding that), and would have to meet at least some of the metrics I have mentioned. Having said that I actually agree with the original supposition and now perhaps professor Schmidt will get out of my head. James
Thank you buddy, CAC standards are easy to decipher
CAC = PCGS minus 1.5 grades, + or - an additional1.5 grades for eye appeal. Minimal to no Net grade wiggle room for problems or yah-buts
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set