@GAC said:
I do find it interesting that in the Pop report NGC has 102 in 67 while PCGS has 5. Goes to show how lenient NGC can be.
Or it could indicate a hoard that went to NGC. Or, considering the coin in the OP, a massive “mechanical error”. What do the relative P/N pops look like for other dates?
And FWIW:
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@GAC said:
I do find it interesting that in the Pop report NGC has 102 in 67 while PCGS has 5. Goes to show how lenient NGC can be.
As mentioned earlier, the math comes out to 1 PCGS 67 for every NGC 67 relative to total coins graded.
So it’s a one-to-one ratio in total numbers? With the main difference being what the coin actually looks like tells me a higher percentage of the better grade coins travels west.
@GAC said:
I do find it interesting that in the Pop report NGC has 102 in 67 while PCGS has 5. Goes to show how lenient NGC can be.
As mentioned earlier, the math comes out to 1 PCGS 67 for every NGC 67 relative to total coins graded.
So it’s a one-to-one ratio in total numbers? With the main difference being what the coin actually looks like tells me a higher percentage of the better grade coins travels west.
But I could be biased :-)
Sorry, typo in the post. Should be fixed now. 1:4 ratio.
@GAC said:
I do find it interesting that in the Pop report NGC has 102 in 67 while PCGS has 5. Goes to show how lenient NGC can be.
As mentioned earlier, the math comes out to 1 PCGS 67 for every NGC 67 relative to total coins graded.
So it’s a one-to-one ratio in total numbers? With the main difference being what the coin actually looks like tells me a higher percentage of the better grade coins travels west.
But I could be biased :-)
Sorry, typo in the post. Should be fixed now. 1:4 ratio.
Gotcha, I thought I missed something earlier. Regardless you know as well as anyone that the label (brand) is only relative and the number (grade) can’t lie.
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
@MrEureka said:
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
In summary, the ratio of NGC 67s to PCGS 67s is 18:1
@FlyingAl, I understand your 4:1 figure may have been for all dates combined, but my math isn't off here, is it? I wonder if there was a hoard of high-grade 1901s sent to NGC, I would really hope so based on the previously discussed increase.
@MrEureka said:
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
In summary, the ratio of NGC 67s to PCGS 67s is 18:1
@FlyingAl, I understand your 4:1 figure may have been for all dates combined, but my math isn't off here, is it? I wonder if there was a hoard of high-grade 1901s sent to NGC, I would really hope so based on the previously discussed increase.
Based on your numbers Dan shown above
means that there have been 913 coins graded since 11/17
Seems like a lot of coins to me for one date in 7 years
Lets all just hope that it's a ME and nothing else is going on
@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.
Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.
In the I-just-fell-off-the-turnip-truck camp it's a 67 (superb gem?). In this camp, it's no more than choice uncirculated, MS 63, MS 64 tops.
FYI, the latest CAC Rare Coin Market Review lists 1901 $10 gold at $8100 in MS66, $63K in MS67. If my coin I would send back to TPG and say, "please give this thing a proper grade."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
@MrEureka said:
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
In summary, the ratio of NGC 67s to PCGS 67s is 18:1
@FlyingAl, I understand your 4:1 figure may have been for all dates combined, but my math isn't off here, is it? I wonder if there was a hoard of high-grade 1901s sent to NGC, I would really hope so based on the previously discussed increase.
Nope - NGC does have a significantly higher proportion than 4:1 on some dates, I just didn't calculate that math. I do believe that they must have gotten some hoard of some kind.
@Luxor said:
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
Look at the pricing on ms66's. They went from $3850 last year to $2500 right now. Can you guess why...
@Luxor said:
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
We might have stumbled across something very sinister here....every one of them looks like a choice unc in a 67 holder. Anyone have a possible explanation for this? Other than "mechanical error"?
How is it possible that 25 unc 1901 $10s are submitted and EVERY ONE OF THEM grades either 67 or 67+. Not one of them looks like a 67, hell, I can barely get to 65 on any of them. Here are the first 10 of the submission, and the latter 15 are the same.
@Luxor said:
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
We might have stumbled across something very sinister here....every one of them looks like a choice unc in a 67 holder. Anyone have a possible explanation for this? Other than "mechanical error"?
How is it possible that 25 unc 1901 $10s are submitted and EVERY ONE OF THEM grades either 67 or 67+. Not one of them looks like a 67, hell, I can barely get to 65 on any of them. Here are the first 10 of the submission, and the latter 15 are the same.
@Luxor said:
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
We might have stumbled across something very sinister here....every one of them looks like a choice unc in a 67 holder. Anyone have a possible explanation for this? Other than "mechanical error"?
How is it possible that 25 unc 1901 $10s are submitted and EVERY ONE OF THEM grades either 67 or 67+. Not one of them looks like a 67, hell, I can barely get to 65 on any of them. Here are the first 10 of the submission, and the latter 15 are the same.
@alaura22 said:
I know auto makers have recalls , how about TPG companies..............
In 2005, PCGS issued a recall of 1896, 1900, and 1902 Morgan dollars all with the Micro-O mintmark that they slabbed as being genuine and that were later discovered to be contemporary counterfeits. A total of 90 coins were involved and many were never sold back to PCGS.
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
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
Sure, we can give it the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if there's a recall... but there is some other information that I have been given by another prominent dealer that lends credence to the most likely explanation.
Someone did mention that 4 and 7 are next to each other on a keyboard, so I do think it's entirely possible that it was a bulk submission where the coins were supposed to be graded either 64 or 64+, and instead they hit 67 and 67+. At that rate though, where the heck is QC in all of this? Don't you think that there would be some type of failsafe for a large group of coins all graded as top pops?
I will oblige you, and wait to see if action is taken by NGC. The fact that the pop report reflects 118 coins in the 67 grade, and CAC hasn't approved a single one of them, certainly doesn't help the optics though...
A brief search of the auction houses and google has yielded 7 graded 1901-P $10's in 66/66+ CAC and 6/7 of them are PCGS slabbed. If anyone finds a cert not listed in this pic just comment it so I can track them. (85.7% of the stickered coins found so far are PCGS slabbed, but obviously I want to find all the certs so the statistics can be more accurate).
Based on this super small sample size it looks like the trend is that PCGS CAC'd examples are more of the sticker population than NGC CAC'd samples, despite NGC grading 12.8x more in the same grade.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
There was another 1901 NGC-67 just auctioned August 13, 2024 that has a luster video. While looking at other coins in the video and letting it run through other coins, I was trying to guess the grades and comparing to the auction list. When seeing that 1901 I was rather surprised at the "optimistic" grading.
Thought this post was that coin, but it is a different one with a slightly different cert number that appears to be from another batch though likely the same hoard. There was a similar cert numbered coin to the August example in a May auction just 19 coins apart on the cert;; 5835028-078 and 5835028-097.
Check out the luster videos on these - linked to in their descriptions:
.
.
1901 Liberty Head Eagle. MS-67 (NGC) auctioned Aug 13, 2024 at $11,400 - (notes POP as 27 - 0 finer which actually matches the 1901-S rather than Philly)
Check out the luster video on this 1901-S $10 NGC-67 which was the next lot in the same May auction. It seems to be much better quality mark-wise than these Philadelphia 1901's in this thread. Almost like a whole different grading standard from other coins they have graded. So it's not like all NGC-67's Liberty Tens are that rough looking.
1901-S $10 MS67 NGC auctioned May 2024 at $15,000 - (much better looking than the 1901 Phillys)
At least as late as June 2020 there were still only 7 NGC 67 1901 as noted when one auctioned then. In April 2021 one auctioned with a similar look to the two linked above along with others in this thread and also had a consecutive cert number to the August 2024 piece, 5835028-079.
1901 $10 MS67 NGC 5835028-079 - no mention of the Population in the description then; may have been the start of the hoard appearing:
As far as MS-67 Liberty Ten populations nothing compares to the NGC 1901 Philadelphia at 100 plus. The next most common is the 1901-S at 27 with others mostly at zero to a few dates with single digits.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
I agree with what your saying overall but I don’t think the argument of total numbers between NGC and CACD is completely relative since there is like 40 years difference for time in business.
Those NGC numbers for 1901 and even 01-S eagles graded MS67 are nuts. The next highest number of 67s at NGC for Liberty Eagles is 7 for the 1903-S and 1905. If you take out the 01 and 01-S, the number of 67s are much closer between NGC and PCGS.
For Liberty half eagles, which I follow, NGC gives out 67s more frequently than PCGS but maybe roughly at a 2:1 ratio NGC to PCGS. And the most 67s NGC has for any Liberty half eagle is for the uber-common 1899 --seventeen NGC 67s compared to 5 for PCGS.
CAC has stickered nine With Motto Eagles graded MS67 and 48 With Motto Half Eagles graded MS67.
Bottom line is I am curious to hear what Mark finds out.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
I agree with what your saying overall but I don’t think the argument of total numbers between NGC and CACD is completely relative since there is like 40 years difference for time in business.
Edit: You said CAC not CACD 🙄
You don’t think that’s relative? The greysheet bid for a 1901 $10 in ms66 is $2,650. The greysheet bid for MS66 CAC is $6500. Does that not indicate to you that it’s very likely that many of the ms66 graded coins have made a trip to CAC at least once?
Never mind the fact that as we have determined, all of these lofty graded 1901 eagles were made after 2017, when CAC was already popular.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
Dan, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just more cautious in reaching conclusions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
I agree with what your saying overall but I don’t think the argument of total numbers between NGC and CACD is completely relative since there is like 40 years difference for time in business.
Edit: You said CAC not CACD 🙄
You don’t think that’s relative? The greysheet bid for a 1901 $10 in ms66 is $2,650. The greysheet bid for MS66 CAC is $6500. Does that not indicate to you that it’s very likely that many of the ms66 graded coins have made a trip to CAC at least once?
Never mind the fact that as we have determined, all of these lofty graded 1901 eagles were made after 2017, when CAC was already popular.
I was thinking of CACD and like two years in business vs 40 but now I see what you're saying which solidifies my own estimation.
Shirley there are NGC 67s that live up to the PCGS 67 standards especially in gold. Can anyone show us one to make this argument? We always see the bad ones let’s see a good one.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
Dan, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just more cautious in reaching conclusions.
Mark, I’ve only alluded to a conclusion but I haven’t made any affirmative statements, other than the fact that a 25 coin submission of 1901s resulted in 25 more ms67s. That much is a fact, and it’s also a fact that the population of MS67s has significantly increased since 2017.
I’ll still await an answer from your contact at NGC, but I tend to defer to Occam’s razor when there’s reasonable doubt. We will wait and see what comes of this, but the implications are terrible for the hobby, and don’t sit well with this guy.
Here's the reply I received from NGC:
"This coin was graded a number of years ago, and any coin believed to be overgraded can be sent be sent for Appearance Review under the terms of NGC's written guarantee."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
Dan, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just more cautious in reaching conclusions.
Mark, I’ve only alluded to a conclusion but I haven’t made any affirmative statements, other than the fact that a 25 coin submission of 1901s resulted in 25 more ms67s. That much is a fact, and it’s also a fact that the population of MS67s has significantly increased since 2017.
I’ll still await an answer from your contact at NGC, but I tend to defer to Occam’s razor when there’s reasonable doubt. We will wait and see what comes of this, but the implications are terrible for the hobby, and don’t sit well with this guy.
.
.
From this Heritage auction description, it appears one can narrow the time frame some more from 2017 to April/June 2020 where it is stated as census 7 in 67.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
I wonder if there is a profitable arbitrage by buying these on the cheap (for a 67) and returning for a grade guarantee.
Comments
Does CAC make a red sticker?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
I do find it interesting that in the Pop report NGC has 102 in 67 while PCGS has 5. Goes to show how lenient NGC can be.
Or it could indicate a hoard that went to NGC. Or, considering the coin in the OP, a massive “mechanical error”. What do the relative P/N pops look like for other dates?
And FWIW:
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
As mentioned earlier, the math comes out to 1 PCGS 67 for every 4 NGC 67s relative to total coins graded.
Coin Photographer.
So it’s a one-to-one ratio in total numbers? With the main difference being what the coin actually looks like tells me a higher percentage of the better grade coins travels west.
But I could be biased :-)
Sorry, typo in the post. Should be fixed now. 1:4 ratio.
Coin Photographer.
Gotcha, I thought I missed something earlier. Regardless you know as well as anyone that the label (brand) is only relative and the number (grade) can’t lie.
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1901-10-ms66-ngc/a/1271-6244.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-PreviousPricesHeritage-081514
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
WOW is right.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
In summary, the ratio of NGC 67s to PCGS 67s is 18:1
@FlyingAl, I understand your 4:1 figure may have been for all dates combined, but my math isn't off here, is it? I wonder if there was a hoard of high-grade 1901s sent to NGC, I would really hope so based on the previously discussed increase.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Based on your numbers Dan shown above
means that there have been 913 coins graded since 11/17
Seems like a lot of coins to me for one date in 7 years
Lets all just hope that it's a ME and nothing else is going on
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
In the I-just-fell-off-the-turnip-truck camp it's a 67 (superb gem?). In this camp, it's no more than choice uncirculated, MS 63, MS 64 tops.
FYI, the latest CAC Rare Coin Market Review lists 1901 $10 gold at $8100 in MS66, $63K in MS67. If my coin I would send back to TPG and say, "please give this thing a proper grade."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
A 64 that 'identifies' as a 67
If anyone's interested, you could go to the NGC website cert verification page and take a look at all the coins graded in this particular submission with pics. So it appears this submission had 25 coins 5835032-001 - 5835032-025 and EVERY SINGLE COIN in this submission gradeed either MS67 or MS67+, and pretty much all of the coins appear to be similar quality to the one pictured in this thread and all were 1901 $10 Libs. You can draw your own conclusions as to what exactly is going on here.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Lucky Charms in General Mills. And no, we are no longer boycotting.
Latin American Collection
Man! They must really look good in-hand.
Nope - NGC does have a significantly higher proportion than 4:1 on some dates, I just didn't calculate that math. I do believe that they must have gotten some hoard of some kind.
Coin Photographer.
Look at the pricing on ms66's. They went from $3850 last year to $2500 right now. Can you guess why...
Interesting, to say the least.
I know that If I was sitting on a bunch of high grade $10 libs....
SELL SELL SELL!
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
We might have stumbled across something very sinister here....every one of them looks like a choice unc in a 67 holder. Anyone have a possible explanation for this? Other than "mechanical error"?
How is it possible that 25 unc 1901 $10s are submitted and EVERY ONE OF THEM grades either 67 or 67+. Not one of them looks like a 67, hell, I can barely get to 65 on any of them. Here are the first 10 of the submission, and the latter 15 are the same.
@MFeld, what’s your take here?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I can’t determine as much as I’d like to from those images. So I sent a link to this thread to a contact at NGC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You would have been a fantastic lawyer Mark....but I'm happy to have you here, instead. 😅
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If it quacks like a duck (MS63), waddles like a duck (MS64)... yet is a Goose (MS67) or a Gander (MS67+)?
peacockcoins
.
Coin Photographer.
I know auto makers have recalls , how about TPG companies..............
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
In 2005, PCGS issued a recall of 1896, 1900, and 1902 Morgan dollars all with the Micro-O mintmark that they slabbed as being genuine and that were later discovered to be contemporary counterfeits. A total of 90 coins were involved and many were never sold back to PCGS.
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
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Well said Dan and I agree 100%
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
Sure, we can give it the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if there's a recall... but there is some other information that I have been given by another prominent dealer that lends credence to the most likely explanation.
Someone did mention that 4 and 7 are next to each other on a keyboard, so I do think it's entirely possible that it was a bulk submission where the coins were supposed to be graded either 64 or 64+, and instead they hit 67 and 67+. At that rate though, where the heck is QC in all of this? Don't you think that there would be some type of failsafe for a large group of coins all graded as top pops?
I will oblige you, and wait to see if action is taken by NGC. The fact that the pop report reflects 118 coins in the 67 grade, and CAC hasn't approved a single one of them, certainly doesn't help the optics though...
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
A brief search of the auction houses and google has yielded 7 graded 1901-P $10's in 66/66+ CAC and 6/7 of them are PCGS slabbed. If anyone finds a cert not listed in this pic just comment it so I can track them. (85.7% of the stickered coins found so far are PCGS slabbed, but obviously I want to find all the certs so the statistics can be more accurate).
Based on this super small sample size it looks like the trend is that PCGS CAC'd examples are more of the sticker population than NGC CAC'd samples, despite NGC grading 12.8x more in the same grade.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
I think we need to hear from Randolph and Mortimer Duke of Duke & Duke. I suspect Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche could add value to the discussion.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There was another 1901 NGC-67 just auctioned August 13, 2024 that has a luster video. While looking at other coins in the video and letting it run through other coins, I was trying to guess the grades and comparing to the auction list. When seeing that 1901 I was rather surprised at the "optimistic" grading.
Thought this post was that coin, but it is a different one with a slightly different cert number that appears to be from another batch though likely the same hoard. There was a similar cert numbered coin to the August example in a May auction just 19 coins apart on the cert;; 5835028-078 and 5835028-097.
Check out the luster videos on these - linked to in their descriptions:
.
.
1901 Liberty Head Eagle. MS-67 (NGC) auctioned Aug 13, 2024 at $11,400 - (notes POP as 27 - 0 finer which actually matches the 1901-S rather than Philly)
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1B9CDX/1901-liberty-head-eagle-ms-67-ngc
.
.
1901 $10 MS67 NGC auctioned May 2024 at $12,600
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1901-10-ms67-ngc-pcgs-8747-/a/1374-4589.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
.
.
Check out the luster video on this 1901-S $10 NGC-67 which was the next lot in the same May auction. It seems to be much better quality mark-wise than these Philadelphia 1901's in this thread. Almost like a whole different grading standard from other coins they have graded. So it's not like all NGC-67's Liberty Tens are that rough looking.
1901-S $10 MS67 NGC auctioned May 2024 at $15,000 - (much better looking than the 1901 Phillys)
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1901-s-10-ms67-ngc-pcgs-8749-/a/1374-4590.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
.
.
At least as late as June 2020 there were still only 7 NGC 67 1901 as noted when one auctioned then. In April 2021 one auctioned with a similar look to the two linked above along with others in this thread and also had a consecutive cert number to the August 2024 piece, 5835028-079.
1901 $10 MS67 NGC 5835028-079 - no mention of the Population in the description then; may have been the start of the hoard appearing:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1901-10-ms67-ngc/a/1329-4642.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-PreviousPricesHeritage-081514
.
.
As far as MS-67 Liberty Ten populations nothing compares to the NGC 1901 Philadelphia at 100 plus. The next most common is the 1901-S at 27 with others mostly at zero to a few dates with single digits.
https://ngccoin.com/census/united-states/gold-eagles/67/
PCGS has nothing more than 5 MS-67's for any date with most at zero.
https://pcgs.com/pop/detail/category/64?l=liberty-head-10-1838-1907&ccid=0&t=3&p=MS&pn=1&ps=-1
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I agree with what your saying overall but I don’t think the argument of total numbers between NGC and CACD is completely relative since there is like 40 years difference for time in business.
Edit: You said CAC not CACD 🙄
Those NGC numbers for 1901 and even 01-S eagles graded MS67 are nuts. The next highest number of 67s at NGC for Liberty Eagles is 7 for the 1903-S and 1905. If you take out the 01 and 01-S, the number of 67s are much closer between NGC and PCGS.
For Liberty half eagles, which I follow, NGC gives out 67s more frequently than PCGS but maybe roughly at a 2:1 ratio NGC to PCGS. And the most 67s NGC has for any Liberty half eagle is for the uber-common 1899 --seventeen NGC 67s compared to 5 for PCGS.
CAC has stickered nine With Motto Eagles graded MS67 and 48 With Motto Half Eagles graded MS67.
Bottom line is I am curious to hear what Mark finds out.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
You don’t think that’s relative? The greysheet bid for a 1901 $10 in ms66 is $2,650. The greysheet bid for MS66 CAC is $6500. Does that not indicate to you that it’s very likely that many of the ms66 graded coins have made a trip to CAC at least once?
Never mind the fact that as we have determined, all of these lofty graded 1901 eagles were made after 2017, when CAC was already popular.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Dan, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just more cautious in reaching conclusions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was thinking of CACD and like two years in business vs 40 but now I see what you're saying which solidifies my own estimation.
Shirley there are NGC 67s that live up to the PCGS 67 standards especially in gold. Can anyone show us one to make this argument? We always see the bad ones let’s see a good one.
Mark, I’ve only alluded to a conclusion but I haven’t made any affirmative statements, other than the fact that a 25 coin submission of 1901s resulted in 25 more ms67s. That much is a fact, and it’s also a fact that the population of MS67s has significantly increased since 2017.
I’ll still await an answer from your contact at NGC, but I tend to defer to Occam’s razor when there’s reasonable doubt. We will wait and see what comes of this, but the implications are terrible for the hobby, and don’t sit well with this guy.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Here's the reply I received from NGC:
"This coin was graded a number of years ago, and any coin believed to be overgraded can be sent be sent for Appearance Review under the terms of NGC's written guarantee."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
.
.
From this Heritage auction description, it appears one can narrow the time frame some more from 2017 to April/June 2020 where it is stated as census 7 in 67.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/eagles/1901-10-ms67-ngc-pcgs-8747-/a/1316-3249.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I wonder if there is a profitable arbitrage by buying these on the cheap (for a 67) and returning for a grade guarantee.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase