Options
PCGS vs NCG
MichaelJ
Posts: 5
I am aware that PCGS will make up the difference on a coin that is over graded if you send it in for regrade.
Does NGC have any policy like this?
Thanks,
Mike
Does NGC have any policy like this?
Thanks,
Mike
0
Comments
Cameron Kiefer
PCGS lists this coin at $750.
The guarantee's only apply for pcgs coins regraded thru pcgs and ngc coins regraded thru ngc.
Go to www.ngccoin.com and read their guarantee and how to "use" it.
Cameron Kiefer
<< <i>PCGS is considered to be tougher on grading coins than NGC. >>
On modern coins, yes, on classics they are considered equal, at least by those who collect classics.
For Trade Dollars and Seated MS material of various denoms, I think that PCGS and NGC grade on par. In the past, though, I've seen more gifts in NGC holders. For PF material, I think recently graded NGC material is far superior to recently graded PCGS material. I find far more gift CAM and DCAM designation from PCGS than from NGC. (I'm going by the holder type, so I know what's recently graded and what's not.)
As for Early coinage, I think PCGS sucks. They'll slab way too many cleaned coins. NGC is NOW much more careful about that. However, I feel that PCGS grades by a weird, strict standard that I can't quite figure out. To me, NGC's grading fits mine better.
Please note that I am generalizing only about how they currently grade.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Perhaps if you opened your eyes you'd begin to see it. Start looking at the REAL marketplace. Don't look at registry set coins, but real coins.
Don't feel bad. The PCGS graders can't figure out their grading standards either.
You may be interested to know that I spoke to a dealer friend of mine about the '33 Double Eagle. This guy is a pretty successful crackout guy who deals in silver and gold coinage. And, he really does have an excellent eye (my opinion!). Moreover, he is not political. He just wants to learn to play the game so well that he makes a ton of money. And, he won't lie to me. I mean, he actually is a friend.
Anyway, I asked him about the coin and what he thought about the big deal made of PCGS' pre-grading the coin a gem (MS65). I told him that I thought it'd grade at least MS64. We discussed it a bit, and he was absolutely comfortable with the MS65 grade for a couple of reasons:
1. You can't judge gold like you judge silver or nickel. Gold can take more hits and still get a higher grade.
2. PCGS has lately been giving out the gem grade because that coin has enough fresh, blazing luster.
This, of course, does not mean that PCGS isn't overgrading. But, what it does mean is that he doesn't feel that this coin is being overgraded relative to other ASG Double Eagles by current grading standards.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I personally wish NGC was a bit tighter in their overall grading and would also stop with the PR70 grade and the hyped up CVC stuff (although I also am aware NGC has little to no imput in that area).
If NGC did tighten just a bit- made it to where MS67's, for example, really were Superb GEM coins, They'de be my favorite Grading Service.
peacockcoins
Just curious why you don't want PCGS to be easier in giving out the PR70 grade? I admit that NGC gives it out too easy (not on the same scale as ICG), but doesn't PCGS give it out too infrequently? After all they graded 5000+ PR70s from 2000 and before and since then only a handful.
You are correct on both points, though I think that PCGS standards on Saints have loosened quite a bit over the last few years. Granted, I have not personally touched the 33 to say for sure, but compared to some 64s I have it is not as nice. A few points to clarify and ponder:
1. I understand the grading of gold pretty well, especially given the softness of the metal, so I never compare grading standards on gold to silver or copper coinage, and I don't even compare gold grading across series (i.e. I dont compare standards on Saints to Libs, and I don't even compare Type 1, 2, or 3 Libs. to each other given the huge differences in strike, wear patterns etc.). So if I rail on the grading of a coin, it is only in comparison to at least that series, if not to that particular date/mm combination, which is impossible for the 33 since it is the only one.
2. I think that there is a lot of market grading that goes on in gold, some justified and some not. I think it may be justified to adjust the standards for the really common dates, just because of the population in existence and the likelihood of finding really gem pieces. A good example is the mid-1920s P-mint common dates vs. the scarcer P-mints from the early teens. I think all the services are tougher on the 1920s than say a 1912 or 1914 since there are so many more, and the population of true MS-65s are more plentiful, so they are a little more lenient on the 1914. Where I think this goes somewhat awry is when the services avoid grading accuracy for fear of the value of the coin. PCGS could have said the 33 was a 70 and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference in the auction price. If they got loose on the 1914s so that many 64s passed as 65s, they could have a bigger liability problem. Ultimately, I think that many of the services grade on a curve, right or wrong, good or bad.
3. The most disturbing thing in all of this is the moving target on grading standards. If my 15-S in a 3-year old 64 holder becomes a 65 by today's standards, what do I do? I could resubmit it, or what if I was less informed and sold my 64 at 64 price, when today it should get 65 money? I firmly believe that NGC has been more consistent over time than PCGS, and this is an issue that we seldom address. We only seem to compare today's NGC vs. today's PCGS, when we should also look at them over time. Remember when PCGS used to give out 70s on moderns a couple years ago? What happened there? Based on the anectodal evidence, they seem to have tightened up on moderns and loosened a bit on classics. What does that tell us? Of course, NGC has done the same over their history as well, so it's really an industry/hobby-wide issue.
PCGS was loose with the 70 grade a few years back, NGC and others have remained loose.
Remember when even a PR69 was a tough coin? When a MS67 was almost impossible?
These grades are no longer reveared and even the 70 grade is getting to be dime a dozen.
peacockcoins
Just because a coin is rare and valuable does not give a grading service the excuse to up the grade. We saw the same garbage with the coins in the King of Siam Proof set. When the coins were re-holdered and re-graded they all went up by a point. Now did the coins “grow or repair themselves" or are we looking at grading politics? If you think that the coins grew back like a lobster regrows a lost claw, I’ve got a chain cent in F-VF that will grow into an MS coin in a couple of years that I’ll gladly sell to you for EF money.
In general I've seen a real decline recently in the quality of tightness of grading by both companies for MS-64 and MS-65 Morgan Dollars. Both companies have debased both grades by 1 point IMO. Maybe all the properly graded coins are off the market, and all I'm seeing is the dregs. But what it seems to me is that grading standards have fallen off once again.
What will result? Prices will go down, and the sharp graders will crack the old stuff and re-submit it for a higher grade. That’s what I think happened to circulated coins. When the services let their standards slip the good stuff either has not seen the light of day for a long time, or it has purchased for short dollars, resubmitted and sold using today's debased standards.
It's been my experience on $10 Indian gold pieces that I need to purchase a slightly better date to get a properly graded type coin for my customers. Both services overgrade the 1926 and 1932 $10 Indian coins shamelessly, perhaps to sell them to dumb investors who don't know any better. I think that is realy poor.
Please note my previous post. I agree with you that coins that were graded fairly three or four years ago might now qualify for a 1 point promotion because of slipping standards.
You are just starting to get on my nerves, so keep trying. If you are such an expert on double eagles, why have you posted previously that they contain 96% gold when anyone with a redbook can tell you the true composition. It's seems to me that such information would be one of the first things you would learn when starting to collect a series, like the designer, composition, mintages, etc, etc. I corrected your error for two reasons, first to educate you, and second to prevent the spread of incorrect information on these boards by an inexperienced person passing themselves off as an expert. As far as my collecting, I don't collect quarter eagles except for a few as type coins, so I'm unsure of the point to your question, but if you want the composition of a quarter eagle, I will repeat it for you:
The Coinage act of April 2, 1792 established the quarter eagle weight of 67.5 grains of 916.67 fine gold. The Act of June 28, 1834 reduced the weight to 64.5 grains and the fineness to 899.225. The Act of January 18, 1837 retained the weight and increased the fineness to 900, and that remained until the last ones were produced in 1929.
I won't get into an argument about how many double eagles I've seen, since to be honest with you I haven't kept a count. I would hazard to guess that in the last year or so, I've probably sold about 60 or 70 on eBay that have resulted from upgrades from my personal collection. Although that is small compared to many dealers, I am only a collector, not a dealer. As far as my grading skills, I would take mine any day over someone's that purports expertise yet has not even a basic knowledge of the series. As far as your assertion of NGC overgrades, if you read my post carefully, I said that I buy the coin and not the holder which would bias my results. Since I look at the coin and not the holder, I am more likely to buy an accurately graded coin, or even an undergraded coin from either service.
All you have to do is put a coin in a PCGS holder and W-man KNOWS it's real and graded properly. It could be made of 96% gold and have a little omaga inside the eagle's claw, but just like Smucker's jelly, if it's in a PCGS holder it has to good!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Um...well... I think he knows how to spell PCGS and that's all he cares about...
You are exactly correct on the $10.00 Indians, especially for the 1926, PCGS seems to overgrade that date for some reason, sometimes by 2 full points, and the 1932 to a slightly lesser extent. They do however seem to grade the 1907 No Motto rather conservatively from the few I've seen in person.
Dragon
<< <i> have a 1954 5c PF68 CAMEO that looks like a fine brush was used on the devices >>
This is an example of Die Polishing which doesn't affect the grade and it will not be down graded and you will not be compensated from either company. Even MS 70 and Proof 69 is allowed die polish.
I must admit I am pleased with my PCGS 1907 in 63, very conservatively graded.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I like die polishing on coins. To me, it enhances the cameo affect because it accentuates the disturbance of light on the field relative to the device. So, more chance of a b&w look.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I think they have trouble grading that coin because the Indians hair is poorly defined, and the coins can tend to be a bit dull. Barber fixed that on the With Motto pieces. I've also seen a number of 1907 No Motto Tens that were baggy, rubbed and overgraded so you can't count on every one of them to be a conservatively graded bargain.
The 07p I've had a hard time finding one I like plus the fact I think the prices are far too high for the given supply. It's only expensive because it's a type coin but it would seem that an 08P will do as well and I don't think it costs as much. Sorry, I don't collect type so I'm just guessing here. I'm putting together a date set of the series so I've put off buying any of the more common dates until later.
jom