ICG is right on
kieferscoins
Posts: 10,017 ✭
I have bought a few coins for my type set in ICG slabs that I have cracked out and submitted to PCGS. Every time they have been graded the same. Here was my latest ICG purchase on ebay and the grades were just posted today (#341670). ICG EF-40, PCGS EF-40. Just wanted to give a different view than what some ICG posts have been like lately. They have been acurate in my eyes with type coins.
Cameron Kiefer
Cameron Kiefer
0
Comments
Dan
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
-Bob
Cameron Kiefer
Anyway, I believe that the grading services state that when coins arrive in another company’s slab, they cover the grade so that it will not influence the graders (I think that statement can be found on PCGS’s and ICG’s websites???). Whether they really do this or not, I don’t know. From a business standpoint, it certainly would be unethical of them to purposely downgrade a coin simply because it’s in the competition’s slab. If I were a grader for PCGS, I would have serious problems with being told to subtract points from all ICG crossovers. But then again, we really don’t know what happens behind closed doors at these services...
Dan
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
NGC does not cover the grades. They said so.
ANACS does. I've had coins come back with the stickers on the slab.
<< <i>If I were a grader for PCGS, I would have serious problems with being told to subtract points from all ICG crossovers. But then again, we really don’t know what happens behind closed doors at these services... >>
I agree. We don't know what exactly they do and should stay away from making deductions that may not be true.
Cameron Kiefer
I think sometimes ICG gets it right. Maybe Braddick's presumption about easy grades is correct. Congratulations, BTW. As for ICG, the place where they most often fall down is with modern proofs. I have included pics below from two current coins for sale on teletrade. The top link is an ICG PR70 Cam, and the bottom is a PCGS PR69 Cam. I personally have no holder bias, but I certainly adjust my bid for ICG coins based on crap like the PR70 pictured here. Aren't 70 coins supposed to be mark free? (Those are the teletrade pics, not mine)
ICG 1964 PR70 Cam Half
PCGS 1964 PR69 Cam Half
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
All of these emotional responses worry me. I make my slabbing decisions based on simple, scientific principles:
No coins are sent to services where the owner wears a silly little white hat everyplace he goes, even to the bathroom!
No coins are submitted to services where the owners both have ugly 60's styles haircuts and/or wigs that look like not so recently dead woodchucks!
<< <i>I agree. We don't know what exactly they do and should stay away from making deductions that may not be true. >>
I look at the grading services as a "black box" problem. Input goes in, output comes out. Based on the inputs and outputs we can piece together what goes on inside the box.
-Bob
You're right - it is like a black box. One thing that they could start doing (and I know this will never happen...) is to start providing detailed explanations of their grading for each coin - in writing. Some of us at our jobs have to justify ourselves and are held accountable. It would be a kind of quality assurance for the costumer if the grading services had to justify their opinions of our coins. But like I said, it won’t happen.
Dan
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
What spots am I supposed to see on the PR-70?
I do see a big patch of haze, on the reverse at 6:00, on the PCGS coin. Maybe that is what you were referring to.
collector's money. I have tried other colas and did not like them.
Brian.
Buy what you like, I offer no recommendation, but to me, there is no comparison between the two coins I put up. I have no idea what the debris on the ICG coin is, and I really think the mark on the reverse just left of the tail is a killer, but what you describe as haze on the PCGS coin looks like normal surface for a 64 Kennedy to me. If you like the ICG coin better, we just approach grade using different criteria.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Russ, NCNE
K S
You don't mean to imply that if you and David Hall each sent in identical coins, that his coin will receive preferential grading? You don't mean to imply that a grading service that can instantly determine how many coins you've submitted in the past 12 months and your total paid fees over the past few months will treat your coins diffently from a grading service where NO ONE at the grading service will know who submitted the coin(s), how many submissions the collector has sent in the past 12 months or how much the collector has paid in fees over the past 12 months? Anyway you shuffle that information, it comes up an inherent conflict of interest.
You're right about the possibility of conflict of interest. I don't however believe D.Hall submitted that Pr70 Cam Kennedy to ICG.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Now- purchase ANY ICG MS67 Lincoln Memorial from anywhere or anyone and crack out or submit for crossover, regardless. Neither PCGS or NGC will grade it out as MS67, and that's just one example of one coin in one series.
As much as one sad sac story of grading woes doesn't damage the rep of a Grading Service, one happy ending doesn't define ICG either.
I'm glad for you- that coin screams XF40 and anyone who couldn't/wouldn't recognize that should be collecting stamps.
peacockcoins
No, D Hall probably didn't submit that '64 Cameo to ICG. However, he may well have submitted that '64 PCGS PR-69 Cameo to PCGS. That would be the same coin with mint frost (or haze), IN THE MIRRORS, on the reverse stretching from the F in Half to the first L in Dollar. Do you defend the grade of the PCGS PR-69 Cameo Kennedy?
Russ-
Though mint frost is common for the '64 date. It is NOT common in the mirrors of a PR-69 Cameo! Are you defending the grade on that coin?
BTW - Pat, the 1971 Kennedy you suggested earlier might not make cam won't. Oh well, never up, never in.
Edited to add - Both coins will sell Wednesday, lot# 1622 coins 1570 (Icg) and 1569 (PCGS)
It should be interesting.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Cameron,
As for ICG, the place where they most often fall down is with modern proofs. I have included pics below from two current coins for sale on teletrade. The top link is an ICG PR70 Cam, and the bottom is a PCGS PR69 Cam. I personally have no holder bias, but I certainly adjust my bid for ICG coins based on crap like the PR70 pictured here. Aren't 70 coins supposed to be mark free? (Those are the teletrade pics, not mine)
ICG 1964 PR70 Cam Half
PCGS 1964 PR69 Cam Half >>
I don't see how a person could possibly tell the difference between a 68, a 69, or a 70 with images like that. There is no way to tell what is a real mark, what is a piece of lint, what is a reflection, etc. It appears that the mentioned ICG coin was graded CAM not DCAM (I'd call it a CAM, not a DCAM). Is that correct ? What about that PCGS coin ? Is it slabbed "CAM" or "DCAM" (looks like it could be a DCAM) ?
<< <i>Russ-
Though mint frost is common for the '64 date. It is NOT common in the mirrors of a PR-69 Cameo! Are you defending the grade on that coin? >>
Ah, now you've taken to putting words in other's mouths. Nope, I offered no defense of the grade, only the observation that you thought mint frost was haze. Perhaps you should stick to Franklins.
Russ, NCNE
Dragon
David
It's not so much that you see any conflict of interest, but they should avoid any appearance of and potential in conflicts of interest.
Their current structure certainly allows for a conflict of interest and insider collusion. We all may like to believe that David Hall, et al, will do the upstanding thing, but I wouldn't count on it when there's a financial incentive to do otherwise.
I mean... people are people!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I would have done that with the ICG MS67RD that I got from you off eBay, but then I thought "what the hell am I going to do with a PCGS MS63RD Memorial cent?".
Same with every other ICG coin I've owned and sold.
The Collecting Community knows.
ICG isn't really fooling anyone.
peacockcoins
You going to desert your 'ol buddy, DHeath? He was looking for you to defend the grade of that PCGS PR-69 Cameo Kennedy from Teletrade. He was counting on you! You showed a little credibility. You know, as well as I do, that whether that is mint frost or haze, in the mirrors, from the F in Half to the first L in Dollar will absolutely EXCLUDE that coin from the PR-69 Cameo grade. That baby doesn't have chance of making that grade. Sorry Don, even your ol' buddy, Russ, couldn't stretch his credibility to save your arse. Seems no one else wanted to defend the grade, either.
As you correctly observed, the PCGS coin looks dcam when compared to the ICG coin, but both are in Cam holders. I put up teletrade pics hoping teletrade wouldn't take pictures of lint on one coin and none on the other. If that is lint on the ICG coin and I consigned it, I'd be really upset. DcamFranklin, a 1964 PR70 Cam would be a $1500+ coin. We'll see if the market agrees Wednesday night. Incidentally, I still agree with the PCGS grade, and note the PCGS guarantees it's grade. Although you have deftly attempted to switch the focus away from the ICG coin, let me ask you again, do you think it is a PR70? For that matter, do you think it even qualifies as Cam? Forget the slab on both coins for a minute and put prejudice aside, which coin do you like better for $100? The market will ultimately decide what position ICG deserves in the grading company rankings, and here's to them making #1. That said, which coin do you like better?
I'll post prices realized Wednesday night.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Bob,
You're right - it is like a black box. One thing that they could start doing (and I know this will never happen...) is to start providing detailed explanations of their grading for each coin - in writing. Some of us at our jobs have to justify ourselves and are held accountable. It would be a kind of quality assurance for the costumer if the grading services had to justify their opinions of our coins. But like I said, it won’t happen.
Dan >>
Essentially, isn't this the PCGS Grading Standards book? They go into a lot of detail on their standards and methods. Some aspects are in great detail, others not so much. They don't go into the business aspects or specific procedures of in and out (which was asked to Rick M in the Q&A section) but they do specify how they grade and what matters to them in their grading determination.
well actually reading, not hearing. When this thing starts talking to me I'll say "adios"
I have seen a few problem coins graded by ICG and Im sure many other people have also.I have also seen a few FB merc's that werent exactly FB IMO.
<< <i>There seems to be the thought floating around here that PCGS will not give out a 69DCAM on a coin that has haze, aka mint frost on it. >>
Mike,
Two things. First, PCGS should not give a 69 to a coin with the amount of haze on the example you posted - and that IS haze, unlike Don's example, which is mint frost. If that was on there when it was in for grading, the grader should be fired. But, whether or not the coin receives the DCAM designation will depend on the amount of the haze. A small amount won't kill the designation.
Second, haze and mint frost are not the same thing. Mint frost is a natural part of the minting process that is more prevalent on some issues than others, and is embedded in the fields - it cannot be removed. Haze is something that emerges after the coin has been minted and, in most cases, is surface contamination only, and is thus removable.
Mint frost, in and of itself, will not hurt a coin's grade unless it is extreme. It also won't necessarily kill a CAM designation. It will kill a DCAM designation, though (at least it should).
NOTE: All of the above is based on the proof Kennedy series.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I do not see any confict of interest between David Hall Rare Coins and PCGS ... I also do not believe that PCGS gives David Hall any grades they wouldn't give any other submittor... >>
remove the conflict of interest potential, and the question of whether it occurs or not becomes a moot point.
K S
Sorry Don, you are the one that introduced the PCGS PR-69 Cameo Kennedy into this thread, not me. If you didn't want the grade of the coin scrutinized here, then you should not have introduced it. The long swath of mint frost, IN THE MIRRORS, between the F in Half and the first L in Dollar is extreme and should have disqualified the coin from that grade. Someone certainly received a "favor" on this grade. I sure wouldn't pay $100 for that overgrade! No question but the Cameo contrast is nice. However, that much mint frost in the mirrors should take that coin to PR-68.
If you have think the dinky PCGS guarantee is so great, then perhaps you should buy the coin and use the guarantee with PCGS. You will get a coin with a much lower grade and a check that will come no where near what it would take to make you financially whole. And you know it!! That guarantee isn't worth squat on lower valued coins, such as that coin.
It seems you are not aware that ICG has also implemented a grade guarantee.
It would seem that Gmarguli is right. Teletrade does suck! If you think that PCGS, or any other major grading company, will place a hazy coin in their PR-69 DCAM holder on a regular basis, then you better not try any submissions. You will take a real financial bath. Either that coin developed the haze immediately after being placed in the holder, or a real mistake occured in the grading room. Russ is right. If a grader purposefully placed that coin, with all that haze, in a PR-69 DCAM holder, then he/she should be fired.
I know why you don't want to talk about ICG or the grade they gave the coin I pictured. I wouldn't either. Based on the responses to this thread, most of the guys already know how ICG grades anyway. Not one person who responded said ICG graded that coin correctly. Your defense was really exactly what I have come to expect. Although I really didn't set out to defend PCGS, I do think the coins make a nice comparison. I really was asking what you thought about the ICG coin, but then I understand why you would want not to respond. The title of this thread is "ICG is right on", not "why does DcamFranklin think PCGS overgrades". I was man enough to state my opinion of the PCGS coin when you asked, how about you. Are you a champion of ICG's PR70Cam grade, or are you afraid to say? Better still, a real PR70 Cam should be worth $1500 or so. How about you put your money where your mouth is. You pay half of that $750 for the ICG coin, thereby insuring a tidy profit, and I'll pay $150 for the PCGS coin, or is this just a lot of conversation? BTW- If you agree, I'll buy both coins and sell you yours. I bet I clear mine as profit.
BTW - did you see this one?
ICG Franklin Thread?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Gmarguli is right. Teletrash sucks! I think you are absolutely right. You should buy that sorry 1964 PCGS PR-69 Cameo for $150. Use that dinky PCGS grade guarantee. Please be sure to let us know just how much money you lose in the proposition. After that coin comes back from PCGS with a PR-68 grade, I'll pay you $18 for it on Ebay.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
You are losing it man! You can't go back anywhere and find where I have bashed PCGS. I think you really need to take a little time away from this Forum. These aren't healthy responses. I'll not be trading barbs with you anymore. Take a sip of Kool-Aid and learn to relax!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Might they have been dipped before they were submitter or is this not a rare thing for 69 DCAMs >>
Unfortunately, this type of hazing isn't a rare thing on modern proofs, and it's not caused by dipping. A bad dip will emerge as a white pooling or spotting affect, not an even spread such as these. This type of hazing is caused by crappy flips. Something I learned the hard way.
Now, while it happens all too frequently with these proofs, I've never seen one with that degree of the problem come back from PCGS in a 69DCAM holder.
Russ, NCNE
Russ,
The hazing that appears on those quarters may be partially bad flips, but I think it has more to do with the mint and its production process. I have several coins in proof sets now that have developed similar hazing, and they have never been removed from the mint packaging, and they have been sitting in a climate controlled vault since I received them.
As far as the D. Hall, Bowers & Merena, CU, PCGS conflict of interest concern goes, it stinks to me. I work on Wall Street, and us analysts are getting raked over the coals over percieved conflicts of interest brought about by the whining of pitifully uninformed retail investors (not unlike those on this forum), who look at half a dozen scandals and cast aspersions over all the analysts that cover the other 9,000 publicly traded companies in the US. Yet the same folks feel compelled to look the other way when it comes to the happy members of the CU family. Am I missing something here? You're right, I have no proof of any shenanigans going on, but the very fact that there could be conflicts is enough. The appearance on impropriety should be enough to compel these people to change their ways, especially in a business that is nothing more than a sale of TRUST.
Finally, someone suggested that the grading services should offer detailed explanations of their grades. I couldn't agree more. When I put a buy or sell recommendation on a stock, I would be severely remiss in my responsibilities if I did not offer my clients a detailed explanation of the reasons that led me to my recommendation. We discuss the assumptions and reasoning, and then they make their decision on how to act on my recommendations. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they disagree and that makes the market work. If I had clients like the Kool-aid drinkers on this forum, I'd be a billionaire, moving markets with every word that comes out of my mouth. What we all should be demanding from all grading services is the reasoning behind the grade. If the grader says it's AT, we can discuss it. If they think it's a 64 due to eye appeal we can factor that in. Instead, so many of us blindly assume that the professionals must be right, no need to explain what may seem to be a ridiculously over or undergraded coin. Well, as a professional, I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes, an often the dialog is what helps me to catch them before they cause someone damage or loss. But we just let the professional graders cause such damage and loss with impunity. It really ticks me off sometimes!
Now I need to go cook dinner.
<< <i>The hazing that appears on those quarters may be partially bad flips, but I think it has more to do with the mint and its production process. >>
jtryka,
You are absolutely correct. I've seen the same problem as you on some even before they hit the flips. It's really a combination of the two problems. My hunch is that if they weren't screwing the pooch in the minting process, low quality flips would not cause problems nearly as often as they do.
Russ, NCNE