my latest submission results

EVillageProwler

Hi,

I just got back some of my submission results ... to NGC. I would have posted them across the street, but no one there does that. Here, however, this is common practice ... but for PCGS submissions.

I want to post for two reasons. First, I like to talk about my coins. (Nothing wrong with that, right?) Second, it throws doubt on those who say one service is more consistent or more strict or whatever... Granted, it is only a small sample size (5 x-overs, 5 raw).

I don't want to cause trouble. Lord knows, there's been quite a bit of angst around here lately. Before I post my results, I think I'd like to see if there's anyone at all who might be interested.

BTW, my submissions are all ED's, with most being very rare varieties...

EVP

Clankeye

EVP--
I'm interested. NGC... PCGS... makes no difference to me. I find it all interesting. Lay 'em on us.

Carl

JimD

EVP
Always interested in coin related posts from one of the more knowlegable collectors.
Jim

braddick

Me too. It's always fun to read what the submitter thought the coin was going to go and the Service's grade for it.
POST!

keithdagen

Post those bad boys across the street as well. Start a trend EVP.

gmarguli

Post those bad boys across the street as well. Start a trend EVP.

kranky

Sure, EVP, post them. But you have to say what you expected them to be and what the crossovers were.

EVillageProwler

Ok, here are my results...

Express crossover:
1. 1798 5 Stripes BB-91 (R.7) PCGS VF30: DNC
2. 1800 BB-182 (R.6) NGC VF30 -> PCGS VF30: VF30
3. 1802/1 Wide Date BB-235 (R.6) PCGS EF40: DNC
4. 1803 Small 3 BB-252 NGC AU50 -> PCGS AU50: DNC
5. 1803 Large 3 BB-255 ICG AU53 -> PCGS AU50: AU50

Express raw:
1. 1795 Off-Center BB-51 ICG EF40 -> PCGS VF30: EF40
2. 1796 SmDt-SmLt BB-66 (R.4) PCGS VF35: EF40
3. 1797 9x7 SmLt BB-72 (R.4) PCGS VF25: damaged
4. 1798 SmEag-13Str BB-82 NGC EF40 -> PCGS VF35 -> NGC VF35: EF40
5. 1798 Knob 9 BB-93 (R.6) raw ChEF: cleaned

For those raw coins that ended up as EF40, I actually believe that they're EF coins. Not ChEF, just EF. And, I bought them with the expectation that they would EF on occasion.

Please note that only two of these coins are not so nice (these being the two that got BB'ed). Of the remaining 8, I felt that all were of decent to exceptional eye appeal, and solid to undergraded.

I threw in the 2 crappy coins because I needed to offset the nice raw submissions. (The BB-93 isn't actually so bad; it will slab eventually, I suspect.) And, I threw in the EF-ish coins together in the hopes that NGC will grade them all EF (or, God forbid, grade them all VF35!). They all have the same amount of detail/wear.

From looking at the above results, NGC isn't really *that* consistent, and NGC doesn't seem to like my really nice PCGS x-over attempts either.

I have a bunch at NGC right now for Early Bird and Economy. Will post them when I get them.

EVP

PS I submitted the x-overs to NGC mostly because I want the variety attribution. They are really rare varieties! The 1803 coins I submitted because the ring on the BB-252 started to turn color. And, they're a really nice match for each other and I wanted them both to be in the same holder. Now, they're different!

EVillageProwler

Sure, EVP, post them. But you have to say what you expected them to be and what the crossovers were.

Kranky,

I expected the BB-72 to fail. I was hoping that BB-93 would slab at EF45. For the other 3 raw submissions, I fully expected EF40. For the crossovers, I expected them all to cross at the same grade. I did hope for a few upgrades because I felt that their current grades were as low as one can imagine. (I have several ED specialist friends, and they agree that those coins are bottomed out grade-wise.)

Apparently, being an NGC cheerleader didn't help! (Just kidding!)

x-over(1): possible 40
x-over(2): possible 35
x-over(3): fine at 40
x-over(4): possible 55
x-over(5): possible 55

EVP

EVillageProwler

Post those bad boys across the street as well. Start a trend EVP.

Keith,

I agree with Greg that it doesn't seem like a good idea. For whatever reason, the other site seems indifferent to many of the issues that interest the membership here. I think that's why I like both sites. They're different, and that's great!

One day, I eat fish. The next, I'll eat meat.



EVP

prooflike

EVP,

you seem like you got your expected results.

EVillageProwler

Mostly, because the raw stuff is most important. A little bit better and I would have been ecstatic, especially with the x-overs!

Ya know, they did cost me $50 a pop!



EVP

DCAMFranklin

EVP- Seems there were a couple of disappointments. Otherwise a nice submission.

Another instance where the ICG grade was accurate.

EVillageProwler

Actually, I would say two instances. The BB-255 coin was accurately grade by ICG in my opinion because there's really no difference in the ED series between AU50 and AU53. For those two grades, it's like a coin toss.

Personally, I think ANACS is the most consistent for this series. But, I hate their holders and they only attribute with Bolender numbers (which I don't remember!). Believe it or not, ANACS does an excellent job at differentiating between strike and wear. When in doubt, PCGS seems mostly to default to wear while NGC varies between wear and strike.

EVP

Elcontador

EVP,

Glad that for the most part you are satisfied with your results. This illustrates that in terms of who is grading tighter right now, it all depends on what series you are selecting & to whom you are sending your coins.

While I think Bust $s are beautiful coins, I've been guy-shy about buying any because 1) they have been aggresively marketed over the last three years, hence they aren't inexpensive, and 2) due to striking problems, grading on the ones I've seen is all over the map.

There are some series that one can say right now that NGC is tougher in grading than PCGS, but I don't know what they are, as I either don't have much expertise in them or I don't collect them. I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder which ones people here think they are.

wallstreetman

Excuse my ignorance, but what is R.4, R.6, R.7? Good job on the ICG finds, I cant seem to find any that would come even remotely close.

EVillageProwler

I've been guy-shy about buying

Jeff, that's a typo, right?

As for the part about their being expensive, I have to agree. That's why I'm focusing exclusively on the R.6 and better varieties.

WSM, R.4 means that the variety has a rarity rating of 4. R.7 == 4 to 12 extant, R.6 == 13 to 30 extant, R.5 == 31 to 75, R.4 == 75 to 150. At least I think I got the numbers correct. I only memorize R.6 and better...

BTW, folks, many of the ones I submitted are also near the finest known for the variety!

EVP

gmarguli

R# is a rarity scale.

EVillageProwler

Good job on the ICG finds, I cant seem to find any that would come even remotely close.

Understood. To tell you the truth, it's been VERY hard for me to find any (in ANY holder) that are special enough for me these days. It comes from not having enough money, so I get more discriminating...

When I do find one that's EVP-quality, I'll usually recommend it to a friend because it's not rare enough for me.

EVP

wallstreetman

Learn something new every day! Seen any nice Franklins in ICG, raw, or any holder for that matter? Dont happen to have any do you?

leothelyon

Just remember, there are no R's in franklins.

Leo

EVillageProwler

WSM: I own a complete set of Franklins. They are all raw and housed in a Dansco album. I think 4 of them are proofs. Maybe a couple of the common dates are FBL's. All were blast white when I first bought them. They looked to me then, but I wasn't so discriminating then. I doubt that they are anything special...

(I haven't looked at them in quite a long time!)

EVP

Elcontador

Yes, it was a typo

EVillageProwler

Express crossover:
1. 1798 5 Stripes BB-91 (R.7) PCGS VF30: DNC
2. 1800 BB-182 (R.6) NGC VF30 -> PCGS VF30: VF30
3. 1802/1 Wide Date BB-235 (R.6) PCGS EF40: DNC
4. 1803 Small 3 BB-252 NGC AU50 -> PCGS AU50: DNC
5. 1803 Large 3 BB-255 ICG AU53 -> PCGS AU50: AU50


I got my coins today. Funny how the same coins look so much better when you just get them back from the services. It's almost like I got new coins!

Update on the DNC's:
#1: CLEANED. This is quite an original looking specimen, with deep chocolate toning. Go friggin' figure!
#3: CLEANED BENEATH RESIDUE. What residue? Perhaps this has an ancient cleaning, but it looks very nice. Better than most ED's I've seen slabbed, and this is easily the best I've seen for this variety. It also has a neat die crack that I *just* noticed! Cool!
#4: STAINING. This is the subject of my panic in another thread. This one suddenly started to go bad in its holder.

Ya know all those people who complain about how painful it is to cross from XXX to PCGS? Well, it ain't no friggin' picnic crossing to NGC either. Aside ffrom the ``stained'' coin, I felt the other four should have crossed. Some with upgrades too.

I am seriously thinking of hurting myself!



EVP

EVillageProwler

I just found out the crossover results from two of my friends. I will post the results to illustrate my belief that crossovers, whether NGC --> PCGS or in reverse, just plain blow big time!

From Dollarmike, who couldn't post because he's having technical problems:

``I have to admit I am a little peeved. One of my submission results from PCGS posted. O for 4! 1798 small eagle 15 stars NGC 45, DNC. I thought the odds were not real good on this one. 1799/8 NGC 40, DNC. I think this coin should have easily crossed. 1795 off-center NGC 45, DNC. Thought it was around 50/50. 1803 Large 3 NGC40, DNC. Thought it would fairly easily cross. NOT ESPECIALLY HAPPY''

For the two NGC EF45 specimens, he put down that they can cross at EF40. He called PCGS, and he's sending them back for further review. (The guy at PCGS, Tony, did not know why the coins did not cross. Mike did say that Tony was very nice and tried to be accomodating!)

From Beboplawyer, from whom I did NOT get prior permission to post (I can take allowances with friends!):

He submitted an Early Half Dime NGC AU58 and an 1848 Seated Dollar ANACS AU50. He called PCGS, and they said AU53 for the H10c, and EF45 for the S$1.

Both of them have expressed the possibility that PCGS did NOT even look at these coins. They got their results MUCH faster than the other same-tiered submissions.

With my two x-over rejections (I can accept the 1803, since that coin is starting to turn in the holder and is now at PCGS), I felt that NGC is just plain ridiculous. My 1798 BB-91, an R.7 specimen, does have some hairlines, but no more so than about 99% of the existing ED population. I find no evidence of cleaning on my 1802/1 BB-235 (R.6). This coin is possibly 2nd or 3rd finest known of this variety.

I remember DHall saying that it is in PCGS' best interests to ``rape'' NGC of the best coins from their holders. Why wouldn't NGC want to do the same for two very rare ED specimens that are easily in the upper half of all slabbed ED's in terms of eye appeal?!?

For those who don't know, Dollarmike is very knowledgeable with ED's. He frequently speaks with folks like Cardinal and Dave Perkins to increase his knowledge, and he and I discuss specimens at shows to make sure that we both pick up choice specimens.

Beboplawyer also has a very discriminating eye. He also knows early material very, VERY well. He would have been mildly shocked if PCGS had wanted to 55 his H10c, but an AU53 is beyond the pale. This coin has everything: choice surfaces, excellent eye appeal, and nice strike. As for the S$1, I joked with him that it may be an EF45. He didn't find it funny then, and he's even more upset now. Another buddy, who is an excellent grader for most series, feels that the 1848 is accurately graded.

Oh, well...

Crossovers just plain blow!

EVP