Home› PCGS Set Registry Forum

Why PCGS Mercs are different from NGC

DeepCoinDeepCoin Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭
in PCGS Set Registry Forum
I was just checking out a Heritage Sale and noticed that NGC has graded 360 1945-S Mercs as MS-68!!!

PCGS has ZERO graded as 68. So much for grading the same. PCGS does not even have half that many in 67. There is a difference.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.

Comments

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 24,144 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Oh, oh. image

    peacockcoins

  • SealypSealyp Posts: 102
    Maybe people send the nicer Mercs to NGC and the average ones to PCGS.

    hey it's possible!
    COINS FOR SALE
  • IrishMikeIrishMike Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭
    Let's see PCGS has graded 89 1936 MS67FB and NGC 41 and each one higher, looking at Heritage Auction Site. In1940D MS67 FB, PCGS 136 with 8 higher, NGC 143 with only 3 higher . 1936D MS66FB, PCGS has graded 139, NGC 40, PCGS has graded 30 higher and NGC 12. That's just 3 grades, enough to prove a point I hope, you can't look at numbers graded to draw that conclusion. You can use any statistic to prove anything. Nice try.image
  • EVillageProwlerEVillageProwler Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭✭✭
    PCGS Mercs are different than NGC Mercs because of the manufacturing process. It is a well-established fact that the NGC specimens were all carefully prepared and struck. Albanese' forebears had the presence of mind to make a special request of the US Mint for this. They were quite the clever folks!

    EVP

    How does one get a hater to stop hating?

    I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com

  • DeepCoinDeepCoin Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭
    Mike,

    I am not saying they are all different, but 360 to zero is quite a difference. By the way, one of your examples, the 36-D actually is tighter for PCGS. NGC has 40 graded at 66FB and 12 (40 %) higher, PCGS has 139 and 30 (22 %) higher... your numbers... which is tighter??

    It is just that the very large difference struck me, I am not trying to start a "can you find dates where they are different thread". But really, 360 to zero???
    Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
  • FairlanemanFairlaneman Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hey Rick. You are Playing with Fire here. image

    Ken
  • DeepCoinDeepCoin Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭
    Ken,

    You are right and I guess I will just say that there are differences. I believe we can all agree that there are variances. I got carried away.

    This was not meant to bash NGC, but sometimes you get caught up in the moment.

    Apologies to anyone who was offended.
    Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
  • AndroidAndroid Posts: 726 ✭
    I will say one thing on this. It has been my experience that NGC is much "tighter" as you say, with the FB designation. I sent in three PCGS FB mercs to NGC for crossover. (Some would think I'm nuts for doing this, but I like NGC holders, silly me.) One crossed, same grade, and FB. The other two didn't with an explanation that they were not full bands according to NGC's standards. I think that NGC's definition means FULL bands, fully rounded, fully split with no other marks that intersect, cut through, or join either side of the band. The two that didn't cross were split, but the bands themselves were definately not round and full. The split was also relatively shallow. I'm also thinking that since David Lange wrote the current encyclopedia on Mercury dimes, NGC will tend to be tougher on them since they have a resident expert on the series working for them.

    Just my experience.

    Andy image
    We are finite beings, limited in all our powers, and, hence, our conclusions are not only relative, but they should ever be held subject to correction. Positive assurance is unattainable. The dogmatist is the only one who claims to possess absolute certainty.

    First POTD 9/19/05!!

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,998 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Deep Coins as of June 30, 1997 NGC graded 361 1945-S non FB as MS-68 and PCGS graded graded none.<p>
    So in the past five years, NGC population count went DOWN BY ONE in the MS-68 grade whereas PCGS was unchanged!!!!!!! imageimage

    So I could say that NGC has suddenly gotten more conservative than PCGS in the past five years since NGC has had a NEGATIVE population growth in MS-68??????????
    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • prooflikeprooflike Posts: 3,879 ✭✭
    Once again, you people are silly. image
    image
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Actually, it strikes me as rather unusual that PCGS would not have granted the MS68 grade at all for that date. Seems a little too conservative to me!

    There's no doubt that NGC is grading on a 70 point scale - when you do that, 68's happen. Seems to me that PCGS is grading on a different scale. Kindof like when David Hall stated that 0.5-2.0% of all modern proofs should be graded PF70 and was going to check and see why PCGS hadn't granted that grade for several years. Perhaps he should check on why a common S mint dime isn't receiving the 68 grade either?

    Which brings up the point that since no company, in fact no grader in the same company, grades to exactly the same scale, don't you think that each coin must be evaluated for its relative quality and value irregardless of what holder it's in (and what the grade says on the holder)?
    Early Dollar Set
  • IrishMikeIrishMike Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭
    Which brings up the point that since no company, in fact no grader in the same company, grades to exactly the same scale, don't you think that each coin must be evaluated for its relative quality and value irregardless of what holder it's in (and what the grade says on the holder)?

    Great thought, but when it must be in a PCGS slab for the registry, this logic doesn't necessarily apply.
Sign In or Register to comment.