Franklin Proof grading- NGC vs. PCGS, your opinions

Manorcourtman

I just got my first grades back from NGC on Proof Frankies. I got slammed in my opinion. All 67's which I am appauled over!! I thought 68-69 on all of them. What's your experience between the 2 services on Proof Frankies?? They were 1961-63 BTW. I guess I'll be cracking them out next week!!! Yes I understand 69 is a lofty grade but 68 is not a rarity in my opinion. BTW they were rec'd on 1/8/04 and graded and shipped today. Now that's good service!!!

Russ

<< <i>All 67's which I am appauled over!!...I'll be cracking them out next week!!! >>





<< <i>Now that's good service!!! >>





Russ, NCNE

DHeath

Crossing them at any grade is the only way to find out.

Manorcourtman

Where's Lucy when I need an opinion??? Russ.....what's your experience??

FC57Coins

I guess the opinion depends on the coins themselves. I haven't messed too much with proofs at either service - but it seems to me that gradewise they would be about the same - where the difference starts to become apparent is in the Cam/Dcam designations. Now - depending on what year proofs these are a 67 may actually be a very respectable grade - you also don't mention if the coins are flawless black and white, or if they have toning, haze, spots, what have you - so I guess it's your turn to clarify a bit.

DCAMFranklin

Franklins from the 1960's can never justify the expense of 2 grading fees, unless you receive a PR-69 grade. Check out the Populations of PR-69, compare them to the total pops. and you'll realize how tough 69's are to make. Don't waste your time. Sell the coins and make a new search for better quality.

Myqqy

I think that getting 68's or 69's at either service can be challenging with proof Franklins. From my very limited experience, I have gotten the impression that PCGS is a bit tougher with the cameo designation- I study NGC cameo Franklins a bit closer than I would those in PCGS holders. I would consider buying some Franklin dates sight unseen in PCGS holders, but I don't think I would do the same with NGC. That being said, I've heard others mention that NGC appears to be getting a bit stricter with their grades of late- I wonder if that also applies to the cam/dcam designation??

Myqqy

I agree with DCAM Franklin- doing the crackout game with 60's era Franklins is a losing proposition- if you have lower mintage coins from the 50's and a well-trained eye, than it might be worth the hassle...

Russ

<< <i>Russ.....what's your experience?? >>



Manorcourtman,

My experience with them is 1964 to 1970 proof and SMS Kennedy halves. In these, they grade one point looser than PCGS on average. There are exceptions, but on balance they grade looser. The major reason for this is that NGC doesn't place as much emphasis on hairlining as PCGS.

As for cameo and deep cameo: It is easier to get the cameo designation at NGC than it is at PCGS. It is approximately the same degree of difficulty to get the UCAM designation at NGC as it is to get the DCAM designation at PCGS. BUT, the two companies approach it from a slightly different perspective. PCGS pays more attention to mirror depth, NGC pays more attention to frostiness on the devices.

Russ, NCNE

CarlWohlforth

I agree with the comments already made, especially FC57Coins. Grade wise they seem similar, Ultra seems very close to DCAM but NGC has given out Cams to coins that would never make Cam at PCGS though I'm not sure they still will. PCGS seems pickier about clean, mirror like fields.

The difference, to me, between a 67 and 68 is the clarity and reflectiveness of the fields. A 68 would have to be a perfect mirror while a 67 might have striations or less of a mirror at the rims. Or maybe a small hairline.

Manorcourtman

Thanks guys.......still waiting for guys opinions!!!!

LucyBop

Hmmmm......... Russ's comment is rather interesting...


I have cracked out 10 proof Frankies from NGC holders for my Reg set.......

All ten came back a grade lower, these are from 1958 - 63...........

some of these coins are hairline free......... so it seems....

NGC pr68's tend to be PCGs pr67s in my limited experience........


I have had better luck with washington proofs.....

LucyBop

Manorcourtman, I would probably let those coins be.......

and still be on the hunt for some others..........

Manorcourtman

Russ......thanks....any advice you give is observed by many people that you never see or hear from!!!

LucyBop

PCGs does love strong Mirrors, which can carry a borderline coin into CAM/DCAM status....

If the mirrors are strong enough, you should be able to see Bens face reflect many times with ease..

such as whats seen in my DCAM 57!

DHeath

Manorcourtman,

You didn't say what the designation was (cam/dcam/*), so I assume they were Ucam. Rick Montgomery is a pretty good Franklin man, and he's at NGC. If you really think they missed your coins, you should call him. He'll answer your question in depth. As for comparing the services, I'll stand by my earlier observation that the only way you'll form a personal credible opinion of the difference between the two services is to submit those coins to PCGS yourself and see what they grade. Any pictures you put up on the boards will likely not answer questions regarding hairlines or depth of cameo. Any opinions offered from people who haven't submitted lots of coins to BOTH services recently will be of little use, and the small price to resubmit the coins is a tiny investment in your submitters degree. Truthfully, when dealing with modern proofs, there's only so much you can tell without the coins in hand.

Personally, I agree fully with NGC's approach to cam/ucam designation. I think a coin with moderate contrast is worth more than a brilliant coin. I think the very tough standard for Ucam/Dcam is appropriate. As many Franklins as NGC has seen, for the coins to 67, they're in the middle of the pack. JMO