NGC is SO tough on early copper!

rhedden

Just look at this coin:

NGC XF-45

XF-45? LOL! That would rate as an F-12 on most peoples' scale.

And here's another:

NGC MS-61

MS-61? Last time I checked, "MS" stood for "mint state," not for "marginal slider." Oh wait, that is not even a slider! It's an EF-40!


Forgive the sarcasm, but the major services, especially NGC (but PCGS too), need to revamp the way that they grade copper. Let's face it: no dedicated early copper collectors take NGC and PCGS grades seriously. The grading standards are way out of whack. Obviously circulated coins are being graded as mint state, and nobody buys it.

Perhaps the services could attempt to implement EAC grading standards, and develop a special new slab insert to denote a change in grading standards? I really think that would make it a lot easier for copper collectors to certify their collections, and would greatly increase the number of submissions of early copper coins. What do you think of this idea?

coinguy89

I've seen this with all the services, grading for early coppers in my opinion is usually way over what it should be, not sure why though.

kieferscoins

<< <i>no dedicated early copper collectors take NGC and PCGS grades seriously. >>



PCGS/NGC graders and the rest of the non copper collecting community don't take EAC grading seriously either. It won't happen (changing to EAC grading).



<< <i>Perhaps the services could attempt to implement EAC grading standards, and develop a special new slab insert to denote a change in grading standards? I really think that would make it a lot easier for copper collectors to certify their collections, and would greatly increase the number of submissions of early copper coins. What do you think of this idea? >>



I think the EAC should start their own grading service and not try to change the grading as it is today.

Cameron Kiefer

LanLord

I might have given the first one a VF20, but it sure isn't an EF.

As for the second, I wonder if the photo truely gives the whole story. It looks really flat, and I am wondering if that could be the fault of the image rather than the coin.

dorkkarl

<< <i>PCGS/NGC graders and the rest of the non copper collecting community don't take EAC grading seriously either. It won't happen (changing to EAC grading). >>

danged good thing too, because i'm sure they would screw THAT up as well.

totally agree that the 2 coins graded are CRAP for the grade. i've said it many times, plastic co's are horrible at grading any kind of early copper. there's flat-out no point in getting your copper slabed considering the piss-poor (in)consistency, the absurd "standards" (ie, what are the standards for an exactitude of "vf-25" for a mott token?) & nearly random rate at which coins are rejected/accepted. it's abysmal.

i'd grade those 2 coins vf & xf respectively.

K S

earlwbollinger

Forgive my intrusion but. . .
Well you guys must be a lot better (more critical or detailed, or better at it) at this than I am.
the first looks to me as a XF40 so maybe XF45 is a stretch, I thought the ear area and bow knot was a bit more worn than it should have been.
The second one looks like a MS61 to me too.
So I don't know what to think.

Numismanic

If NGC graded that first one XF-45, I wonder what they would grade my 1848?

seanq

<< <i>i'd grade those 2 coins vf & xf respectively.

K S >>





I might - might - call that second one AU if it had some luster left, but there's no way it is uncirculated.


Sean Reynolds

techeff

f NGC graded that first one XF-45, I wonder what they would grade my 1848?

Environmental Damage.

Zulan

What IS the grade of your 1848? Just by looking at it I would say possibly as high as a AU50, but I would be more comfortable with XF-45. I am still learning and I am not sure how much the flatness of the hair affects the grade.

Numismanic

Zulan,

I bought it as an XF-45. The coin is a little darker in hand than in the image. Theres no luster left so I don't think it could go AU. Thanks for replying. Don

Conder101

<< <i>I think the EAC should start their own grading service and not try to change the grading as it is today. >>


They had one back in 1985. It didn't last long.

I agree with Dorkkarl on the grades VF & XF. The first one has some issues with strike that make it look lower grade than it is. The second piece does not. It is a solid XF an doen't come anywhere close to MS.

BigD5

That first coin looks ch. vf, and is weakly struck, so that has to be taken into account. I could actually see someone making a case for xf on the coin due to the strike, but I wouldn't value it that high.

On the second coin, that's a typical au/55+ copper that routinely gets into an ms holder. All the services do that.

I'm not sure why you guys are grading the second coin xf. It's much sharper than that.

cosmicdebris

How about some grade opinions on these early coppers?

MadMarty

How about these early coppers???

ziggy29

As others have mentioned, there is a significant disconnect between how the major TPGs grade early copper and the EAC standards.

That disconnect is exacerbated by the fact that the general coin market uses ANA/Photograde for circulated coins (usually), whereas early copper enthusiasts generally prefer to use the EAC standards. The result is "sticker shock" for folks who are used to the considerably tighter EAC standards.

Where early copper is concerned, I think PCGS would do the same thing.

dorkkarl

i don't think the issue is ngc's grading vs. eac's grading. the issue is that ngc & pcgs are both absurdly erratic grading copper. there's no rhyme or reason to a coin certified vf-30 looking exactly like another certified at xf-45. "consistency" is abysimal, worse yet, it's completely unforgivable to apply impossibly accurate grades like "f-15" to colonials. what in he11 are the standards used to distinguish a f-15 bar copper from 1 in f-12???

K S