Should ANACS coins be accepted in the NGC registry?

DNADave

I'm a little miffed that my 28 Peace Dollar isn't reflected in my #45 set across the street.

LeeG

How about ANACS starting a "Registry" and allowing PCGS and NGC Coins. That would be a true "Collection" of coins. ANACS are you listening?

DHeath

Yes, I believe they ARE listening.

robertpr

Everybody and their dog has a registry on their site these days. I would think ANACS would do better to find something to differentiate themselves.

thebeav

I've had many ANACS coins graded in the past year or so. For the most part, I see them to be comparable with the big 2 as
far as accuracy and consistency. I'm not a registry person, but I say, 'Why not ?'.....

Paul

coinbuf

An idea that has been discused many times. Most collectors are for it but ANACS does not have their prior(or current) slabs in any database so there is no way to verify the cert #'s, or so I've been told.

Chris

Rampage

<< <i>An idea that has been discused many times. Most collectors are for it but ANACS does not have their prior(or current) slabs in any database so there is no way to verify the cert #'s, or so I've been told.

Chris >>



That seems a bit odd. I would ask them about that.

anablep

How would ANACS' old ANA holders and smaller sized holders work into that registry? There was a time when no barcode or seven digit number was used. They had 6 digits back in the day and before that, alpha-numeric codes. If they didn't keep a data base back in 1989 to the mid nineties, how will those coins slabbed by their own company fit into an ANACS registry? I'd hate to reslab all those old holders just for a registry set.

TheRaven

I say if you want a PCGS, NGC & ANACS registry set, it should really be on an independent site.....

PCGS does not offer the ability to use other company's slabs, and I think that is smart for two reasons, first of all they want to make the slabbing money and not help others and second how can they know if NGC or ANACS grades the same as they do and that all the coins would cross.....

Now many on here might argue the last point, but from a corporate pov, they could argue this and how can you argue back with such a blanket statement.....

IrishMike

NGC has addressed this topic a few times. There is no data base they can go to in order to verify the coin. Unless and until one is developed by ANACS its an impossibility.

fcloud

Ironic isn't it. They are the "official grading company of the ANA," yet they don't allow them in the registry???

Frankcoins

Why would they want to promote a competitor? Is GM going to list Toyotas on their website?

IrishMike

<< <i>Ironic isn't it. They are the "official grading company of the ANA," yet they don't allow them in the registry??? >>



How can they allow them if they can't verify them. You comment smacks of PCGS koolaid. Wasn't PCGS formery the official grading company of the ANA? Did they allow them in?

fcloud

Frankcoins,



<< <i>Why would they want to promote a competitor? Is GM going to list Toyotas on their website? >>



NGC already allows PCGS coins on their registry...




Mike,

That was PNG, and as far as I know the PNG doesn't grade coins.

IrishMike

<< <i>Frankcoins,



<< <i>Why would they want to promote a competitor? Is GM going to list Toyotas on their website? >>



NGC already allows PCGS coins on their registry...




Mike,

That was PNG, and as far as I know the PNG doesn't grade coins. >>



My error. Regardless how could they allow them, I am still looking for a response.

fcloud

Mike,

If they wanted to they could find a way to verify eventhough there in not website listings of coins.

Are you suggesting that ANACS coins are not really certified because they are not listed on a website?

IrishMike

If there is no way to verify the cert #'s and you were NGC how would you do this without lots of man hours? Would you have to send the coin into them? I could care less whether they allow them since I no longer participate in any registry. Personally I am all for it. But like I keep saying, tell me how you would do this.

dthigpen

<< <i>Mike,

If they wanted to they could find a way to verify eventhough there in not website listings of coins.

Are you suggesting that ANACS coins are not really certified because they are not listed on a website? >>



ANACS has stated in the past that they don't have a complete database of their grading records, it would be impossible to verify slabs.

fcloud

The verification process would make it necessary for the owner of the coin(s) to send them to NGC with some sort of a fee for listing. The coin's owner would have to pay shipping both ways and the fee. Once a coin is listed it would remain in the NGC records, so if the coin was sold the next owner could have it in a set if they wanted. Now, some could be opposed to a fee to verify the coin is really theirs, but it is possible if NGC wanted to do it. It could even be profitable for NGC if they really wanted to add these coins. The fact that ANACS' records are not complete should have no bearing on the process if NGC saw the coins first hand. The PCGS coins on the NGC site link to the point values of NGC coins, so the weighting could simply continue the way it is now.

seanq

<< <i>

<< <i>Mike,

If they wanted to they could find a way to verify eventhough there in not website listings of coins.

Are you suggesting that ANACS coins are not really certified because they are not listed on a website? >>



ANACS has stated in the past that they don't have a complete database of their grading records, it would be impossible to verify slabs. >>




Thiggy is correct. At one point CONECA contacted ANACS about creating variety coin registries and we were told the same thing: the database is incomplete and it is cost prohibitive to make what information they do have accessible by a web interface.


Sean Reynolds

blu62vette

At MyCollect we just launched ANACS into our inventory and set registries. It is the only place you can have PCGS, NGC, CACG and ANACS all in on place.

krueger

NGC , PCGS , CAC
and ANACS plus others all have different grading standards. Their words not mine!
Stick with the one that appeals to you.
The Electronics industry has had these problems periodically till they get together to set one standard partically
On their different interfaces
Don't expect the TPG' s to do this anytime soon.

RobertScotLover

Unfortunately yellow & blue Anacs holdered coins s___k imo

UpGrayedd

@RobertScotLover said:
Unfortunately yellow & blue Anacs holdered coins s___k imo

I agree that the blue labels are a little suspect with regards to the grade assigned (especially the quick release versions). However, you might be surprised with the yellow labels. I have found them to be accurately graded for the most part IMHO, if not on the conservative side. As an added bonus a lot of collectors turn their noses up without a second look so you can often find nice coins at decent prices.

telephoto1

ANACS is criminally underrated. Easiest service to sub to, good turnaround, and I agree that yellow label period forward coins can be had at a good price.

oldabeintx

This will sound odd, but I display my slabs and just don’t like the look of the recent ANACS slabs. I have a number of the soapbox (?) slabs. I actually prefer the look of them over all others. The diminutive size and white color put the coin on center stage.

coinbuf

@oldabeintx said:
This will sound odd, but I display my slabs and just don’t like the look of the recent ANACS slabs. I have a number of the soapbox (?) slabs. I actually prefer the look of them over all others. The diminutive size and white color put the coin on center stage.

I agree.

cinque1543

@seanq said:
Thiggy is correct. At one point CONECA contacted ANACS about creating variety coin registries and we were told the same thing: the database is incomplete and it is cost prohibitive to make what information they do have accessible by a web interface.

Just curious: Do you happen to know if this is because ANACS never maintained a good record in its early years, or did they have one but somehow lose track of it?

seanq

@cinque1543 said:

@seanq said:
Thiggy is correct. At one point CONECA contacted ANACS about creating variety coin registries and we were told the same thing: the database is incomplete and it is cost prohibitive to make what information they do have accessible by a web interface.

Just curious: Do you happen to know if this is because ANACS never maintained a good record in its early years, or did they have one but somehow lose track of it?

Zombie thread alert! I have no memory of that post, for about two years I was involved in the attribution services at CONECA, I am sure that is the context where I was told, but the circumstances beyond that are lost after two decades. A better person to ask might be @CaptHenway as he was employed there in their early days.

Sean Reynolds

seanq

@UpGrayedd said:

@RobertScotLover said:
Unfortunately yellow & blue Anacs holdered coins s___k imo

I agree that the blue labels are a little suspect with regards to the grade assigned (especially the quick release versions). However, you might be surprised with the yellow labels. I have found them to be accurately graded for the most part IMHO, if not on the conservative side. As an added bonus a lot of collectors turn their noses up without a second look so you can often find nice coins at decent prices.

I cannot speak for the grading, but I have seen some egregious mistakes in error attribution in the yellow slabs. The one that sticks in my mind was an early zinc Lincoln with a cut rim and the core showing certified as a genuine clip.

Sean Reynolds