If so many people think that NGC overgrades, why do they enjoy Top-2 status among TPG's?

Gator5220

Or is it just by default because the others are even looser?

paigowjohnny

<< <i>If so many people think that NGC overgrades >>



You gotta remember...you're reading the PCGS board....lot of Kool Aid being passed around

tradedollarnut

NGC and PCGS are a LOT more alike than they are different. You can't say that about any of the others.

In general, PGCS is a little tighter ... but there are always exceptions. I've seen plenty of NGC coins go up a point at PCGS ... just not as many as the other way around!

CalGold

NGC overgrades.
PCGS undergrades.

The only people who grade correctly are the collectors. But for some reason whenever they send their coins to either of these services they come back in bodybags.

CG

seateddime

The full of crap there!

Russ

Does NGC overgrade? Or, does PCGS undergrade?

Russ, NCNE

VamGuy

<< <i>Does NGC overgrade? Or, does PCGS undergrade? >>

Since neither appears to use any "CONSITENT" grading standard, they can neither undergrade nor overgrade.

Russ

<< <i>Since neither appears to use any "CONSITENT" grading standard, they can neither undergrade nor overgrade. >>



Or they can do both.

Russ, NCNE

slumlord98

In my experience, and that of other collectors and dealers with whom I associate, and also speaking only of early type, specifically silver coins struck on a screw press, NGC generally grades looser than PCGS, and looser than our personal standards. This isn't to say they are always wrong, or always off by a certain percentage. ANA standards say that an AU coin (anywhere from 50-58) should have wear on the high points only. This means no rub, no luster breaks in the fields. Anyone who has looked at a large number of coins will tell you that there is a distressingly high number of NGC AU graded bust coinage with little or no apparent luster. I understand the concept of market grading, but when NGC says the market should be willing to pay AU money for a coin with little or no luster, that is foolish. This is a very narrow range on which to judge a company's product, but considering the popularity of AU type, it is an important one. I have no experience with modern coinage such as those coins that Mr. TDN seems to like, so I will defer to him on that subject.

keets

Does NGC overgrade? Or, does PCGS undergrade?

they are both reasonably consistent. my grade estimates when submitting coins to either service have been reasonably close, which only means to me that we're in agreement most of the time and some of the time either the TPG or me misses something when evaluating the coins. i do think that with the various designations there seems to be a bit more subjectivity with assigning stuff like Cameo and Deep Cameo, etc. in that regard i think that NGC is a bit more realistic which equates to us believing that PCGS is extremely tight.

someone posted an interesting perspective last week which bears some thought. he said that in his opinion NGC is more likely to assign the best expected grade for an individual coin on the first try while at PCGS it might take a few looks. that hasn't been my experience, but it's an intriguing thought.

AU58WALKERS

I have been looking for ngc ms60-ms62 walkers so i can send them to pcgs
and add more to my au58 set. ]myau58walkers

tradedollarnut

I have no experience with modern coinage such as those coins that Mr. TDN seems to like, so I will defer to him on that subject.

Wolf359

VamGuy

<< <i><< Since neither appears to use any "CONSITENT" grading standard, they can neither undergrade nor overgrade. >>

<<Or they can do both.>> >>

Dude, you're totally blowing my mind.

koynekwest

Hype, longevity, dealer and PNG support, collectors that are too lazy to grade for themselves and/or are willing to believe the plastic no matter what the actual grade.

mozin

I pretty much agree with Slumlord on the grading of Busties. I do believe though, that NGC is far less consistent in grading Busties.

For Classic Commems in Mid-MS grades, I think PCGS and NGC are very close. Generally, I would say PCGS is about 0.2 or 0.3 points more conservative on most issues. On some issues in MS66 or better, NGC pumps out so many higher graded coins that I believe they are about 0.4 points more liberal than PCGS.

Sight unseen sheet prices for example:

Isabella MS66: PCGS $4000 & NGC $2420
California MS67: PCGS $2185 & NGC $1670
Gettysburg MS67: PCGS $1780 & NGC $1200
Hawaiian MS65: PCGS $4900 & NGC $3820
Sesqui MS65: PCGS $2400 & NGC $1800

Oddly, the sheet unseen prices for gold Classic Commems show the two grading services bringing the same prices in most all grades. I have not seen this to be true.

CIVITAS

<< <i>In my experience, and that of other collectors and dealers with whom I associate, and also speaking only of early type, specifically silver coins struck on a screw press, NGC generally grades looser than PCGS, and looser than our personal standards. This isn't to say they are always wrong, or always off by a certain percentage. ANA standards say that an AU coin (anywhere from 50-58) should have wear on the high points only. This means no rub, no luster breaks in the fields. Anyone who has looked at a large number of coins will tell you that there is a distressingly high number of NGC AU graded bust coinage with little or no apparent luster. I understand the concept of market grading, but when NGC says the market should be willing to pay AU money for a coin with little or no luster, that is foolish. This is a very narrow range on which to judge a company's product, but considering the popularity of AU type, it is an important one. I have no experience with modern coinage such as those coins that Mr. TDN seems to like, so I will defer to him on that subject. >>



My 5th edition ANA Grading Guide says 50% lustre required for AU-50 and 75% lustre for AU-55 on all bust series. I'm not saying that NGC may not be a bit more kind to bust coinage than PCGS, but a coin with wear in the fields is not out of the running for AU-50 (technically).

coinbuf

Allready some good reasons/points have been brought up but don't forget the registry issue.

Chris

slumlord98

<< <i>My 5th edition ANA Grading Guide says 50% lustre required for AU-50 and 75% lustre for AU-55 on all bust series. I'm not saying that NGC may not be a bit more kind to bust coinage than PCGS, but a coin with wear in the fields is not out of the running for AU-50 (technically). >>



You may have a newer edition. Mine said "wear on the high points only", and this is something I've come to understand and apply in grading coins. 50% luster is a more difficult concept for me and I'm not sure how to apply that standard. Perhaps this is where grade inflation took root.



<< <i>I have no experience with modern coinage such as those coins that Mr. TDN seems to like, so I will defer to him on that subject. >>



Please don't take offense at that! I'm not a modern basher!

rays

From my own personal experience of looking at hundreds of slabbed early copper at auction, NGC grades much more liberally than PCGS, on average. Each coin must, however, be judged on it's own merits.