Options
NGC vs. ICG, a NEWBIE's journey (Long and lotsa pics)
coinpictures
Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭
Earlier this year I sent a rather large batch of coins into NGC, and was less than impressed with the number of bodybags I got back. After showing coins to multiple people locally, it seemed readily apparent that NGC was being unduly harsh on a number of pieces. So as an experiment I decided to send the very pieces that NGC bodybagged into ICG, along with some other coins I had, to see if ICG agreed with NGC's bodybagging recommendation.
Some general comparisons between the two companies:
Now to the coins. I'm only showing the ICG pieces I just got back, since I've showcased the NGC pieces in earlier posts. I've reimaged all of them in their ICG slabs.
These aren't uber-high-dollar or high-grade coins like a lot of folks post about; more of a "working man's slab" collection.
Some general comparisons between the two companies:
- Customer service. In general the service was cordial and polite from both companies, although when I had spoken with a grader at NGC at one point, he was terse and unhelpful. He's not in customer service for a reason.
- Cost. NGC is actually cheaper than ICG if you go with the cheapest tier, especially if you are a member of the Collector's Society. NGC gives you 5 free gradings with the annual $100 membership fee. If you buy ICG's submission kit, you get a coupon for 5 free submissions with 5 paid. Only problem is that it is at the standard tier, not the cheapest tier.
- Turnaround time. ICG makes a big deal about their ultrafast guaranteed turnaround times. One problem.... does not apply to world coins. I was expecting to get my coins back in about 2 weeks, but when I called in I was told the guarantee did not apply to world coins. I hunted all over ICG's web site, and finally found the disclaimer on the bottom of a PDF, in about 5-point type. Nice. Turnaround from NGC, even on the cheapest tier, was much better than I was anticipating. I had my coins back in a couple of weeks.
- Online functionality. No contest. NGC allows you to place orders online, check status of orders, and get grade results online. Then there's the world coin population reports, which are quite helpful. ICG has nothing online. Period. When I ordered my ICG submission kit I had to order it by phone, and it took them almost 3 weeks to ship it out to me. Unimpressive.
- Slabbing. The NGC slab is considerably heavier than any other slab on the market. Definitely robust. You can do one-arm curls with a box of them. The ICG slab is smaller in footprint and much lighter; quite sturdy though. The NGC slab is white and very reflective, whereas the ICG is translucent clear plastic. From a photography standpoint I MUCH prefer the ICG slab. The translucent grey-clear plastic is much more neutral to the white balance of the camera, and the walls of the hole do not cast as heavy of a shadow onto smaller coins as with the NGC slabs. Also, NGC quality control on coin insertion in the slab is shoddy. Quite a few of mine were either rotated, wrong face forward, or were angled down into the slab (coin surface not parallel with the slab face), whereas all of the ICG-graded coins were well positioned.
- Consistency of Grading. I've read knocks against ICG for overgrading. Perhaps this is true in higher grades (MS 64+), but it is NOT the case on circulated/slider grades. In fact, I think their grading is very conservative when it comes to AU vs MS and EF vs. AU. On circulated grades, you might actually do better with NGC. A pet peeve with NGC: they seem to LOVE the numerical grade MS64. Perhaps they are loathe to give out 65s, or perhaps more UNC coins show up in 64 than in other levels of MS, but of all the NGC slabs I own, both purchased and submitted, I have far more 64s than even 63s or 62s. Perhaps more people submit coins with the hope of getting a 65 that ultimately fall short (in the same way you see more AU58s than MS60s and 61s).
- Who to submit to? You'll see from the results below, but in summary: If you have no-problem coins, I would send them to NGC. If you're worried that NGC might bodybag them, I would send to ICG. This is NOT a knock against ICG. I honestly think that NGC is being TOO conservative when it comes to kicking out coins. If you have a copper coin that is RB and want it designated as such, you have a MUCH better chance of getting an RB anywhere else but NGC. As of late at NGC, coins need to be 90% red or better to even get an RB designation, let alone RD. I shake my head at some of the BN labeled NGC coins I see. Also, NGC, for some reason does NOT like the lustrous red-purple color on copper. That's an auto-BN, no matter how bright it is. Note: I'm intentionally ignoring which slab will get better returns when it comes time for resale. I get coins slabbed primarily for (1) verification of authenticity, and (2) long-term protection of the coin.
Now to the coins. I'm only showing the ICG pieces I just got back, since I've showcased the NGC pieces in earlier posts. I've reimaged all of them in their ICG slabs.
These aren't uber-high-dollar or high-grade coins like a lot of folks post about; more of a "working man's slab" collection.
- Serbia Dinar, 1915. ICG EF45. OUCH! I had hoped at for an AU out of the deal.
Coin is extremely lustrous and the wear on the hair is accentuated in the photo, not as bad in hand. Krause does not have pricing for this particular variety, just dashes (KM 25.3). Given what I read in the Serbian listings though, I don't know if that's because the coin is rare, or that Krause simply doesn't have enough information to put in pricing. I assume other folks reading have an example of this type: does your example have coin (top to bottom) or medal (top to top) alignment?
- North Borneo 1/2 Cent, 1891 H. ICG AU55. Disappointing. I can't find the wear on this coin...
- Nova Scotia 1 Cent, 1864. ICG AU58. Again, where is the wear? NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned."
- Great Britain Bank Token Dollar, 1804. ICG VF35. I think they were accurate on this one. Slab sucks though. Their slab is too small to house the coin with a circular insert, so instead they cut out 4 pieces of insert material to place in the 4 corners, "wedging in" the coin. Unfortunately, given the weight of the coin it's not tight enough, so I have a "rattler". Bleagh.
- Denmark 5 Ore, 1874. ICG AU58. Please show me where the wear is. I can't find it. NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Corrosion."
- Great Britain Sixpence, 1839. ICG AU53. I agree with this one. I had bought it as an XF, but hoped for AU...
- Great Britain Farthing, 1754. ICG AU53. No complaints. Again, purchased as XF, but thought it might do better. NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned."
- Holland 1/4 Gulden, 1759. ICG AU58. I think ICG was a little optimistic on this one. I purchased it as an XF, but hoped for an AU. NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned."
- Great Britain Florin, 1849. ICG AU50. Purchased from a board member as a VF. I was pretty sure it was more of an EF. ICG liked it even more...
- Mexico 1 Centavo, 1905 Mo. ICG MS64 RB. Happy with this one. Had it gone to NGC, it would have gotten BN instead of RB.
- Salzburg 1/2 Thaler, 1695. ICG AU50. What I expected/hoped for. NGC had bodybagged this coin as "tooled." I had shown this to a bunch of people locally, and nobody had any problems with the coin, and thought it was completely original. Josh at CIVITAS was the first to suggest that it might be tooled, based on my initial pictures. Given that these coins are struck over previous issues, and are *extremely* prone to flan cracks and breaks, what is the giveway as to being tooled? Even when I pointed out the specific area (in between the 2 sceptres on obverse) to some of my dealer and collector friends, they couldn't find anything wrong even under magnification...
- Germany 1 Mark, 1968 F. ICG MS65. I thought this one had potential! It was part of one of those cardboard "modern type set" touristy sets that I picked up for $4 at a local dealer.
0
Comments
This is a keeper post.
-Jeff
Nice post cp.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
Thanks for the assessment on TPGs. I've never held an ICG slab, much less gained a familiarity with their judgment calls, so it's appreciated
My wantlist & references
<< <i>Nova Scotia 1 Cent, 1864. ICG AU58. Again, where is the wear? NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned."
>>
I don't see any wear on this one. And I like the die crack. The color looks a bit orange to me suggesting it may have been dipped + recolored long ago. Are those hairlines or die polish lines on HRH upper chest + shoulder? How's the lustre?
edit to add: would love to see this one in hand
Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors
Collector of:
Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
My Ebay
<< <i>Just my opinion on two of the "where is the wear"ones: the North Borneo gets its grade mainly from some minor nicks and flaws on the reverse, and perhaps a netgrade for questionable colour. The colour of the Nova Scotia cent looks a bit suspicious too, it could have been cleaned sometime in the past, I've had a similar BB on a Greek coin, so again a netgrade probably. >>
Hmmm.... I hadn't thought about downgrading/netgrading/penalizing for flaws. I was thinking strictly in terms of actual physical wear (which is what the grade in theory should be based on), but your notion makes sense.
I'm not sure I like that approach though. Shouldn't the coin be getting a technical grade based strictly on wear, and then it's up to the buyer and seller to raise/lower accordingly based on aesthetics, distractions, etc.? I mean, a coin is UNC or it isn't, right? Is saying "Well, the coin technically is an MS60, but we don't like the color, so we're net grading to AU58" within the purview of technical grading? That's inserting subjective aesthetic opinion into what is supposed to be a technical process (yes I realize that the entire grading process is subjective, but the whole point of TPGs is supposedly to remove the "subjective" from the equation).
Just thinkin' here...
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>
<< <i>Just my opinion on two of the "where is the wear"ones: the North Borneo gets its grade mainly from some minor nicks and flaws on the reverse, and perhaps a netgrade for questionable colour. The colour of the Nova Scotia cent looks a bit suspicious too, it could have been cleaned sometime in the past, I've had a similar BB on a Greek coin, so again a netgrade probably. >>
Hmmm.... I hadn't thought about downgrading/netgrading/penalizing for flaws. I was thinking strictly in terms of actual physical wear (which is what the grade in theory should be based on), but your notion makes sense.
I'm not sure I like that approach though. Shouldn't the coin be getting a technical grade based strictly on wear, and then it's up to the buyer and seller to raise/lower accordingly based on aesthetics, distractions, etc.? I mean, a coin is UNC or it isn't, right? Is saying "Well, the coin technically is an MS60, but we don't like the color, so we're net grading to AU58" within the purview of technical grading? That's inserting subjective aesthetic opinion into what is supposed to be a technical process (yes I realize that the entire grading process is subjective, but the whole point of TPGs is supposedly to remove the "subjective" from the equation).
Just thinkin' here...
For starters, NGC ( & PCGS ) will not certify a coin with which they have a question about; rightly or wrongly.
NGC/PCGS do not grade technically, they 'market grade'. In a nutshell, if they deem the coin OK at a certain "technical" point, they will add for additional lustre/strike/eye appeal, or subtract for minor flaws.
Remember, all grading, as well as the netting out of flaws or "stars" is subjective. That was the initial aim of the TPGs to begin with; assigning a fair grade in order to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible, especially between two parties of vastly differing experience (i.e., attempting to negate an unscrupulous dealer from selling a newbie collector a blatantly whizzed coin as a gem unc. coin, a just miss "slider" as a gem, etc.).
Without the coins in hand, I'll still try to guess NGCs mind as to the bodybags.
1. too many surface hairlines which are incongruent with the expected wear of EF40; i.e., lightly cleaned.
2. looks to have several green specs of verdigris or PVC present in some of the lettering; the colour "floats" on the surfaces. It just doesn't look right.
3. good image which does appear to show some cleaning type hairlines on Vics nape and neck; otherwise, it has the "pumpkin" colour which is automatic BB at the big two
4. a good bit of wear which technically would drop it into the 30-35 range. Maybe they deemed it to have an unnatural surface due to an old cleaning.
5. corrosion? I can see some spots. Does it also have some micro-pitting on the surfaces. A bronze with that general colour pattern is usually AU58 at best. One can't line this out as really unc. by just the image.
6. VF40, maybe 45 depending on the actual lustre, or the other way if the hairlines, etc. are too obtrusive. I'm guessing a BB because it has hairlines in excess of what one would expect for a small coin with "40" wear.
7.
<< <i>NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned." >>
8.
<< <i>NGC had bodybagged this coin as "Cleaned." >>
Looks to be legit as to toning; definitely AU range for wear. I dunno. I don't see hairlines which would qualify as a BB. Probably an infamous "chili cheese burrito" day.......you know, the graders just couldn't sit still during the afternoon.
9. BB for cleaning. The fields on either side of Vic look to be unnatural in appearance compared to the legends.
10. I don't see why you think NGC would have went BN instead of RB. Only distraction are the reverse flyspecks and that is what would cause the downgrade from 65 on this coin. Nice coin nevertheless.
11. Tooled? Yeah, the legends on the "Popes" side looks suspicious. Have to see it in hand to determine. I find it odd that the interior fields are clean and the periphery is darkly toned.
12. Looks good. I'm assuming you didn't send this to NGC.
<< <i>A pet peeve with NGC: they seem to LOVE the numerical grade MS64. Perhaps they are loathe to give out 65s, or perhaps more UNC coins show up in 64 than in other levels of MS, but of all the NGC slabs I own, both purchased and submitted, I have far more 64s than even 63s or 62s. Perhaps more people submit coins with the hope of getting a 65 that ultimately fall short (in the same way you see more AU58s than MS60s and 61s). >>
On this note, NGC, IMHO and 25 years experience with grading, slabs many coins as MS63/62 which are, in fact, only AU58 at best. If you come across an MS61 ii is almost a certainty that the coin is some flavor of AU, technically speaking.
Thanks for the opinions on the coins.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
Great Post, I am surprised the Florin went AU-50, either I am too conservative, or picky..... Yep I recognize it....
<< <i>
Great Post, I am surprised the Florin went AU-50, either I am too conservative, or picky..... Yep I recognize it....
Nah, I think ICG overgraded that one a bit. I was expecting, and would have been happy with, EF40. Got any more?
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>
<< <i>
Great Post, I am surprised the Florin went AU-50, either I am too conservative, or picky..... Yep I recognize it....
Nah, I think ICG overgraded that one a bit. I was expecting, and would have been happy with, EF40. Got any more?
Not unless I liquidate my GB Collection.....
I think you got some net grades as ICG is known for doing this to problem coins. One of the things that slows ICG down is that they send some foreign coins to Allen Berman for authentication. Just my two cents