Results of PCGS re-grades from 2 invoices - for informational purposes and to make a point.....

coinguy1

This post isn't about complaining or gloating over PCGS re-grade results. Darn, there goes most of the potential fun and any shot at a 100 reply thread.

However, it is being presented for informational purposes and to make a point about PCGS re-grade submissions.....

Below are the re-grade results for two invoices submitted by "Express special" re-grade:

Order #20056306
Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade
1 1 10424530 83761 1865 3CN US PR66CA
2 1 10424531 7007 1864 $1 US PR65
3 1 10424532 7017 1869 $1 US PR64
4 1 10424533 87315 1880 $1 US PR66CA
5 1 10424534 9158 1911-D $20 US MS66

The coin on line 2 above, the 1864 $1, up-graded from a PR64 to a PR65.

Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade
1 1 10424519 3680 1862 3CS US MS65
2 1 10424520 3776 1880 3CN US PR66
3 1 10424521 3781 1885 3CN US PR66
4 1 10424522 4854 1910 10C US MS64
5 1 10424523 85678 1892 25C US PR65CA
6 1 10424524 5683 1897 25C US PR66
7 1 10424525 5764 1927-S 25C US MS66
8 1 10424526 7044 1877 T$1 US MS64
9 1 10424527 9312 1935 50C Hudson US MS65
10 1 10424528 9341 1926-S 50C Oregon US MS67
11 1 10424529 7694 1836 $2.50 Script 8 US MS62

The coins on lines 2, 3 and 6 above each up-graded by a point.

In total, 4 of 16 coins up-graded. By the way, all 4 of them belonged to a client, for whom I resubmitted 12 coins. The other 4 were mine and none of them upgraded. Of the 4 coins which up-graded, 3 of them had been bought at prices that corresponded very closely to the next grade up, anyway.

I don't think I have posted results like this here previously, but/and am doing so in order to try to shed a bit of light on what I believe to be a widespread unfair/incorrect perception among many collectors AND dealers. That perception is that in order to have a fair shot at an upgrade, coins must be removed from their PCGS holders and submitted that way, rather than by re-grade in their holders.

Please note that I thought each of the above coins had a legitimate shot at or outright deserved an upgrade, so there were no gifts involved. And, while I can't claim to know what the results would have been had the coins been submitted out of their holders, for various reasons, I usually prefer not do things that way.

lava

I agree, I think crack-out mania is a mistake. If a coin has the look, it will cross or upgrade, regardless of its current holder. A helpful post Mark.

michael

your client is extrrmely lucky to have you mark

and in the holders a serat4ed dollar from proof 64 to 65 is fantastic and a really sweet coin especially so a no motto 1864

Barndog

do you think it matters who makes a submission? For example, if the submission was done directly by the client, might the results have been different? I don't know the inner workings at a TPG, but some people truly believe that the name on the submission form matters.

IrishMike

Modern Crap

291fifth

The fact that 4 out of 16 coins were upgraded (25%) doesn't say much for the grading service. If they had been doing their job correctly when the coins were initially graded the number upgraded would have been zero.

Are we looking at errors in the initial grading, a floating grading standard,or both?

An additional thought: Can you imagine a manufacturing parts supplier fulfilling 25% of their orders with sub-standard parts?

coinguy1

<< <i>do you think it matters who makes a submission? For example, if the submission was done directly by the client, might the results have been different? I don't know the inner workings at a TPG, but some people truly believe that the name on the submission form matters. >>

I don't think it mattered one bit who submitted the coins. Also, I have heard about and experienced, first-hand, examples of dealers not getting upgrades, selling the coins and then collectors getting the coins up-graded later.

<<Are we looking at errors in the initial grading, a floating grading standard,or both?

An additional thought: Can you imagine a manufacturing parts supplier fulfilling 25% of their orders with sub-standard parts?>>

I believe that "errors" is too stong of a word to use when grading is admittedly at least partly subjective in nature. Also, for the same reason, I don't think a comparison to "a manufacturing parts supplier" is realistic or fair.

IGWT

"An additional thought: Can you imagine a manufacturing parts supplier fulfilling 25% of their orders with sub-standard parts?"

"I believe that "errors" is too stong of a word to use when grading is admittedly at least partly subjective in nature. Also, for the same reason, I don't think a comparison to "a manufacturing parts supplier" is realistic or fair."

It's also unfair because the percentage doesn't reflect the vast number of coins that were not selected for resubmission.

291fifth

<< <i>

<< <i>do you think it matters who makes a submission? For example, if the submission was done directly by the client, might the results have been different? I don't know the inner workings at a TPG, but some people truly believe that the name on the submission form matters. >>

I don't think it mattered one bit who submitted the coins. Also, I have heard about and experienced, first-hand, examples of dealers not getting upgrades, selling the coins and then collectors getting the coins up-graded later.

<<Are we looking at errors in the initial grading, a floating grading standard,or both?

An additional thought: Can you imagine a manufacturing parts supplier fulfilling 25% of their orders with sub-standard parts?>>

I believe that "errors" is too stong of a word to use when grading is admittedly at least partly subjective in nature. Also, for the same reason, I don't think a comparison to "a manufacturing parts supplier" is realistic or fair. >>



It may be subjective, but significant money made or lost is involved. Shouldn't professional grading services be held to a higher standard than is presently the case?

DennisH

<< do you think it matters who makes a submission? For example, if the submission was done directly by the client, might the results have been different? I don't know the inner workings at a TPG, but some people truly believe that the name on the submission form matters. >>

I know it's fun to dream of conspiracies and hidden agendas, but that's not how it works here.

The name on the form matters not one iota, because the graders do not know who submitted any given coin. The coins come to them in plastic trays, in plastic flips that have stickers with the submission number on them. The submitter's name appears nowhere, and the graders' computers are locked out from being able to look up the submission number and see who sent it in.

I very truly believe that a regrade is a better approach than a crackout, because I don't risk damaging the coin when I crack it out, and the coin is guaranteed to not go down in grade.

sweetwilliet

An additional thought: Can you imagine a manufacturing parts supplier fulfilling 25% of their orders with sub-standard parts?"

"I believe that "errors" is too stong of a word to use when grading is admittedly at least partly subjective in nature. Also, for the same reason, I don't think a comparison to "a manufacturing parts supplier" is realistic or fair."

It's also unfair because the percentage doesn't reflect the vast number of coins that were not selected for resubmission

The population of coins selected for resubmission are going to be the high end for the grade in current holders, so a 25% error rate is not valid. One may have looked thru hundreds of coins in order to find the potential upgrades, and ONLY 25% upgraded out of this select population. I think that is pretty good, and they all went up only 1 point. Grading is subjective, to a point, but I think they do a good job, overall.

claychaser

It sure makes sense that coins sent for regrade would tend to be the best coins for the grade. Coupled with the assumption that a lot of regrades would be sent from knowlegeable people like Mark would tend to skew the upgrade percentage higher.

Im only wish that 25% of my owned coins would upgrade - it would be worth the money to send all of 'em in. But, that's just wishful thinking.

michael

I believe that "errors" is too strong of a word to use when grading is admittedly at least partly subjective in nature. Also, for the same reason, I don't think a comparison to "a manufacturing parts supplier" is realistic or fair.

rhedden

I have 28 Barber dimes in OGH currently submitted for re-grade in their original holders. So far, I got the 1895-O back, and it upgraded from 63 to 64. More to come when I get the others back. I would tend to think that they should be sent in the old holders, as PCGS guarantees they won't downgrade or bodybag.

MikeKing

<< <i>In total, 4 of 16 coins up-graded. By the way, all 4 of them belonged to a client, for whom I resubmitted 12 coins. The other 4 were mine and none of them upgraded. Of the 4 coins which up-graded, 3 of them had been bought at prices that corresponded very closely to the next grade up, anyway.. >>




Does this mean my chances of getting an upgrade are better if I submit a dozen coins rather than six?

claychaser

If you are going to the expense of the regrade, you might as well spend the extra $5 and get a nice photo as well. Plus, the new slab wil not have scratches on it - right, Mark?

coinguy1

Edit of duplicate post.

coinguy1

<<Plus, the new slab wil not have scratches on it - right, Mark? >>

Well, not until I get my hands on them, at least.

kcnovice

Good informative post Mark, would you give a specific example or two as to why you thought
a specific coin would upgrade, ie what were some common traits it any?

edit: were the reasons for submitting more technical or based on eye appeal??

bidask

I had an experience recently where I bought a raw coin from a coin dealer for $3,500. I will not mention the coin or dealer. The dealer was kind enough to take the coin back , if , after being submitted to a TGP, it came back bodybagged. There was no issue as to a 'grade', only that it be slabbed. I submitted the coin to NGC and it came back 'improperly cleaned. When I took the coin to the ANA to be returned to the dealer, he asked me if he could have the coin for 24 hours. I said sure. I came back the next day and the coin was slabbed AU 50 and had been personally graded and/or taken care of by the head of NGC!!

coinguy1

<<Does this mean my chances of getting an upgrade are better if I submit a dozen coins rather than six?>>

Not necessarily

<<Good informative post Mark, would you give a specific example or two as to why you thought
a specific coin would upgrade, ie what were some common traits it any?

edit: were the reasons for submitting more technical or based on eye appeal??>>

The coins were quite attractive. Thus, my answer would be that the reasons for re-submitting them were due to differences of opinion regarding their technical qualities.

Bidask, your story is disturbing, though I have no way of knowing if the dealer relayed completely factual information to you

<<The population of coins selected for resubmission are going to be the high end for the grade in current holders, so a 25% error rate is not valid. One may have looked thru hundreds of coins in order to find the potential upgrades..>>

The re-submissions will be "high end" only IF screened well or luckily.

bidask

Bidask, your story is disturbing, though I have no way of knowing if the dealer relayed completely factual information to you



I am relaying what the dealer relayed to me. At first I was a bit disturbed about the legitmacy of the whole thing but I have opted to believe that there was hopefully a true difference of opinion among those at NGC who originally and subsequently examined the coin and upon "resubmission" it got slabbed.

mcmxi

If this whole grading process is done wihtout the grader knowing anything except what he has in his hands. How can they guarantee no downgrade. If the current school of thought of grading(looser now than before) were reversed (tighter now than before) it seem like there would be a lot of dogs running around in the newer more tightly graded plastic. I guess I'm just confused.

coinlieutenant

Lets see how I can turn this into a negative thread....hmmm....OHH...I got it!!!

None of Mark's coins upgraded...therefore, Mark sells crappy maxed out coins....therefore, dont buy from Mark.


I knew I could do it. Mark, take your overgraded crap and go elsewhere. Quit preying on these good collectors.

coinguy1

<< <i>Lets see how I can turn this into a negative thread....hmmm....OHH...I got it!!!

None of Mark's coins upgraded...therefore, Mark sells crappy maxed out coins....therefore, dont buy from Mark.


I knew I could do it. Mark, take your overgraded crap and go elsewhere. Quit preying on these good collectors.

>>

John, that was a fair attempt. So, I hate to burst your bubble (not really), but the 4 coins of my client's that upgraded came from me.

<<I am relaying what the dealer relayed to me>>

Bidask, I didn't doubt that for a second. I just don't know if what HE relayed to you was 100% accurate.

coinlieutenant

Sure you did Mark...that is what all slimy dealers say.

I want scanned invoices of the original sales put into pdf files for the whole forum to see.
Anything short of that is just like you siding with the coin doctors!

DennisH

"If this whole grading process is done wihtout the grader knowing anything except what he has in his hands. How can they guarantee no downgrade."


Before the coins are put into new holders, the old grades are compared to the new grades and the highest one wins.

Bear

I would be happy for 4 for 16 , any day of the week.

Cladiator

So when will the ones that didn't upgrade be sent back in? How long until they have all been through the system enough times to get a bump?

coinguy1

<< <i>Did the upgrades off set the submission cost? 16 X 100= $1600. >>

Craig, the fees were express/$50 each for a total of $800. The Proof Seated Dollar that up-graded to PR65 easily took care of that, though my client has no current plans to sell it. However, the other three up-grades, combined, would not have made up for the $800 in fees.

<<So when will the ones that didn't upgrade be sent back in? >>

That's up to my client with respect to his coins. Mine will be sold or go into an auction as is, where I will hope they bring PQ $. I rarely re-submit coins more than once and in fact, I don't even submit a lot of coins.

Yale68

When coins are submitted for regrades, they ARE cracked out before being given to the graders. The graders do not know that they are regrades. So it follows that the results would be virtually the same as crackouts (with the exception that crackouts can go down, but regrades can't). Anyone who argues that crackout results are better must not be aware of this process. You may be confusing this issue with the crossover vs. crackout debate, wherein most (including myself) claim crackout results are better.

bidask

<<I am relaying what the dealer relayed to me>>

Bidask, I didn't doubt that for a second. I just don't know if what HE relayed to you was 100% accurate. >>

Meaning ???????

coinguy1

<< <i><<I am relaying what the dealer relayed to me>>

Bidask, I didn't doubt that for a second. I just don't know if what HE relayed to you was 100% accurate. >>

Meaning ??????? >>



<<When I took the coin to the ANA to be returned to the dealer, he asked me if he could have the coin for 24 hours. I said sure. I came back the next day and the coin was slabbed AU 50 and had been personally graded and/or taken care of by the head of NGC!!>>

I might have originally misconstrued the above quote, thinking the dealer had implied or stated that he had spoken with a grader at NGC about the coin. In the event that I did, I extend my apologies to you and to NGC.