Does Stack's grade conservatively, does NGC grade liberally, or is this typical--see Norweb grading

Longacre

I took a closer look at Stack's Norweb catalog last night. The catalogs usually come with some papers stuffed inside, like bid sheets, etc., which I normally don't really look at. For some reason, I flipped through these loose papers and I noticed one entitled, "Supplemental Grades for the Archangel Collection--Since the Archangel Collection was cataloged, the following pieces were graded by NGC". Honestly, when I saw this I felt a little dirty (sort of like getting the answers to the test before it is given), because here, right in front of me, was proof to see how a firm grades its raw coins versus how a TPG sees the same coins. So I drew the blinds tight, doused the lights except for one reading lamp, and I compared the raw grades in the catalog to the NGC grades. Needless to say, I was shocked at the results. In almost every instance, NGC graded the coins HIGHER than Stack's did. I always assumed that raw coins were rather liberally graded by the auction firms, but it does not seem to be the case here. Here is a sampling of the information. The first column has the Lot Number, the second column has the Stack's raw grade, and the third colum has the NGC grade. What do you think?

1059 AU55 MS61
1060 MS60 MS61
1061 EF45 AU58
1062 MS63 MS61
1063 AU50 AU58
1064 MS60 MS61
1065 MS63 MS61
1066 AU53 AU58
1067 AU58 AU58
1069 AU55 MS61
1070 AU58 MS61
1073 EF45 AU58

ColonialCoinUnion

I think its not surprising at all.

MacCrimmon

IMO, If you are really shocked then you haven't seen very many NGC graded coins.

Heywood

I think from 55-62 can be the hardest to differentiate.

Although 55 vs 62 seems large these can be only 1 point variations.

the Ef45 to AU 58 are surprising.

I haven't seen the coins, but could these be Technical grade vs Market grade?

ABC123

Correct !

tradedollarnut

Yeah, but those 63's dropping to 61's are killers!

RYK

I have been told that some of those great raw collections of the past (ie. Eliasberg US Gold) were intentionally undergraded (and therefore estimated low), in part to impress the consignors and the collecting community, at large. It's the old "underpromise and overdeliver" mantra.

CoinRaritiesOnline

<< <i>I have been told that some of those great raw collections of the past (ie. Eliasberg US Gold) were intentionally undergraded (and therefore estimated low), in part to impress the consignors and the collecting community, at large. It's the old "underpromise and overdeliver" mantra. >>



Bingo!



I've seen the Archangel coins. Actually, I thought that NGC was very fair on many of them (by market grading standards). The consignor got very few "gifts" and there are a few that might go up when submitted to PCGS or when resubmitted to NGC.

And yes -- there were a few that were overgraded too.

Tonedbuff

Seems like good basic marketing to me, nothing more. By showing tighter grades, AND the NGC grades, Stacks preserves their position as conservative and client friendly. In reality, the coins are going to sell for what they are going to sell for based on images AND the professionally assigned grades. The market will value these at or close to the NGC grades most likely, but most certainly the quality buyers will ignore both grades and make their own call and value accordingly. Stacks gains trust and respect, and loses nothing.
Brilliant marketing.

Shamika

<< <i> I have been told that some of those great raw collections of the past (ie. Eliasberg US Gold) were intentionally undergraded (and therefore estimated low), in part to impress the consignors and the collecting community, at large. It's the old "underpromise and overdeliver" mantra. >>


Absolutely the case. There have been serveral raw Buffalo's that I've seen them offering in the past that were way undergraded in my opinion. I'm sure they'd rather be conservative than gain a poor reputation.

Barry

I wouldn't trust Stacks' grades either.

mozin

Stack's will sure look good getting so much money for the grades they suggest.

au58

This is not really about Stack's vs. NGC.
Considering that all of these coins are private or territorial gold issues, differences in grading opinions are the norm and should be expected.
That said, most of these coins have auction pedigrees and I would guess that the Stack's grades are more consistent with the past auction catalogers.
NGC grades are present day market grades.

roadrunner

I've monitored Stacks' grading since 1976 and NGC since 1987.
Stacks is certainly not incredibly consistent with the use of the words UNC, choice, or gem to describe higher end coins. You have to see them to grade them simple as that. The only thing I've found to be consistent is when they call something a "pristine" or "no questions" gem. In most cases that is exactly what you get.

Stacks is also duty bound to grade the coin the same as when they sold it to a consignor in many cases. If the coin was graded gem in 1980, they'll often stick by that today. There will be undergrades consistently throughout one of their catalogs. I like to think those are easter eggs for dealers and top collectors to reward them for coming to the sale. The mail bidder is usually not a factor on a choice UNC coin that is really MS66 for example. It's just sort of neat to see something with essentially no writeup and no photo called BU or nearly gem when the coin is no questions superb.

I don't quite trust Stacks or NGC's grading. You have to be there.

roadrunner

MrEureka

How did NGC grade lot 1097?

MrEureka

anyone???

Aegis3

The online catalog shows the new slab grades, but from memory if it's the lot you're thinking of, I don't think that one got slabbed.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

it surprises me that coins graded au58 by NGC were called an XF45 by stacks

dorkkarl

since grading is totally, completely a statement of OPINION, it's hardly shocking that opinions can & should differ.

K S

Trime

Not too surprising.
As stated , the differences in grading of AU 55-58 to 61-62 is very tenuous.
Were these just selected lots on the sheet or all lots regraded?
BTW: I urge you not to use this as an indication that you can bid on raw coins in any auction without viewing them ( or having them viewed by an independent and reliable agent). Been there , done that, painful and expensive

Longacre

<< <i>How did NGC grade lot 1097? >>



The addendum did not list a NGC grade. I know that you knew this, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the point you are making.

MrEureka

The addendum did not list a NGC grade. I know that you knew this, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the point you are making.

Actually, I didn't know that, but I did suspect it. As posted in the Clark Gruber thread, the coin is somewhat controversial. Makes me wonder if NGC saw the coin and, if they did, what they thought of it.