There is a good chance the mark was in the metal before the coin was struck. At this point this would be mostly a guess, as the photo just doesn't show enough detail. If the mark was in the metal before striking, the could would be as struck.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
metal flaws would not have raised metal the way a contact mark does. Sorry I cannot take a better picture, but this is a contact mark with raised metal on the right edge.
It is hard to say with an out of focus image with the mark highlighted by light reflection. We need to see the mark in focus without the light bouncing off of it to make it look worse than it could be.
ronday. you says it is a scar and then states it is raised. I don't think it can be both ways. I have an odd feeling it could be a die crack, and without a good image we are guessing just as if the coin not imaged at all.
I am adding an image with a line to show how large 3/16" is. I would say the mark is no larger than 1/16 based on the images in the thread. I don't see anything on the coin that would make me believe they have graded the coin incorrectly (by their standards--not PCGS standards). Now, I don't think PCGS would have graded it that high, but that is why PCGS coins sell for higher prices.
Here is another example of price difference. NGC's set of five 2004 state quarters sell for $199.00, and one PCGS 2004 state quarter in the same grade sells for over what the entire set of five NGC. If things were equal each coin would sell for the same price. Here are a couple links I picked a middle range NGC set and the least expensive PCGS Coin (both from Buy it now options). If you do your own search you will get similar results.
Second: the definition of MS69 is that no marks be visible without the aid of a loup and relative to the size of the coin this is a large mark.
Third, please show me a diecrack or a planchet flaw that reflects light like a mirror!
It does not take someone with a degree in physics to know that when the sharp edge of a metal object meets the flat edge of another metal object of the same or lesser hardness it will leave an gouge where it is deeper in the middle where the metal contacted metal, and slightly higher on the edge of the contact area where the metal hit metal.
As for a planchet flaw. It is unlikely that the inside of a planchet flaw would have a mirrorlike surface that would make it difficult to photograph when light hits it.
As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum.
First. You said 3/16. I guess I took you at your word.
Second. Here is PCGS grading standards (for some reason I can't find NGC standards, but I believe looser than PCGS. see my comment in the earlier thread about the proof state quarters)
Note the second from the last line MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary Who's definition of minuscule? And it sure looks like a full strike to me. Check that nose.
PCGS Grading Standard Grade Description PO-1 Identifiable date and type FR-2 Mostly worn, though some detail is visible AG-3 Worn rims but most lettering is readable though worn G-4 Slightly worn rims, flat detail, peripheral lettering nearly full G-6 Rims complete with flat detail, peripheral lettering full VG-8 Design worn with slight detail VG-10 Design worn with slight detail, slightly clearer F-12 Some deeply recessed areas with detail, all lettering sharp F-15 Slightly more detail in the recessed areas, all lettering sharp VF-20 Some definition of detail, all lettering full and sharp VF-25 Slightly more definition in the detail and lettering VF-30 Almost complete detail with flat areas VF-35 Detail is complete but worn with high points flat EF-40 Detail is complete with most high points slightly flat EF-45 Detail is complete with some high points flat AU-50 Full detail with friction over most of the surface, slight flatness on high points AU-53 Full detail with friction over 1/2 or more of surface, very slight flatness on high points AU-55 Full detail with friction on less than 1/2 surface, mainly on high points AU-58 Full detail with only slight friction on the high points MS/PR-60 No wear. May have many heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full MS/PR-61 No wear. Multiple heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full MS/PR-62 No wear. Slightly less marks/hairlines, strike may not be full MS/PR-63 Moderate number/size marks/hairlines, strike may not be full MS/PR-64 Few marks/hairlines or a couple of severe ones, strike should be average or above MS/PR-65 Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike MS/PR-66 Few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, good strike MS/PR-67 Virtually as struck with minor imperfections, very well struck MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike
Third. This isn't as reflective as yours, but light reflects off of cracks, and other minuscule imperfections, too.
And, lastly, if I had a high grade SMS quarters I would submit to PCGS. If you get the 69SF in a PCGS holder the coin would sell for much more money. Which is what this is all about anyway.
The bottom line is you made a mistake, you spent too much money for a modern coin that you didn't look at, and NCG says it meets their standards, but you don't think it meets their standards, and too much time lapsed, so you can't return it.
Buy the coin not the holder.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>First. You said 3/16. I guess I took you at your word. >>
Apparently my word is better than my Eyeball measuring skills. I do not consider this an issue since I intended (and in fact did) post a photo of the coin.
<< <i> Second. Here is PCGS grading standards (for some reason I can't find NGC standards, but I believe looser than PCGS. see my comment in the earlier thread about the proof state quarters) Note the second from the last line MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary Who's definition of minuscule? And it sure looks like a full strike to me. Check that nose. PCGS Grading Standard Grade Description MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike >>
You see the picture, you think that hit mark is "minuscule"? If so we can end this here and now.
<< <i> Third. This isn't as reflective as yours, but light reflects off of cracks, and other minuscule imperfections, too. >>
The difference between a planchet flaw, a die crack and a hit mark is no big mystery when you have a coin in hand. That said, I took the best picture I could without a tripod.
<< <i> And, lastly, if I had a high grade SMS quarters I would submit to PCGS. If you get the 69SF in a PCGS holder the coin would sell for much more money. Which is what this is all about anyway. >>
Duh, aren't you the guy that said buy the coin and not the holder? As for me, this is a hobby not a business. If I wanted to make money I would go into real estate not coins. By the way, what is your explaination for the HUGE descrepancy in the % of MS69 SH quarters?
<< <i> The bottom line is you made a mistake, you spent too much money for a modern coin that you didn't look at, and NCG says it meets their standards, but you don't think it meets their standards, and too much time lapsed, so you can't return it. >>
Mmmmm. My mistake was thinking that the "G" in NGC meant Guarantee. I find it odd that you think I should be admonished for that faux Paux.
I would suggest, since you feel so strongly the coin is overgraded, that you take it to a dealer you deal with on a regular basis who submits to NGC. This dealer can assist you in the process of getting the coin reviewed again. Certainly if they feel as strongly as you then you will have an advocate with a little more pull.
<< <i>Poke all the fun you want at Modern collectors today. But your children and grand children will be buying these modern's from my children and grand children. And my babies will be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think your babies will be laughing on their way to the bank because they got nothing more than the orig purchase price on those longly held items. It would be incredible to me if more than 10% of today's moderns (or possibly 99%) are worth much more than issue price (+ inflation adjustments) 20-50 years down the road. This is no different than those who bought mint products in the 1955-1980 as well. What we all tend to forget is that the % of stuff put away 30 to 150 years ago is miniscule compared to the hoarding that takes place today.
If someone was putting away Albany commens during issue and paying $2 a coin for example (worth $300 today), they'd have done ok in the ensuing 70 years. But where did they stand in 1956 or 1966 when your babies would be selling them? Maybe they added in some 1950-d nickel rolls and 1964 proof sets as well. The Albany has an orig issue of 17,000 pcs. Probably at least half remain. But today's mintage figures are more to the tune of 100,000's or more pieces.
Laughing all the way to the bank is something 90% of us dream about, and only 10% or less experience. All "investments" work the same way.
roadrunner >>
While I tend to agree with this as it regards rolls or mint/proof sets. I do not think it is true for the coins that I and my fellow registry collectors are putting aside. I have several coins whose condition puts there population in the single and double digits after thousands have been graded. These are the coins that I and my fellow preservationist seek out and collect. These are the coins we expect our children to be laughing to the bank with. As for the rest of them? They don't have the benefit of precious metal content, and the proofs that are silver are sold for WAY over face. The lone exception to this is the bullion coin. These may very well be the sleeper in the mix.
Pops and mintage numbers alone do not support rapid growth in value. Without demand rarity means nothing. With demand rarity becomes relative to demand.
I sent coins to NGC one time for grades. When I got the grade results in, the first thought that ran through my head was, "Man, if I'd have wanted to get screwed like that, I would have used another grading service." It was the only time I sent coins to them. Ironicly, the coins I find on the market are no where near what my coins came back as.
<< <i>I bought it off ebay, never really examined it that closely until it was WAY too late to return.
Most Ebay sellers do not offer returns on NGC and PCGS graded coins. Why should they? the grading companies "supposedly" guarantee the grade! On UltraModern MS69's you should not see that big of a difference from one coin to the next. I have been looking now though! >>
....i respectfuly disagree ; most ebay sellers of slabs DO offer some sort of return . The lowlife slimballs that do not are inbred mutants that don`t know any better
<< <i>As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum. >>
You could cross-over all the PCGS MS69 Satin Finish coins to lose money by putting them in NGC holders??? Last time I checked, not many people try to put a PCGS coin in an NGC holder because it's a losing proposition. The PCGS Pop report has so many high grade coins because that's what most collectors want. If collectors really wanted the NGC version, they'd get made. The reason there are less NGC MS69's for 2006 is nobody has tried that hard, if at all, to make NGC Satin Finish coins. So the real # is that about 50x as many mint sets have been searched for the PCGS 2006 SF Pop Report as have been searched for the NGC SF Pop Report.
<< <i>As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum. >>
You could cross-over all the PCGS MS69 Satin Finish coins to lose money by putting them in NGC holders??? Last time I checked, not many people try to put a PCGS coin in an NGC holder because it's a losing proposition. The PCGS Pop report has so many high grade coins because that's what most collectors want. If collectors really wanted the NGC version, they'd get made. The reason there are less NGC MS69's for 2006 is nobody has tried that hard, if at all, to make NGC Satin Finish coins. So the real # is that about 50x as many mint sets have been searched for the PCGS 2006 SF Pop Report as have been searched for the NGC SF Pop Report. >>
That is an interesting theory, but I submit coins to both grading services with comparable results for similar coins. To test your theory I may break out a few SMS coins and have some associates of mine submitt them and compare the results.
Still, it costs about the same to submit coins to either company and people submitting coins in bulk need to make a profit?
So... If a much smaller percentage of NGC coins are getting MS69 grades ( a statistical fact ) and NGC coins get sold for less money than PCGS coins... how do people make money selling NGC coins?
Too many people place way too much stock on numbers on labels. What they NEED to do is know how to use their eyes and buy coins that ARE graded correctly and pleasing to the eye, regardless of what the number is or whose plastic it is on.
I do not disagree with the fact that with a dig, hit, scratch like this that there is NO WAY this coin is a 69 particularly since I've personally had coins bagged with what amounted to superficial marks similar to lines drawn in pencil on top the luster and certainly NOT digs, real scratches or die imperfections!
Sorry, I don't care who graded it, this piece is NO MS 69. PERIOD!
At the same time I sent in the NGC coin I also sent in a PCGS coin. NGC returned the coin within DAYS with no guarantee. PCGS took almost 15 weeks,
BUT stood by the guarantee. In my opinion, the coin sent to PCGS was a much closer call than the one sent to PCGS, so... I will be sending more coins to PCGS and fewer coins to NGC.
In the future the only coins I will be sending to NGC will be Modern Errors and Foreign (cost and speed) and I really don't care about the grade that much. The rest will be going here.
You might be wise to keep good tabs on both services instead of commiting to just one service. Things do change. PCGS does have the upper hand right at this time.
I just spent the last hour or so reading this thread. My eyes hurt and I have a headache! After reading all this I have to put my 10 cents in.
First - I agree with Fairlaneman and Fcloud - buy the coin not the holder. When you get the coin....duh...look at it! If you like the coin keep it, if not return it. Don't wait too long for a return and then complain!
Second - Don't attack NGC on the PCGS boards.....because WHO cares. I have seen and I am sure all others who look at a lot of coins this fact. There are four (for me) grading companies to consider. PCGS, ANACS, NGC and ICG. I listed them in the order that I think are best. Now I have seen great coins in all of these holders and I have seen crap in all of these holders. The per cent of good to bad goes down as you go down the list. PCGS is considered the best because they are the best. That is backed up by the prices they bring compared to the same coin in the other holders. Buy what you like.....don't count on the number on the slab. And don't buy for numbers buy for eye appeal.
Now in responce to the talk in this thread about top pop, modern and rare. There is NO such thing as a rare modern coin....period!
Take the 2003 cent in 70. It's very expensive because there is only one. But you can drop down to 69 and there are hundreds (graded) there are probably hundreds of thousands out there but who needs them. You can drop down to 68 and get one for next to nothing. Bottom line is 2003-P cents are not rare!
Rare is a coin that there is only a handfull in all grades combined with the highest being maybe a 63 or XF.
You could take that 03 in 70 and crack it out and put it with 10 69's and 10 68's also cracked out, mix them all up and the graders couldn't pick that 70 out. All 21 of them would probably be in a different grade holder.
As far as the nickel that this thread is all about. I sure wouldn't buy a 69 with that kind of marks on it. If it were a Merc. it wouldn't make 65!
JMHO Jon
Flame away!
Oh, and by the way I would appreciate it if you wouldn't come over here and attack people like fairlaneman and fcloud.....they are my dime buddies and know what they are talking about!!
Now wonder your head and eyes hurt. If after reading all this you still do not get the point, it must just be too much for you!
AGAIN, and I want to stress this AGAIN...
This thread was intended to be about "GRADE GUARANTEE" all you guys that keep repeating the mantra "buy the coin not the holder" miss the point. NGC stands for Numismatic GUARANTEE!
The whole point of the guarantee is so you can buy coins on the internet and be guaranteed by the grading companies that the coin will meet defined minimum standards. If they do not honor their guarantee how can you buy their coins sight unseen? That is why I buy PCI coins at coin shows all the time, but would never buy one on the internet - unless it was going very cheaply. I don't pay a premium for a coin sight unseen, but I buy coins at market or discount rates on the internet all the time.
This is the business model that PCGS used to get started, and apparently understands. As for NGC I would like to hear from ANYONE that has personally received a check for a misgraded coin?
Why post here?
I posted here before I knew the results. This post could have gone either way, NGC could have honored their "Guarantee" and PCGS might not have honored theirs. It was just the way the cards fell that it worked out the other way around. I have no need to bash NGC, their actions do it for them.
ronday, I think it is you who doesn't get the point. If you don't like the coin don't buy it just because of the numerical grade on the holder. I guess I just don't understand your mission here. Are you wanting to go around buying up all of the overgraded coins and then sell them back to NGC? If so, have fun, but leave us out of it when things don't go as well as you think they should. I guess we should thank you for getting all of those overgraded coins off the market for us!
I think there needs to be a PANEL of graders when a coin is sent back for review. If it disagrees with the customer's thoughts, there should be a written response as to why it remains it's current grade. When FEES are paid, there needs to be an accounting , not just a YES OR NO.
This is just my humble opinion on grade guarantee. It would be much easier and more user friendly and it might even increase revenues.
<< <i>ronday, I think it is you who doesn't get the point. If you don't like the coin don't buy it just because of the numerical grade on the holder. I guess I just don't understand your mission here. Are you wanting to go around buying up all of the overgraded coins and then sell them back to NGC? If so, have fun, but leave us out of it when things don't go as well as you think they should. I guess we should thank you for getting all of those overgraded coins off the market for us!
Keep up the good work! >>
While he did make a mistake in buying the coin and not inspecting it, NGC should still be allowed to be held accountable for their own mistake since they guarantee their grade. I'd never advise someone who buys a coin to not inspect it after purchase, but NGC should stand behind their well documented promise of their grades. NGC's guarantee doesn't, nor shouldn't, absolve ronday of the mistake he made and place the "blame" fully on NGC's shoulders, but the fact that ronday made a mistake doesn't make it any less true that NGC should stand by their grade guarantee. Regardless of whether ronday owns the coin or not there is still a mistake that NGC should correct. By the logic that you bought the coin and therefore should be happy with the grade or return it, then once a coin has been sold once, it should never be sent in for a lower grade. Once someone has bought it, they should've returned it to the seller if they didn't agree with the grade.
Now, obviously ronday got himself into this position, and he'll have to live with the fact that he believes he has an overgraded coin and that he can't do anything about it. Obviously ronday is to blame for his current situation, ultimately. That said, if that is truly a scratch, that is a very overgraded coin. NGC should try to correct that mistake, regardless of if anyone thinks ronday is stupid or not for what he did (or perhaps, didn't do).
Of course, this is all assuming that NGC actually did make a mistake and that is a scratch on the forehead.
EDIT: Didn't realize this is a 14 day old thread. Thought I was on the fast paced US Coins forum.
The whole reason for any grading company to offer a grade guarantee is so people like me who want to buy coins over the internet, or blind if need be are protected from one of two major circumstances.
1. The seller will not refund the price of the coin.
2. The buyer feels more comfortable dealing with the grading company ( for whatever reason )
This is the premis behind the PCGS business model which NGC has tried to follow.
I can't make it any clearer than this so I give up if you still do not understand.
<< <i>I think there needs to be a PANEL of graders when a coin is sent back for review. If it disagrees with the customer's thoughts, there should be a written response as to why it remains it's current grade. When FEES are paid, there needs to be an accounting , not just a YES OR NO.
This is just my humble opinion on grade guarantee. It would be much easier and more user friendly and it might even increase revenues. >>
Here, Here! Boy do I Second, Third and Fourth this sentiment!
After giving this thread WAY more thought than it deserves I realized that when I started buying coins I bought alot of JUNK out of IGNORANCE.
The worst examples were rolls of "uncirculated" halves and mercs that had been cleaned, polished, wiped and otherwise ruined. I didn't know any better and paid WAY more than I should for them.
After a while I heard about grading companies and after some research I picked NGC to send in my first coins. To an outsider it appeared as though there were two main companies doing the grading and NGC was a little cheaper, so I went with them.
About a third of my "best" raw coins came back body bagged. In fact it took me three attempts to get an Indian head penny graded.
Well this convinced me that I should stick with buying graded coins until I learned more about how to grade them myself.
NOW TO MY POINT:
Not everyone buying graded coins knows what they are looking at, and if they later discover that the coin was "mis-graded" shouldn't they have recourse through the grading companies guarantee? I have coins like that, and I have no idea who I bought them from or even exactly when I bought them!
We are not talking about trying to make money taking avantage of mistakes made by grading companies, we are talking about holding the grading companies responsible for the quality of their grading.
I am sure that most of us would rather have the coin we paid for, than return it to PCGS or NGC for a downgrade and refund of the difference in price.
I completed my NGC 2005 mint set, the last thing I wanted to do was return one of my MS69 coins. I could care less about getting my money back, I just wanted a properly graded MS69 nickel, if they had made good on their guarantee I would still have to find a difficult coin .... AGAIN.
Sept of 2005 was the year I started collecting coins. That is the significance of the coin and that mint set.
The OP wants a "guarantee" to ensure he makes money on his purchases. That is really what this is all about. Unfortunately that's not exactly what the services offer.
If you want an NGC69 nickel, then I guess you need to submit one with a cut on the forehead. I seriously doubt that a Jeff nickel that NGC graded as MS66 was the talk of the grading room. Those guys see so many coins daily, it takes a lot more than that to excite them. How about a $4 Stella or a 1794 dollar. And even those are not "rare" per se.
.....but I no desire to submit a coin 10x or twice for that matter. It should have got high reviews the very first time all those graders saw this coin. They intentionally downgraded this coin because they didn't have the audacity (balls) to back it up with their grade guarantee due to the toning. This coin was most likely the talk of the grading room but then someone who cracks the whip over there said something in the effect that underminded the coin, the others only followed suit.
My point here is what the standard "odds" are for getting a certain grade. Anything can happen on the first time through. In fact I expect 30-40% of coins submitted the first time through to get a different grade the next time through. We'd all like to think that our experienced eyes are the "truth" when it comes to grading, but rarely is that the case. What gets high reviews one time may not get it the next time. Case in point: I submitted a coin to the same service that came back BB, BB, 66. It orig came out of a MS64 holder. So tell me that they were wrong the first 3 times in not giving this a high review. And I don't believe the TPG graders interface as a routine to influence their peers.
The source for all gem, low pop moderns? Why the US Mint of course!
<< <i>After giving this thread WAY more thought than it deserves I realized that when I started buying coins I bought alot of JUNK out of IGNORANCE. >>
This thread just may have been the best item that has happened to you during your short collecting career.
<< <i>To an outsider it appeared as though there were two main companies doing the grading and NGC was a little cheaper, so I went with them. >>
Not only do you have to watch which coins you buy but you also need to find out what the ins and outs are when choosing a TPG to send in coins.
<< <i>Well this convinced me that I should stick with buying graded coins until I learned more about how to grade them myself. >>
Work on a grading standard for yourself and then you will do just fine with raw coins. TPG standards are a guide line to use when you grade a coin.
If one grades close to the standards originally adhered to by the TPG's in 1986-1990, you should do fine with your coins. While at times it may cause you to be too critical on something and pass, it will also help you avoid many mistakes and traps.
Aren't the grades a +/- 1 grade... so your coin could be a 68, 69 or 70?
So if they graded it a 69, if another one of their graders looked at the coin and determined it to be a 68, then it would still remain in the 69 holder. If you disagreed with the grade, crack it and resubmit it to NGC for the new grade. You're almost "guaranteed" it'll come back lower. There's your guarantee.
Comments
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
ronday. you says it is a scar and then states it is raised. I don't think it can be both ways. I have an odd feeling it could be a die crack, and without a good image we are guessing just as if the coin not imaged at all.
I am adding an image with a line to show how large 3/16" is. I would say the mark is no larger than 1/16 based on the images in the thread. I don't see anything on the coin that would make me believe they have graded the coin incorrectly (by their standards--not PCGS standards). Now, I don't think PCGS would have graded it that high, but that is why PCGS coins sell for higher prices.
Here is another example of price difference. NGC's set of five 2004 state quarters sell for $199.00, and one PCGS 2004 state quarter in the same grade sells for over what the entire set of five NGC. If things were equal each coin would sell for the same price. Here are a couple links I picked a middle range NGC set and the least expensive PCGS Coin (both from Buy it now options). If you do your own search you will get similar results.
NGC State Quarters -- FIVE (5) PR70UCAM $199.00
2004 Iowa PCGS State Quarter ONE (1) coin. Over $200.00
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Second: the definition of MS69 is that no marks be visible without the aid of a loup and relative to the size of the coin this is a large mark.
Third, please show me a diecrack or a planchet flaw that reflects light like a mirror!
It does not take someone with a degree in physics to know that when the sharp edge of a metal object meets the flat edge of another metal object of the same or lesser hardness it will leave an gouge where it is deeper in the middle where the metal contacted metal, and slightly higher on the edge of the contact area where the metal hit metal.
As for a planchet flaw. It is unlikely that the inside of a planchet flaw would have a mirrorlike surface that would make it difficult to photograph when light hits it.
As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum.
Second. Here is PCGS grading standards (for some reason I can't find NGC standards, but I believe looser than PCGS. see my comment in the earlier thread about the proof state quarters)
Note the second from the last line MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary Who's definition of minuscule? And it sure looks like a full strike to me. Check that nose.
PCGS Grading Standard
Grade Description
PO-1 Identifiable date and type
FR-2 Mostly worn, though some detail is visible
AG-3 Worn rims but most lettering is readable though worn
G-4 Slightly worn rims, flat detail, peripheral lettering nearly full
G-6 Rims complete with flat detail, peripheral lettering full
VG-8 Design worn with slight detail
VG-10 Design worn with slight detail, slightly clearer
F-12 Some deeply recessed areas with detail, all lettering sharp
F-15 Slightly more detail in the recessed areas, all lettering sharp
VF-20 Some definition of detail, all lettering full and sharp
VF-25 Slightly more definition in the detail and lettering
VF-30 Almost complete detail with flat areas
VF-35 Detail is complete but worn with high points flat
EF-40 Detail is complete with most high points slightly flat
EF-45 Detail is complete with some high points flat
AU-50 Full detail with friction over most of the surface, slight flatness on high points
AU-53 Full detail with friction over 1/2 or more of surface, very slight flatness on high points
AU-55 Full detail with friction on less than 1/2 surface, mainly on high points
AU-58 Full detail with only slight friction on the high points
MS/PR-60 No wear. May have many heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full
MS/PR-61 No wear. Multiple heavy marks/hairlines, strike may not be full
MS/PR-62 No wear. Slightly less marks/hairlines, strike may not be full
MS/PR-63 Moderate number/size marks/hairlines, strike may not be full
MS/PR-64 Few marks/hairlines or a couple of severe ones, strike should be average or above
MS/PR-65 Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike
MS/PR-66 Few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, good strike
MS/PR-67 Virtually as struck with minor imperfections, very well struck
MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed
MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary
MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike
Third. This isn't as reflective as yours, but light reflects off of cracks, and other minuscule imperfections, too.
And, lastly, if I had a high grade SMS quarters I would submit to PCGS. If you get the 69SF in a PCGS holder the coin would sell for much more money. Which is what this is all about anyway.
The bottom line is you made a mistake, you spent too much money for a modern coin that you didn't look at, and NCG says it meets their standards, but you don't think it meets their standards, and too much time lapsed, so you can't return it.
Buy the coin not the holder.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>First. You said 3/16. I guess I took you at your word. >>
Apparently my word is better than my Eyeball measuring skills. I do not consider this an issue since I intended (and in fact did) post a photo of the coin.
<< <i>
Second. Here is PCGS grading standards (for some reason I can't find NGC standards, but I believe looser than PCGS. see my comment in the earlier thread about the proof state quarters)
Note the second from the last line MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary Who's definition of minuscule? And it sure looks like a full strike to me. Check that nose.
PCGS Grading Standard
Grade Description
MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed
MS/PR-69 Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary
MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike >>
You see the picture, you think that hit mark is "minuscule"? If so we can end this here and now.
<< <i>
Third. This isn't as reflective as yours, but light reflects off of cracks, and other minuscule imperfections, too. >>
The difference between a planchet flaw, a die crack and a hit mark is no big mystery when you have a coin in hand. That said, I took the best picture I could without a tripod.
<< <i>
And, lastly, if I had a high grade SMS quarters I would submit to PCGS. If you get the 69SF in a PCGS holder the coin would sell for much more money. Which is what this is all about anyway. >>
Duh, aren't you the guy that said buy the coin and not the holder?
As for me, this is a hobby not a business. If I wanted to make money I would go into real estate not coins.
By the way, what is your explaination for the HUGE descrepancy in the % of MS69 SH quarters?
<< <i>
The bottom line is you made a mistake, you spent too much money for a modern coin that you didn't look at, and NCG says it meets their standards, but you don't think it meets their standards, and too much time lapsed, so you can't return it.
>>
Mmmmm. My mistake was thinking that the "G" in NGC meant Guarantee. I find it odd that you think I should be admonished for that faux Paux.
<< <i>Poke all the fun you want at Modern collectors today. But your children and grand children will be buying these modern's from my children and grand children. And my babies will be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think your babies will be laughing on their way to the bank because they got nothing more than the orig purchase price on those longly held items. It would be incredible to me if more than 10% of today's moderns (or possibly 99%) are worth much more than issue price (+ inflation adjustments) 20-50 years down the road. This is no different than those who bought mint products in the 1955-1980 as well. What we all tend to forget is that the % of stuff put away 30 to 150 years ago is miniscule compared to the hoarding that takes place today.
If someone was putting away Albany commens during issue and paying $2 a coin for example (worth $300 today), they'd have done ok in the ensuing 70 years.
But where did they stand in 1956 or 1966 when your babies would be selling them? Maybe they added in some 1950-d nickel rolls and 1964 proof sets as well. The Albany has an orig issue of 17,000 pcs. Probably at least half remain. But today's mintage figures are more to the tune of 100,000's or more pieces.
Laughing all the way to the bank is something 90% of us dream about, and only 10% or less experience. All "investments" work the same way.
roadrunner >>
While I tend to agree with this as it regards rolls or mint/proof sets. I do not think it is true for the coins that I and my fellow registry collectors are putting aside. I have several coins whose condition puts there population in the single and double digits after thousands have been graded. These are the coins that I and my fellow preservationist seek out and collect. These are the coins we expect our children to be laughing to the bank with. As for the rest of them? They don't have the benefit of precious metal content, and the proofs that are silver are sold for WAY over face. The lone exception to this is the bullion coin. These may very well be the sleeper in the mix.
Pops and mintage numbers alone do not support rapid growth in value. Without demand rarity means nothing. With demand rarity becomes relative to demand.
-David
<< <i>I bought it off ebay, never really examined it that closely until it was WAY too late to return.
Most Ebay sellers do not offer returns on NGC and PCGS graded coins. Why should they? the grading companies "supposedly" guarantee the grade! On UltraModern MS69's you should not see that big of a difference from one coin to the next. I have been looking now though! >>
....i respectfuly disagree ; most ebay sellers of slabs DO offer some sort of return . The lowlife slimballs that do not are inbred mutants that don`t know any better
<< <i>As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum. >>
You could cross-over all the PCGS MS69 Satin Finish coins to lose money by putting them in NGC holders??? Last time I checked, not many people try to put a PCGS coin in an NGC holder because it's a losing proposition. The PCGS Pop report has so many high grade coins because that's what most collectors want. If collectors really wanted the NGC version, they'd get made. The reason there are less NGC MS69's for 2006 is nobody has tried that hard, if at all, to make NGC Satin Finish coins. So the real # is that about 50x as many mint sets have been searched for the PCGS 2006 SF Pop Report as have been searched for the NGC SF Pop Report.
<< <i>
<< <i>As for the grading standards for modern SMS coins the pops do not support your theory. If fact you are as much as 10X more likely to get a MS69 on a 2006 Statehood quarter from PCGS than you are from NGC based on current pops. In fact there is not a single 2006 SMS Statehood quarter that you are more likely to get a MS69 from NGC than you are from PCGS by a factor of 2X. I put the stats on my website in the public forum. >>
You could cross-over all the PCGS MS69 Satin Finish coins to lose money by putting them in NGC holders??? Last time I checked, not many people try to put a PCGS coin in an NGC holder because it's a losing proposition. The PCGS Pop report has so many high grade coins because that's what most collectors want. If collectors really wanted the NGC version, they'd get made. The reason there are less NGC MS69's for 2006 is nobody has tried that hard, if at all, to make NGC Satin Finish coins. So the real # is that about 50x as many mint sets have been searched for the PCGS 2006 SF Pop Report as have been searched for the NGC SF Pop Report. >>
That is an interesting theory, but I submit coins to both grading services with comparable results for similar coins. To test your theory I may break out a few SMS coins and have some associates of mine submitt them and compare the results.
Still, it costs about the same to submit coins to either company and people submitting coins in bulk need to make a profit?
So... If a much smaller percentage of NGC coins are getting MS69 grades ( a statistical fact ) and NGC coins get sold for less money than PCGS coins... how do people make money selling NGC coins?
I do not disagree with the fact that with a dig, hit, scratch like this that there is NO WAY this coin is a 69 particularly since I've personally had coins bagged with what amounted to superficial marks similar to lines drawn in pencil on top the luster and certainly NOT digs, real scratches or die imperfections!
Sorry, I don't care who graded it, this piece is NO MS 69. PERIOD!
At the same time I sent in the NGC coin I also sent in a PCGS coin. NGC returned the coin within DAYS with no guarantee. PCGS took almost 15 weeks,
BUT stood by the guarantee. In my opinion, the coin sent to PCGS was a much closer call than the one sent to PCGS, so... I will be sending more coins to PCGS and fewer coins to NGC.
In the future the only coins I will be sending to NGC will be Modern Errors and Foreign (cost and speed) and I really don't care about the grade that much. The rest will be going here.
Ken
First - I agree with Fairlaneman and Fcloud - buy the coin not the holder. When you get the coin....duh...look at it!
Second - Don't attack NGC on the PCGS boards.....because WHO cares. I have seen and I am sure all others who look at a lot of coins this fact. There are four (for me) grading companies to consider. PCGS, ANACS, NGC and ICG. I listed them in the order that I think are best. Now I have seen great coins in all of these holders and I have seen crap in all of these holders. The per cent of good to bad goes down as you go down the list. PCGS is considered the best because they are the best. That is backed up by the prices they bring compared to the same coin in the other holders. Buy what you like.....don't count on the number on the slab. And don't buy for numbers buy for eye appeal.
Now in responce to the talk in this thread about top pop, modern and rare. There is NO such thing as a rare modern coin....period!
Take the 2003 cent in 70. It's very expensive because there is only one. But you can drop down to 69 and there are hundreds (graded) there are probably hundreds of thousands out there but who needs them. You can drop down to 68 and get one for next to nothing. Bottom line is 2003-P cents are not rare!
Rare is a coin that there is only a handfull in all grades combined with the highest being maybe a 63 or XF.
You could take that 03 in 70 and crack it out and put it with 10 69's and 10 68's also cracked out, mix them all up and the graders couldn't pick that 70 out. All 21 of them would probably be in a different grade holder.
As far as the nickel that this thread is all about. I sure wouldn't buy a 69 with that kind of marks on it. If it were a Merc. it wouldn't make 65!
JMHO Jon
Flame away!
Oh, and by the way I would appreciate it if you wouldn't come over here and attack people like fairlaneman and fcloud.....they are my dime buddies and know what they are talking about!!
Nuff said!!!
AGAIN, and I want to stress this AGAIN...
This thread was intended to be about "GRADE GUARANTEE" all you guys that keep repeating the mantra "buy the coin not the holder" miss the point. NGC stands for Numismatic GUARANTEE!
The whole point of the guarantee is so you can buy coins on the internet and be guaranteed by the grading companies that the coin will meet defined minimum standards. If they do not honor their guarantee how can you buy their coins sight unseen? That is why I buy PCI coins at coin shows all the time, but would never buy one on the internet - unless it was going very cheaply. I don't pay a premium for a coin sight unseen, but I buy coins at market or discount rates on the internet all the time.
This is the business model that PCGS used to get started, and apparently understands. As for NGC I would like to hear from ANYONE that has personally received a check for a misgraded coin?
Why post here?
I posted here before I knew the results. This post could have gone either way, NGC could have honored their "Guarantee" and PCGS might not have honored theirs. It was just the way the cards fell that it worked out the other way around. I have no need to bash NGC, their actions do it for them.
Keep up the good work!
This is just my humble opinion on grade guarantee. It would be much easier and more user friendly and it might even increase revenues.
<< <i>ronday, I think it is you who doesn't get the point. If you don't like the coin don't buy it just because of the numerical grade on the holder. I guess I just don't understand your mission here. Are you wanting to go around buying up all of the overgraded coins and then sell them back to NGC?
Keep up the good work!
While he did make a mistake in buying the coin and not inspecting it, NGC should still be allowed to be held accountable for their own mistake since they guarantee their grade. I'd never advise someone who buys a coin to not inspect it after purchase, but NGC should stand behind their well documented promise of their grades. NGC's guarantee doesn't, nor shouldn't, absolve ronday of the mistake he made and place the "blame" fully on NGC's shoulders, but the fact that ronday made a mistake doesn't make it any less true that NGC should stand by their grade guarantee. Regardless of whether ronday owns the coin or not there is still a mistake that NGC should correct. By the logic that you bought the coin and therefore should be happy with the grade or return it, then once a coin has been sold once, it should never be sent in for a lower grade. Once someone has bought it, they should've returned it to the seller if they didn't agree with the grade.
Now, obviously ronday got himself into this position, and he'll have to live with the fact that he believes he has an overgraded coin and that he can't do anything about it. Obviously ronday is to blame for his current situation, ultimately. That said, if that is truly a scratch, that is a very overgraded coin. NGC should try to correct that mistake, regardless of if anyone thinks ronday is stupid or not for what he did (or perhaps, didn't do).
Of course, this is all assuming that NGC actually did make a mistake and that is a scratch on the forehead.
EDIT: Didn't realize this is a 14 day old thread. Thought I was on the fast paced US Coins forum.
The whole reason for any grading company to offer a grade guarantee is so people like me who want to buy coins over the internet, or blind if need be are protected from one of two major circumstances.
1. The seller will not refund the price of the coin.
2. The buyer feels more comfortable dealing with the grading company ( for whatever reason )
This is the premis behind the PCGS business model which NGC has tried to follow.
I can't make it any clearer than this so I give up if you still do not understand.
<< <i>I think there needs to be a PANEL of graders when a coin is sent back for review. If it disagrees with the customer's thoughts, there should be a written response as to why it remains it's current grade. When FEES are paid, there needs to be an accounting , not just a YES OR NO.
This is just my humble opinion on grade guarantee. It would be much easier and more user friendly and it might even increase revenues. >>
Here, Here! Boy do I Second, Third and Fourth this sentiment!
After giving this thread WAY more thought than it deserves I realized that when I started buying coins I bought alot of JUNK out of IGNORANCE.
The worst examples were rolls of "uncirculated" halves and mercs that had been cleaned, polished, wiped and otherwise ruined. I didn't know any better and paid WAY more than I should for them.
After a while I heard about grading companies and after some research I picked NGC to send in my first coins. To an outsider it appeared as though there were two main companies doing the grading and NGC was a little cheaper, so I went with them.
About a third of my "best" raw coins came back body bagged. In fact it took me three attempts to get an Indian head penny graded.
Well this convinced me that I should stick with buying graded coins until I learned more about how to grade them myself.
NOW TO MY POINT:
Not everyone buying graded coins knows what they are looking at, and if they later discover that the coin was "mis-graded" shouldn't they have recourse through the grading companies guarantee? I have coins like that, and I have no idea who I bought them from or even exactly when I bought them!
We are not talking about trying to make money taking avantage of mistakes made by grading companies, we are talking about holding the grading companies responsible for the quality of their grading.
I am sure that most of us would rather have the coin we paid for, than return it to PCGS or NGC for a downgrade and refund of the difference in price.
I completed my NGC 2005 mint set, the last thing I wanted to do was return one of my MS69 coins. I could care less about getting my money back, I just wanted a properly graded MS69 nickel, if they had made good on their guarantee I would still have to find a difficult coin .... AGAIN.
Sept of 2005 was the year I started collecting coins. That is the significance of the coin and that mint set.
Thanks for hearing me out.
If you want an NGC69 nickel, then I guess you need to submit one with a cut on the forehead. I seriously doubt that a Jeff nickel that NGC graded as MS66 was the talk of the grading room. Those guys see so many coins daily, it takes a lot more than that to excite them.
How about a $4 Stella or a 1794 dollar. And even those are not "rare" per se.
.....but I no desire to submit a coin 10x or twice for that matter. It should have got high reviews the very first time all those graders saw this coin. They intentionally downgraded this coin because they didn't have the audacity (balls) to back it up with their grade guarantee due to the toning. This coin was most likely the talk of the grading room but then someone who cracks the whip over there said something in the effect that underminded the coin, the others only followed suit.
My point here is what the standard "odds" are for getting a certain grade. Anything can happen on the first time through. In fact I expect 30-40% of coins submitted the first time through to get a different grade the next time through. We'd all like to think that our experienced eyes are the "truth" when it comes to grading, but rarely is that the case. What gets high reviews one time may not get it the next time. Case in point: I submitted a coin to the same service that came back BB, BB, 66. It orig came out of a MS64 holder.
So tell me that they were wrong the first 3 times in not giving this a high review. And I don't believe the TPG graders interface as a routine to influence their peers.
The source for all gem, low pop moderns? Why the US Mint of course!
roadrunner
<< <i>After giving this thread WAY more thought than it deserves I realized that when I started buying coins I bought alot of JUNK out of IGNORANCE. >>
This thread just may have been the best item that has happened to you during your short collecting career.
<< <i>To an outsider it appeared as though there were two main companies doing the grading and NGC was a little cheaper, so I went with them. >>
Not only do you have to watch which coins you buy but you also need to find out what the ins and outs are when choosing a TPG to send in coins.
<< <i>Well this convinced me that I should stick with buying graded coins until I learned more about how to grade them myself. >>
Work on a grading standard for yourself and then you will do just fine with raw coins. TPG standards are a guide line to use when you grade a coin.
Cheers and Good Luck in the future.
Ken
roadrunner
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
So if they graded it a 69, if another one of their graders looked at the coin and determined it to be a 68, then it would still remain in the 69 holder. If you disagreed with the grade, crack it and resubmit it to NGC for the new grade. You're almost "guaranteed" it'll come back lower. There's your guarantee.