Is PCGS more or less consistent these days?
TahoeDale
Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭
I guess it will depend, to a degree, on the series and grade.
Several years ago(around 2000) I was crossing and upgrading my Proof Barber halves.
The 1896 was a PCGS PF 67, and we sent it in for possible upgrade and Cameo designation.( broke it out) It came back 66, no Cam. Then sent it to NGC and it graded 67 Cam. Then we conserved it, and it went 68 DCAM at NGC.
Also, we had a 1916 SLQ in PCGS 66. No full head designation. On the first try, it went 67 FH at PCGS.
More recently, a raw 1832 bust half ( bought as an AU58, provenance the Reed Hawn collection)) was sent to PCGS--came back QT. 6 months later, we tried again, and it graded MS63. Nothing was done to the coin between submissions.
An NGC 66 1822/1 half was sent for cross to PCGS. It graded, preliminarily, 66, but one grader noticed the coin was wrongly attributed. and it came back DNC. We re-attributed the coin at NGC, and then re-submitted for cross at PCGS. This time--old cleaning, not enough luster for a 66 grade.
It may not be possible, economically, to have graders specialize in limited areas, but it sure might help with consistency. More than 3 grades difference, and an old cleaning on a coin they graded 66 is not an acceptable variance.
Several years ago(around 2000) I was crossing and upgrading my Proof Barber halves.
The 1896 was a PCGS PF 67, and we sent it in for possible upgrade and Cameo designation.( broke it out) It came back 66, no Cam. Then sent it to NGC and it graded 67 Cam. Then we conserved it, and it went 68 DCAM at NGC.
Also, we had a 1916 SLQ in PCGS 66. No full head designation. On the first try, it went 67 FH at PCGS.
More recently, a raw 1832 bust half ( bought as an AU58, provenance the Reed Hawn collection)) was sent to PCGS--came back QT. 6 months later, we tried again, and it graded MS63. Nothing was done to the coin between submissions.
An NGC 66 1822/1 half was sent for cross to PCGS. It graded, preliminarily, 66, but one grader noticed the coin was wrongly attributed. and it came back DNC. We re-attributed the coin at NGC, and then re-submitted for cross at PCGS. This time--old cleaning, not enough luster for a 66 grade.
It may not be possible, economically, to have graders specialize in limited areas, but it sure might help with consistency. More than 3 grades difference, and an old cleaning on a coin they graded 66 is not an acceptable variance.
TahoeDale
0
Comments
<< <i>Is PCGS more or less consistent these days? >>
yes
<< <i>I guess it will depend, to a degree, on the series and grade.
Several years ago(around 2000) I was crossing and upgrading my Proof Barber halves.
The 1896 was a PCGS PF 67, and we sent it in for possible upgrade and Cameo designation.( broke it out) It came back 66, no Cam. Then sent it to NGC and it graded 67 Cam. Then we conserved it, and it went 68 DCAM at NGC.
Also, we had a 1916 SLQ in PCGS 66. No full head designation. On the first try, it went 67 FH at PCGS.
More recently, a raw 1832 bust half ( bought as an AU58, provenance the Reed Hawn collection)) was sent to PCGS--came back QT. 6 months later, we tried again, and it graded MS63. Nothing was done to the coin between submissions.
An NGC 66 1822/1 half was sent for cross to PCGS. It graded, preliminarily, 66, but one grader noticed the coin was wrongly attributed. and it came back DNC. We re-attributed the coin at NGC, and then re-submitted for cross at PCGS. This time--old cleaning, not enough luster for a 66 grade.
It may not be possible, economically, to have graders specialize in limited areas, but it sure might help with consistency. More than 3 grades difference, and an old cleaning on a coin they graded 66 is not an acceptable variance. >>
are you surprised by this? this numismatic shell game has been going on for years. Anytime you submit, you basically roll the dice and hope you don't crap out.