Crossover Results Are In

LeeG

Sent in under the Regular Service Level

Order #20206233 / Submission #9092262
Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade

1 1 11458108 3312 1912 1C US Altered Surfaces



2 1 11458109 2564 1925-S 1C US MS63BN






3 1 11458110 2568 1926 1C US DNC






4 1 11458111 9299 1935 50C Connecticut US Enviromental Damage






5 1 11458112 9316 1946 50C Iowa US MS67






Total Items: 5

Date Received: 6/16/2008

coinbuf

Ouch! did you crack em or send in the slabs? The 67 is nice but hardly makes up for the rest. if you cracked em.

Chris

OneCent

Somewhat of a mixed bag?

Shame about the 1912 Proof Lincoln, I've seen similar colorations in PCGS holders. I'd love to know why the 1926 65RB did not cross??? Questionable Color? I just think that they are super tight right now.

Gotta be happy with the Iowa and 1925-S though!!!

messydesk

Had the MPL had a sticker, would that have been an "it's OK to cross this one" signal to PCGS? Do you think it's stickerable? Sort of adds a new angle to the crossover game.

LeeG

I was not surprised about the MPL. The rest of them I am. Sent them in the holders so just out the grading/shipping cost's.

MadMarty

<< <i>Had the MPL had a sticker, would that have been an "it's OK to cross this one" signal to PCGS? Do you think it's stickerable? Sort of adds a new angle to the crossover game. >>




Are you saying a sticker means "It's already been graded, cross it!", collect the $30 and move on?

oldwestgold

Interesting results. I wouldn't put stock in the fact that PCGS got the "altered surfaces" right. Like another poster said, I've seen numerous PCGS coins with that exact same look. The 1926 might be too brown for the RB designation, but again, it makes no difference, as that is one sweet looking coin.

LeeG

<< <i>Interesting results. I wouldn't put stock in the fact that PCGS got the "altered surfaces" right. Like another poster said, I've seen numerous PCGS coins with that exact same look. The 1926 might be too brown for the RB designation, but again, it makes no difference, as that is one sweet looking coin. >>


Thanks and I agree. Many times I've sent coins back in and they've graded. The 26 is hammered!!!!!!!!

cohodk

<< <i>

<< <i>Interesting results. I wouldn't put stock in the fact that PCGS got the "altered surfaces" right. Like another poster said, I've seen numerous PCGS coins with that exact same look. The 1926 might be too brown for the RB designation, but again, it makes no difference, as that is one sweet looking coin. >>


Thanks and I agree. Many times I've sent coins back in and they've graded. The 26 is hammered!!!!!!!! >>




And I agree with both. I love the MPL and the 26 looks like a "no brainer" 65.

SkyMan

The ED on the CT. is a bunch of horse pucky. That's a lovely coin. As to ED, well by definition all toning is ED, so if they've holdered other tarnished coins, what are they yacking about?

robkool

I'm curious to know if you put "ANY" under min. grade, or used the same grades from NGC ???

Doogy

another example of blatant bias, and the numismatic shell game continues.

seanq

Don't forget, PCGS is always extremely cautions about crossing a coin if they have any question about the surfaces or toning. PCGS knows you can't uncrack a slab, so they will only cross coins when they are 100% certain the surfaces are original, which is often impossible to tell through another service's holder.

I'd bet both the 1912 and the 1926 would grade if you sent them in raw, and probably the CT too.


Sean Reynolds

bidask

<< <i>another example of blatant bias, and the numismatic shell game continues. >>

I am not so sure it is a case of blatant bias.

Elcontador

Save your money re resubmitting the PF Lincoln. The doctors have been cranking out too many which look just like that one. If you got it recently, see if you could get your $ back. Could they think the 26 P is a BN coin? I don't see why it wouldn't cross, gradewise. Don't know anything about Commems.

BECOKA

<< <i>

<< <i>another example of blatant bias, and the numismatic shell game continues. >>

I am not so sure it is a case of blatant bias. >>



I agree, one of them even upgraded which was a very nice outcome by the way.

Doogy

<< <i>

<< <i>another example of blatant bias, and the numismatic shell game continues. >>

I am not so sure it is a case of blatant bias. >>



when this type of thing happens over and over again, there is no other logical explanation. it is nothing more than a "game", i'm convinced of it.
once i had the 8 "free" submission vouchers; I didn't have much i wanted to submit at the time, so i sent 8 NGC MS65 and MS66 Walkers, mostly late 30s and 40s; no real high dollar coins.

Of the eight, TWO "crossed". These were clean most white coins, not dipped out, rainbow toners or anything else. Wanting to see if this is a "game", i cracked the other six and sent them in. Low and behold, they all returned slabbed. Four came back with the same grade that NGC saw, while two upgraded (65 to 66 and 66 to 67). Bias, nothing more.

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>another example of blatant bias, and the numismatic shell game continues. >>

I am not so sure it is a case of blatant bias. >>



when this type of thing happens over and over again, there is no other logical explanation. it is nothing more than a "game", i'm convinced of it.
once i had the 8 "free" submission vouchers; I didn't have much i wanted to submit at the time, so i sent 8 NGC MS65 and MS66 Walkers, mostly late 30s and 40s; no real high dollar coins.

Of the eight, TWO "crossed". These were clean most white coins, not dipped out, rainbow toners or anything else. Wanting to see if this is a "game", i cracked the other six and sent them in. Low and behold, they all returned slabbed. Four came back with the same grade that NGC saw, while two upgraded (65 to 66 and 66 to 67). Bias, nothing more. >>



Sad. Really sad. I've heard too many stories like yours.

LeeG

Appreciate everyones thoughts and comments!!!



<< <i>I'm curious to know if you put "ANY" under min. grade, or used the same grades from NGC ??? >>


I left the minimum grade area on the submission form blank (cross at same). The old NGC holders have value and didn't want to loose that value by crossing at any.

291fifth

The 1926 Lincoln probably did not cross because it would now be classified as brown rather than red-brown. The requirements for red and red-brown have tightened considerably since the 1980's when that coin was slabbed.

Shamika

The 1926 is a bit of a surprise. As already mentioned, perhaps it's too BN for a RB designation.

66RB

Sorry to see that Lee.

Do I smell a resubmission?

Who cares whether the label is RB or BN for the '26!

richardshipp

I don't know cents so I'll not comment other than they sure look nice.

The Conn. Commem looks nice and I've seen several with the same "look" in PCGS slabs so I don't know what to say. The Iowa I believe is now correctly graded.

As an example on the Conn... Here is mine. It's not unlike what yours looks like...

NHSBaseball

I wish I'd followed your lead on my last submission and left the coins in the holders- my NGC AU-58 1834 Half dime is now a raw 1834 half dime with "altered surfaces".

Doogy

<< <i>The 1926 Lincoln probably did not cross because it would now be classified as brown rather than red-brown. The requirements for red and red-brown have tightened considerably since the 1980's when that coin was slabbed. >>




which is another example of a company trying to "make" the market: have tight grading in the beginning, only to loosen it gradually to invite submissions; but make classifications for copper and DMPL/PL lmore loose in the beginning and tighten over time.

How about finding a rigid standard and sticking to it?

How credibility is maintained with this constant see-saw game over the last two decades is beyond me.

Elcontador

The comments re RB vs BN designations are right on the mark regarding Large and Half Cents. 20 years ago, if the coin was 5-10% RD, it would get a RB designation. From what I've seen, you need about 25% to get that designation today on old copper.