Options
Get the ANA to make PCGS the official Grading Service
Halfhunter06
Posts: 1,344 ✭✭✭
With a very poor economic situation Numismatists must make sure we get the best. PCGS coins are much more desirable right now and arguably NGC is no longer an option. With this in mind its time the ANA, finally, makes PCGS the official grading service, anyone agree?
0
Comments
Also... ANA has an arraingment in the contract so that ANA members can submit directly to NGC with no membership fees... would PCGS be willing to do that?...
If PCGS wanted to be the "one" for the ANA, I'm sure they would have ponied up the last time the contract ran out...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>and arguably NGC is no longer an option. >>
I will argue otherwise
<< <i>With a very poor economic situation Numismatists must make sure we get the best. PCGS coins are much more desirable right now and arguably NGC is no longer an option. With this in mind its time the ANA, finally, makes PCGS the official grading service, anyone agree? >>
"Best" or most conservative?
and the business advantage
against the cost of the bribe money,
and found the deal lacking.
With ANA, it's all about the money.
Camelot
Absent that, the numismatic community votes with their dollar$ and it is clear that PCGS is first with NGC a distant second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
i would argue that NGC is indeed an option, that the ANA is the shoe that no longer fits the hobby.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Unfortunately... it has nothing to do with standards... it has to do with who is the highest bidder... >>
Ding - we have a winner!
But then again, I buy coins, not the holder they are in.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
Are you just being a
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Hallmark? Now that's no longer an option.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I disagree with the basic premise, guess i need to go stock up on koolaid.
But then again, I buy coins, not the holder they are in. >>
Most intellengent post so far.
NGC is no longer an option? the rarest coins in the world are in NGC holders, almost exclusively. How does having a near monopoly on that fact suddenly make you no longer an option?
<< <i>With a very poor economic situation Numismatists must make sure we get the best. PCGS coins are much more desirable right now and arguably NGC is no longer an option. With this in mind its time the ANA, finally, makes PCGS the official grading service, anyone agree? >>
I'd say "No." but I could really care less who the ANA's official grading service is.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Now, with all due respect for our host, let me say that several of the PQ coins in my retired set started off in NGC holders.
Before there was PCGS - before there was NGC, I cherry picked COINS! I STILL DO.
I find both services quite competent as graders however the misconception IS that PCGS is somehow better or tighter and THAT, in some strange sense, somehow makes the a BETTER SERVICE COMPANY?
We continue to hear many complain that their coins are UNDERGRADED (and many times these complaints are well founded) as there is the opposite end of the spectrum in which coins are GROSLLY OVER-GRADED - as in the well known OMAHA BANK HOARD! What happened there? Why so tight for one group of submitters yet overly LOOSE for an other group? To truly be Great, one MUST BE impartial and call it the same way for ALL submitters.
Does undergrading coins equate to being tighter or somehow being BETTER? Often we hear people complain of inconsistencies ... of grading one way for Dealers & large submitters.
The Omaha Bank Hoard is the perfect example. Far too many astute collectors cryied out of just how badly those coins were graded. With this in mind, if PCGS is so great then why do so many complain of inconsistency - only to later sing their praises?
Personally, I like PCGS and have grown to know their general standards - across all series. I also like SOME NGC coins! In the vast majority of cases in which I personally submitted coins to BOTH SERVICES I must say, generally speaking, that I have almost always received the grades I thought I would, going in.
I BUY coins first and then, if worthwhile (as was the case in several examples of "BOOM's Quarters") I will get a coin in the holder that will bring me the highest Premium, because in the end I am going to wind up selling every coin I'm caretaker of during the course of my short stay in this world.
I SELL both tpg's coins and no matter whose plastic a given coin happens to be in, inevitably the coins ALWAYS sell on their own Merits. I buy coins with eye appeal FOR MYSELF - and therefore, when I DO SELL, it really matters little which Plastic a given coin from me, happens to be in, as MOST have been cherrypicked to meet MY tastes and Standards.
They say that a picture is worth 1000 words. The OP and several other posters seem to believe that NGC coins are somehow Inferior. I, personally, have NOT found this to be so & AGAIN, it's because of the way I collect - NOT whose Plastic I buy!
OK, so having established that I like & respect BOTH services (at times) and have found "cherries" in BOTH as well as DAWGS (at times) with everything being equal and lain out before you I will offer just ONE Instance to totally debunk this theory that OVERALL PCGS is better & NGC is worse! Here, have a look at these two coins and see exactly why this broad-based statement simply is not Valid. I give you=
Again, bear in mind that I have a certain way of buying/ collecting coins. These are 2 identical coins. Is the NGC coin inferior to the PCGS coin? What chance would you say I have of successfully crossing this very coin?
I could do this same comparison all day with countless examples. It IS about THE COIN, afterall.
So, let's have an even closer look, shall we?
And there seems to be yet another misconception that coins, particularly Quarter, must look a certain way to be PCGS 67 and that no White coin will go PCGS 67. To disprove this theory all one need do is look at the 38-S, one of the 1947 Trio< I think (from memory)> on either of the links below along with the 48 to SEE hat this simply is NOT the case and yes, when the 66s in the set below are compared to the 67s, it AGAIN becomes quite obvious that the line between grades is indeed quite a thin one, indeed ... one to seriously be taken into consideration when getting rid of liner 66s to replace them with 67s, that go for multiples of the lower graded coin. ON ANY GIVEN DAY!! Let's look at something else, shall we?
Given that these two coins grade PCGS 67
What would you think THESE would grade and then compare them to the 62-D above.
All this is posted for eye opening, educational purposes. Nothing more- nothing less.
I'll post a slide show later showing several coins that all bear the same date, as a sort of grading test & to drive Home a point and I'll even throw in a twist, making it a giveaway to the person that somehow manages to get them all graded correctly and in the right order.
My point is to be made and taken without Malice or Offense. Grading lines vary by the slimmest of margins, sometimes and if you collect coins instead of plastic and labels, you stand a very good chance of getting your coins in the right holder someday! Perhaps.
God, I DO SO ENJOY THIS HOBBY! It REALLY makes one think
And after ALL this we come up with this?
It's pretty tough trying to figure all this out, eh?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>As an ANA member, I think that ANA should set the grading standard by which all TPGs grade and then the ANA should grade the TPGs on their performance. TPGs have no standards. They develop their own grading criteria and then hide behind the cloak of proprietary information when asked to reveal their methods. This works because there is not regulatory oversight of this industry. I think ANA could step up as an independent arbiter of fact and rate the TPGs based on ANA grading standards.
Absent that, the numismatic community votes with their dollar$ and it is clear that PCGS is first with NGC a distant second. >>
Without getting in to too many details, a few years ago there were many internal discussions at the ANA about the concept of ANA "approved" grading services (yes, services with an 'S'). The idea was that the ANA would set forth industry standards as to how submissions were handled, accuracy and precision of grading, data reporting, etc. Any grading company that met these minimum standards (through self-reporting and mandatory ANA inspection) would be an ANA "approved" grading service. Sadly, this concept never made it anywhere.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
interesting post with pictures
Grading has a subjective component that extends beyond the application of standards. Further, grading is an opinion and some opinions are better than others. As for your photos, I would not want to grade coins in this state of preservation from an image. Because your commentary deals with Washington Quarters and shows a 1954-s in 67, I think in all fairness that it should be pointed out that the 54-s is a date known for weakness. A 62-D will be sharper and will just look better than a 54-s in the same 67 grade.
Look at an 1880-s Morgan in 67 and compare it to an 1889 in 67. Both coins should be incredible, but the 1880-s will look better and next to an 89, one may ask why the 89 was graded 67 and the answer is one has to account for the striking characteristics within the dates of the series.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I personally do not think the ANA should be in bed with any of the grading services- it's a disservice. They should be conducting independent evaluations of the grading services on a semi-annual or annual basis as a service to it's members and stay out of the endorsement business, it smells. >>
That was the intent of the idea I mentioned above. The ANA would independently assess grading companies and provide a "seal of approval" that meant the TPG met a minimum set of standards established by the ANA. This is a bit like how universities are accredited. The ANA would not have a financial interest in any TPG's "success" in the approval process. Any TPG would be eligible for review by the ANA.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
It's too bad really, as it was a sound idea and would have been a very useful tool for members. At the time wasn't the atmosphere within the ANA to grow da machine? Now I suspect they are a bit locked in contractually. On the other hand, I wonder if it has done much for them anyway in terms of market share.
I was very disappointed the concept did not pan out as it was a sound move for the hobby. There were some great internal discussions about the concept and it would have changed third-party grading dramatically.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces