1796 Quarter from PCGS Genuine to NGC VG 8!

AnkurJ

Not my coin. Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder. I'm sure the current owner was thrilled!
The coin still looks odd to me.

PCGS Genuine

NGC VG 8

So who was/is correct?
Ankur

Goldbully

How did you link the two coins, AnkurJ??
Are you a numismatic 'coinage linkist'???

STONE

PCGS was correct

coirn

They are both correct using their independent attributions for worthiness. It is up to the buyer to determine if he agrees.

commoncents05

For what it's worth, this was submitted during the $100 Genuine Only service, hence the GN code. My guess is it is market acceptable, a bit lighter than I would want if I were buying it.

-Paul

Moldnut

While not for me, it does look to be MA for some. BTW Ive seen many go the other way, NCS problem coin to PCGS problem free.

partagas

My last submission which shipped today had 3 coins in that ngc slabbed details for cleaning. Are now problem free at pcgs. Buy the coin not the holder

AnkurJ

Its a risky business for such a pricey coin though.

MikeInFL

"Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder."

Why would that surprise you?

thisnamztaken

It has that look that Seated dimes and quarters sometimes have in photos. They may be original but just aren't very photogenic.

barrytrot

So when submitting this does the submitter crack it out first so as not to bias the new "judge"?

If so isn't that a bit unethical?

Anyone know how an attempted "genuine" upgrade is performed?

AnkurJ

<< <i>"Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder."

Why would that surprise you? >>



Because there was obviously something wrong with the coin for PCGS not to grade it. What did they see that NGC didnt?

Justacommeman

What a transparent thread Ankur. Not even thinly veiled. I would work on that.................MJ

Shortgapbob

<< <i>

<< <i>"Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder."

Why would that surprise you? >>



Because there was obviously something wrong with the coin for PCGS not to grade it. For NGC to do so speaks poorly of them.

But then again, thats just my opinion. >>




However, this works both ways. As stated above, there are plenty of coins that NGC assigns "problem" grades to that PCGS finds acceptable and grades. Sometimes the same grading service deems a coin to be a "problem" coin on one submission, and then grades the same coin on the next submission.

pakasmom

No personal offense intended, Ankur, But isn't this "bashing another grading company?" Rule #7.?

Can I make a citizens arrest?

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>So who was/is correct? >>

What makes you think either of them is?

AnkurJ

<< <i>No personal offense intended, Ankur, But isn't this "bashing another grading company?" Rule #7.?

Can I make a citizens arrest? >>



Knock yourself out.

jesbroken

<< <i>Because there was obviously something wrong with the coin for PCGS not to grade it. For NGC to do so speaks poorly of them. >>



Lapse of good judgement, Ankur. I think this subject falls back to a matter of opinion that works both ways.
Jim

pakasmom

<< <i>

<< <i>No personal offense intended, Ankur, But isn't this "bashing another grading company?" Rule #7.?

Can I make a citizens arrest? >>



Knock yourself out. >>



Gee, sorry. Just meant it as a joke, not a threat.

joebb21

Recently a fellow board member posted a coin that was in a ngc details holder and made it into a pcgs holder with a cac sticker.

Moldnut

Interestingly enough, I examined a scarce raw coin not to long ago with a specialist dealer and we both found the coin to be repaired/tooled in the fields to remove or hide something. It kind of ticks me off a bit to now see it has been graded by a major TPG(we know them well) as problem free. I wish I could out the coin but I see it in a members stock. It goes back to buy the coin.

Zoins

<< <i>It kind of ticks me off a bit to now see it has been graded by a major TPG(we know them well) as problem free. >>

I believe the top two TPGs both have written policies to net grade market acceptable coins in their "problem free" holders. A holder that doesn't explicitly state a problem does not imply the coin is problem free.

Moldnut

A scratch, a cleaning is one thing, tooling and or repair to hide something would not fall under "market acceptable". My guess is that they just missed it.

Zoins

<< <i>A scratch, a cleaning is one thing, tooling and or repair to hide something would not fall under "market acceptable". My guess is that they just missed it. >>

If it's a mistake, then they should make good on it and there's nothing to be upset about. Both top TPGs have been known to make, and correct, mistakes.

MikeInFL

<< <i>

<< <i>"Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder."

Why would that surprise you? >>



Because there was obviously something wrong with the coin for PCGS not to grade it. What did they see that NGC didnt? >>



A non-market acceptable coin, presumably.

However, upon closer examination of the Heritage sale of the PCGS slab, I do note a ".GN" rather than a numerical code -- which does make it a bit curious, as I don't recall seeing one of these before (perhaps a forerunner of the numerical codes?).

Elcontador

<< <i>

<< <i>It kind of ticks me off a bit to now see it has been graded by a major TPG(we know them well) as problem free. >>

I believe the top two TPGs both have written policies to net grade market acceptable coins in their "problem free" holders. A holder that doesn't explicitly state a problem does not imply the coin is problem free. >>



I think you're right with respect to Draped Bust material. I've seen dozens of what were imo net graded problem coins slabbed in first generation holders. I've seen at least ten AU Bust $s that looked far worse than this coin in first world TPGs. The coin at issue looks bleached. I've seen worse bleach jobs holdered as "market acceptable."

This is another good example is that you need to do your homework before buying a Draped Bust (or really any) coin. I lost count of the number of slabbed AU Bust $s I've viewed which in my opinion, should have been in 'genuine' holders.

BillJones

I'd be on the "genuine" side in this case, but two points should be made.

First, the coin is a VG, and as such one should expect to have some things wrong with it. If a collector paid VG money for this piece, he would not be wrong. This coin's sins are not great given the overall grade.

Second, I've had PCGS body bag a coin and then NGC graded it, AND I've had NGC body bag a coin and PCGS graded it. This is not a cut and dried issue, and the coins in question BOTH deserved to be graded IMO.

garrynot

"Surprising to see it go from a genuine holder to a graded NGC holder."

"Recently a fellow board member posted a coin that was in a ngc details holder and made it into a pcgs holder with a cac sticker"



Being a coin grader must be the best job in the world!!

16DMERC

another reason for why you buy the coin, not the holder or sticker or whatever....human beings and John Albanese are fallible

Zoins

<< <i>another reason for why you buy the coin, not the holder or sticker or whatever....human beings and John Albanese are fallible >>

Better yet, use all opinions at your disposal: TPGs, JA, your own, etc. After all, buyers are (typically) human too

au58

Another reason why PCGS coins are typically bid higher than NGC coins too.

skier07

Wow. Someone bought a PCGS genuine for $17,000 and now David Lawrence is selling it.

That doesn't make a lot of sense unless David Lawrence bought it. If I was the owner I would have it for sale elsewhere.

I would have to believe the coin was cracked out before submitting to NGC. The submitter is freerolling ( aside from his 17k purchase ). Worst
case scenario is NGC gives it a genuine. Best scenario it grades.

Bruce

mkman123

both companies make mistakes, thats the end of it.

jdillane

Always need a caveat when judging from images but she looks MA to me.

CertifiedGoldCoins

The seller says "problem free," so it must be. Right?

At least, I wouldn't have a "problem" with it in my type set.