Does PGCS weight luster greater than NGC in grading MS coins?

dlmtorts

I brought this up in another thread but I worded it poorly. It seems to me that at least with Washington Quarters PCGS places greater emphasis on luster than NGC does. I see many coins with muted luster in gem grades with NGC and not nearly as many with PCGS. Has anyone else noticed this with Washingtons or any other series?

pursuitofliberty

While I can not say for sure, I agree with your observation ... and it also shows for AU coins

Type2

I don't know but I did send in some with nice luster let's see what happens.

GrumpyEd

I thought the same about cents in lower MS grades, I mean ones that are brown with little or no luster and get a grade like 62BN that I'd expect to be AU in PCGS holders.
Those 58-63 grades are a tough call anyway.

I think this sort of judgement is very dependent on series and grade range.
I can't knock their decisions, getting a coin graded is getting their opinion so I accept it for what it is "their opinion".

RedHerring

Luster and eye appeal do seem to play better at PCGS. Let face it, great looking coins are going to grade a bit higher and that's part of the market equation. If everything was technical, PCGS wouldn't be the market leader that it is......

Frankcoins

Flashy luster is worth a grading bump. The market supports this.

seateddime

PCGS does not like deep toning, I have had coins conserved at NGC and resubmitted to PCGS and seen some major results.

roadrunner

NGC during the 1987-2007 period definitely tended to give higher grades to more deeply toned coins than PCGS. NGC was ok with coins that were technically clean on surfaces, but where the luster was muted to a degree. I think NGC has since tightened up in this area, but to some degree still leans in that direction more than PCGS. A lot of coins have been "conserved" over the years to feed this change. In the 1970's and 1980's the need for everything to be blast white was not the mania it is today.

roadrunner

Shamika

In my observations, PCGS does seem to weight luster greater than NGC.

keoj

Opinion Only........

- PCGS weights Luster over NGC
- NGC weights Toning over PCGS. This one needs a little more context.....I have felt that PCGS was overly harsh on original toned coins (any coin over 100 years only probably isn't white......).

dragon

<< <i>Opinion Only........

- PCGS weights Luster over NGC
- NGC weights Toning over PCGS. This one needs a little more context.....I have felt that PCGS was overly harsh on original toned coins (any coin over 100 years only probably isn't white......). >>







I agree. In addition, I feel PCGS makes the mistake of actually rewarding many dipped out Morgan dollars that initially appear to have flashy lustre after dipping. This has been especially apparent on many older graded PL and DMPL PCGS holdered coins where the mirrors have subsequently been subdued or destroyed by previous dips.

Bear

Luster seems to play a great role in PCGS grading,and well it should.

Although grading a coin is the sum total of the various technical factors,

I have always believed, that luster, is what hits you first in the face.

Elcontador

Re 19th Century Type in general, I agree with this assessment. I do not believe flashy luster is worth a grade bump if it comes at the expense of allowing additional contact marks on the surfaces, especially when such contact marks are in grade sensitive areas on the coin. I have seen this in the MS 65 and MS 66 grades. I avoid these coins.

Ditto to what Dragon said re dipped, and sometimes, dipped out coins. If a coin is the same grade, I'd take an original deeply toned coin over one which is overly dipped.

Bear

Luster can still be evident even thru light to medium toning. It is that deep underlying luster

that I believe we are all referring to.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>Flashy luster is worth a grading bump. The market supports this. >>



+1

mdwoods

Luster is king.

WoodenJefferson

If your not an active grader any answer to this hypothetical question would be purely conjecture. It is very possible that in any given series, luster can play an important role, but to say that one company puts more emphasis on one specific criteria for a higher grade, is a leap of faith.

Bear

True, it is a leap of faith, but it remains the perception of a great number

of collectors.

golfer72

<< <i>Flashy luster is worth a grading bump. The market sunports this. >>

That is the problem! The market should not be factored in when grading coins. Markets change over time. Thats why we have constantly changing grading standards over time. The premise of consistent grading and standards over time has failed due to market grading.

lusterlover

<< <i>

<< <i>Flashy luster is worth a grading bump. The market sunports this. >>

That is the problem! The market should not be factored in when grading coins. Markets change over time. Thats why we have constantly changing grading standards over time. The premise of consistent grading and standards over time has failed due to market grading. >>



I don't think that is what he meant. PCGS rewards luster and the market agrees by making PCGS the market leader and paying premiums for coins in their slabs. PCGS has always graded this way. They have not changed their standard on this to cater to market conditions. JMHO.

keoj

Just to be devils advocate......so a coin that has luster and toning is graded different than a coin that is white and has luster? My point earlier was that in my opinion, PCGS occasionally rewards luster but penalizes toning. NGC occasionally does the opposite.