PCGS for grading foreign coins?

ormandh

I know that this question has been asked many times before. Is it the case that I would use PCGS for US and NGC for foreign coinage?

I know which site I am on, but which company am I going to benefit using? I tend to think that PCGS is for US, but I may be wrong with that assumption.

In either case, I will be joining one of these companies, once again, to submit some of my nicer pieces.

ajaan

PCGS is pretty good with World coins now, but I believe they are more expensive than NGC. PCGS requires World coins to be Secure Service which is $5/coin more.

From the PCGS site:



<< <i>* Coins Required for Secure Service: 1. All World (non-U.S.) coins except for Modern service level coins dated 1965 to date. >>

ormandh

Thanks for the info. I may pull the trigger today. -Dan

Dennis88

The SecurePlus requirement a requirement that makes absolutely no sense at all and it has resulted in me sending the majority of foreign coins that I send in to NGC, who will grade it for less than $20 a coin and have a turnaround time for their cheapest option that is actually faster than PCGS's standard tier.

If PCGS would revise their requirement (which I hope they will do someday...soon) I will definitely send more coins to PCGS...but as of right now, it just does not make sense economically.

Dennis

ormandh

HMMM! Maybe the powers that be are listening and will chime in regarding this. I actually have a few dozen coins that I will be submitting very soon to a TPG.

coinkat

seems I have lost touch (again)-

I thought the PCGS cut off for World Coins was 1956 and anything prior to that was secure plus.

The secure plus has already been discussed in prior threads here with the idea of rolling the date back with the exception of certain countries.

In all fairness, it really seems 1965 for all world coins as a cut off for secure plus begs questions... why 1965? Why not come out with a different tier for lessor valued coins?

For the World collectors, the decision to slab remains a very problematic proposition.

ormandh

Do you think that it has anything to do with silver issues? I know that the US removed silver after 1964. Maybe, for whatever reason, that is the date they decided the cut-off was for World issues.

-Dan

brg5658

As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer NGC graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded PCGS world coins. I do still own many world coins in PCGS holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that NGC has a one-up on experience, accuracy, and consistency of grading world coins.

Dennis88

<< <i>seems I have lost touch (again)-

I thought the PCGS cut off for World Coins was 1956 and anything prior to that was secure plus.

The secure plus has already been discussed in prior threads here with the idea of rolling the date back with the exception of certain countries.

In all fairness, it really seems 1965 for all world coins as a cut off for secure plus begs questions... why 1965? Why not come out with a different tier for lessor valued coins?

For the World collectors, the decision to slab remains a very problematic proposition. >>



It got changed in January...I think they wanted to get it on the same page as US. There's no rhyme or reason to it, IMHO and I think PCGS is losing out on a lot of money because of this requirement. But maybe they just don't want to bother slabbing coins <$500 in value.

There's not a single benefit to SecurePlus except maybe a (pretty mediocre) picture. That's about it.

Dennis

coinkat

TPG should have a vested interest in the economics of collecting.

Numismatists/collectors with limited resources need consideration- if for no other reason than to keep the hobby growing.

MrEureka

For coins that are relatively easy to grade, PCGS and NGC have been and still are on the roughly the same page. The coins are graded pretty consistently and to very similar standards.

For more difficult coins, it used to be that NGC was a bit looser, which I attributed mostly to the superior expertise (and resultant confidence) of their world coin grading team. Because NGC coins brought as much in the marketplace, with a few exceptions, and because NGC fees were significantly lower, NGC was the clear winner, and they got most of my submissions. However, for more than a year now, it seems to me that NGC has tightened up, and my preference to submit to NGC is no longer all that clear. I'd have to say that at this point, the jury is still out.

7Jaguars

I am a bit on the fence on all this as well. Generally I too prefer PCGS but some of their late milled Brit grading has lost consistency IMO.
I have wavered a bit but lately ATS has been my choice.

JCMhouston

I was actually thinking about trying our hosts, but the recent change requiring the secure plus with the additional fees makes me stay away, I just sent another batch ATS. I think the main reason must be to just keep down the number of world coins they have to grade, their is certainly no value added.

ajaan

One thing that I have been noticing about NGC slabbed coins is that there seems to be a lot more coins BBed for "surface hairlines" lately.

terribleredmonster

I'll be sending a submission to PCGS sometime in the next couple of months. My collection all meets to criteria for the modern tier, so considering that PCGS costs $10 more to join than NGC at the most basic level and their fee is one dollar less than NGC's fee for my specific coins, it all works out the same on my first 10 coin submission. Anything after that within a year is gravy at $1 a coin. I don't know if PCGS plastic necessarily has more clout than NGC plastic in my area of focus (modern world silver, specifically 1979), but NGC has populations on many of the coins in my collection that PCGS doesn't, meaning that if I submit my coins and get a grade anywhere in the same ballpark as what I estimate I will get, my coins will be high or top pops.

MrEureka

One thing that I have been noticing about NGC slabbed coins is that there seems to be a lot more coins BBed for "surface hairlines" lately.

It's not just you. Yes, it's almost always true that the hairlines are there, but they seem to have lost track of the BB line. It's almost like they feel compelled to prove that they can see through the toning.

amwldcoin

I'm a little out of touch as it's been 2 or 3 years. When I sold my Russian Collection the Russians hands down preferred NGC. I believe I heard the Chinese felt that way as well a year or two ago due to a couple of our hosts mistakes.

All the grading companies make mistakes. In an ideal world the grading companies would have access to several experts in the field of the coins they are grading. That is never going to be feasable.

I'm not a darkside collector anymore. My interests have become directed to midgrade barber halves. WOW! I can probably show you grading swings in plastic probably close to 20 points with all the services on some coins!

PBRat

As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer NGC graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded PCGS world coins. I do still own many world coins in PCGS holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that NGC has a one-up on experience, accuracy, and consistency of grading world coins.

As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer PCGS graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded NGC world coins. I do still own many world coins in NGC holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky, and I tend to cross them to PCGS. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that PCGS has a one-up on accuracy and consistency of grading world coins.

To each their own.

wybrit

It's an emotionally charged question, really. It really depends on the series being graded and the TPG grading standards. I think there are some erroneous opinions here on "who is better" that are based on just "gut feel" as opposed to any objective measurement. There is also undeniably personal bias about the company that might grade a coin higher as being the "better" or "more consistent" (now there's a phrase that has multiple meanings!) grader, or just personal preference based on cost to slab.

I have made a lot of comparative measurements of crossed-over crackouts and, without revealing who is who, one grader scores my series an average of one point vs. the other, and also slabs a lot of coins the other will BB for questionable color. It's also been my observation that the "higher grader" fetches rather less money in auction for the same numerically graded coins.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer NGC graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded PCGS world coins. I do still own many world coins in PCGS holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that NGC has a one-up on experience, accuracy, and consistency of grading world coins.

As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer PCGS graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded NGC world coins. I do still own many world coins in NGC holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky, and I tend to cross them to PCGS. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that PCGS has a one-up on accuracy and consistency of grading world coins.

To each their own. >>






When the subject of NGC accuracy comes up I always have to migrate back to the Cheshire Sale wherein well over half of those coins were abysmal for their assigned grades, and gold coin accuracy wasn't even on the map. I really, really wanted to spend a bunch of dosh in that sale, but only 17 NGC coins met "my standards"; i.e. I felt they would cross to PCGS at the same grade. That was 17 out of 500. I also bought maybe a total 15 other acceptable coins for other collectors at that sale......and, that was it.

One of these days I'll go through the Millenium Sale to compare the NGC grades to the original PCGS grades (i.e. Terner gold), but there was a reason they cracked 'em all and sent them to NGC....and it wasn't uniformity, or accuracy. The "blow-your-mind" 1842 sovereign which was a PCGS MS65 was upgraded to an NGC MS66. That was a simply stunning coin, probably untouchable as to finding an better specimen, but IMHO it wasn't remotely a "66". Cheers.

wybrit

I also bought maybe a total 15 other acceptable coins for other collectors at that sale......and, that was it.

And all the ones you bought on my behalf crossed over!

7Jaguars

Hmm, guess I was "bottom feeding" at the Cheshire Sale as I got quite a few nice "63" bits there with no apologies as to quality for grade.

How about the '54 6d, which was still the nicest I've seen by a country mile, only grading 63 even though other than clash marks it was a solid "64" in my book, shot "65"? That was a big boy example at least as far as rarity if not price & ATS was def. low IMO.

brg5658

<< <i>As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer NGC graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded PCGS world coins. I do still own many world coins in PCGS holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that NGC has a one-up on experience, accuracy, and consistency of grading world coins.

As a world coin collector (and not a seller or flipper), I prefer PCGS graded world coins. Among other things like cost of slabbing, consistency is also important. I have seen way too many mis-graded NGC world coins. I do still own many world coins in NGC holders, but have found that I have to be especially picky, and I tend to cross them to PCGS. Both companies have slabbed some real dogs, and some real gems. But, all things considered my opinion is that PCGS has a one-up on accuracy and consistency of grading world coins.

To each their own. >>



A lot of my opinion is based on world copper coins from the 19th century. There are SO many dogs graded 64RB and 65RB (or higher) from PCGS that would be lucky (even on a good day) to cross to such holders at NGC. If I purchase an NGC MS65RB coin, I know what to expect. If I purchase a PCGS MS65RB coin I have been less than impressed. Are there exceptions -- yes. This is an overall "gestalt", not a principle that can be exhibited by one-off examples.

The crux of my preference hinges on consistency. I feel that if I took a dozen various world coins, cracked them, and sent them back to the same TPG -- NGC graded coins would almost always end up back in the same grade holders. I don't feel that way about many PCGS coins I own. Granted, in the eyes of all of the "wealth" on these boards, I am purchasing a majority of world coins in the < $500 range, and I don't collect gold at all. I'm just a "small fish" collector, so I can't play with you "big boys" and coins from high profile auctions. My personal opinion is and will remain that the more high profile an auction the less important the brand of plastic. Thus, I tend to focus the majority of my observations on readily available world issues, but at the high end of their extant grades.

I have never understood why this has to be such a contentious and defensive topic. Let me state again, of the world coins I own, about 30% are in PCGS plastic. I like PCGS as a world coin grader. But, if offered two comparably graded world coins (let's not forget the coin is what matters!), I tend to prefer the coin in NGC plastic. Not always, and not dogmatically...just usually.

weresteve

<< <i>A lot of my opinion is based on world copper coins from the 19th century. There are SO many dogs graded 64RB and 65RB (or higher) from PCGS that would be lucky (even on a good day) to cross to such holders at NGC. If I purchase an NGC MS65RB coin, I know what to expect. If I purchase a PCGS MS65RB coin I have been less than impressed. Are there exceptions -- yes. This is an overall "gestalt", not a principle that can be exhibited by one-off examples. >>



Based upon some of my recent submissions of George V and George VI farthings ... PCGS has been very inconsistant as of late on grading, especially when it comes to copper with minor spots. There have been some that have come back that I was very pleased with while there were a few that were improperly graded. Had they been US cents, then I feel some of the coins would have graded much differently.

TwoKopeiki

At the end of the day, to me, the plastic is just means of protecting the coin and participate in the different perks each grading company has (registry, pop reports, imaging, etc..). I strongly believe that when it will come time to sell my primary collection, each individual coin will speak for itself and the auction house I choose to liquidate will have decent imaging ability to represent my collection well in the catalogs and online.

Having said that, years ago I helped get the Mexico registry sets defined both here and ATS, which got me into that game. When NGC allowed PCGS coins in their sets - my collection was split nearly 50/50 between the two grading companies. But then NGC, worried about competition in World Coins space, banned PCGS graded coins from their competitive registry. This move, specifically how it was handled by NGC, made me not want to have anything to do with them. That's when I took all of my NGC coins and crossed them over to PCGS in order to participate in PCGS registry.

Personal observations when it comes to 8 Reales grading between the two companies (over the last 6 years of submitting to both):

Bodybags - PCGS is much stricter in my series, period. I have seen this from both submitting PCGS bodybags to NGC and getting them graded, as well as PCGS refusing to cross already graded NGC coins. The use of sniffer, in my mind, now prevents 90%+ of AT coins from being put into PCGS holders. NGC should get this technology. Hairlines are my personal pet peeve. I simply HATE hairlines on a nice AU / MS coins. When I buy PCGS graded AU, I am 80% sure hairlines will be minimal and non-detracting. This is not the case I've observed with NGC (especially when it comes to dipped-out blast white AU's).

Luster - with PCGS, in order for an 8 Reales to be given an AU / MS designation, mint luster has to be present. NGC puts too many bright lusterless coins into AU holders, in my mind.

Consistency - the two services are about the same. After a few years you can start reasonably predicting grades from both services. Except for an occasional PCGS bodybag that often leaves you wondering.

One thing I would note with regards to PCGS - recently I have been seeing coins in our host's plastic that is outside of the usual quality standard I became accustomed to over the years. There are currently a few examples of 8 Reales on eBay that illustrate my point. I was worried that expanding operations to asia and europe might impact world grading standards due to increased volume and not enough graders available, and now I wonder if that's the effect I've been seeing with some of the recent 8 Reales coming onto the market.

Well, back to lurking.

brg5658

<< <i>Having said that, years ago I helped get the Mexico registry sets defined both here and ATS, which got me into that game. When NGC allowed PCGS coins in their sets - my collection was split nearly 50/50 between the two grading companies. But then NGC, worried about competition in World Coins space, banned PCGS graded coins from their competitive registry. This move, specifically how it was handled by NGC, made me not want to have anything to do with them. That's when I took all of my NGC coins and crossed them over to PCGS in order to participate in PCGS registry. >>



Roman, it's curious that what really peeved you about the NGC registry sets is what PCGS has been doing all along. NGC stopped allowing PCGS graded coins in their competitive world registry sets because, in their mind, they did not consider them to be on par with the NGC graded coins. Sort of the same reason why PCGS has never allowed ANY coin of any type graded by NGC to be a part of their competitive registry sets.

One thing that NGC does still allow is that PCGS graded coins can be included in their custom sets, even world PCGS graded coins. Thus, the clear choice to me as a world collector for displaying and organizing my collection is the NGC coin manager -- which allows this. I don't care about the "competitive" nature of the "canned"-collection set topics -- the flexibility of the custom sets is basically unlimited. That coupled with the fact that I find the PCGS registry layout, management tools, and viewing experience to be far inferior (and outdated) compared to the very classy and straightforward NGC custom set tool, makes my choice easy. Just my opinions.

Most of my USA coin collection is type-set related, and given that NGC still allows both NGC and PCGS coins in their USA sets, then NGC is the clear choice for that as well. In my mind the "exclusive" nature of the registry sets on both sides of the street has little to do with real differences in the grading between these two top companies, and everything to do with generated revenue when a collector perceives that they must have a competitive set in one sphere or another. I refuse to be a part of that insanity, and happily welcome coins in NGC and PCGS holders -- and display them using the tools that the NGC site offers.

TwoKopeiki

Brandon, it's not what they did - it's how they did it. As a customer of NGC I felt that I was being negatively impacted by this change and that my experience did not matter. Quite a few complete sets that folks have been working on for years became incomplete in a very short period of time and not even an acknowledgement of the negative impact or anything to help customers with transition. I asked if we can have some kind of cross-over special for a limited time and was ignored. PCGS, on the other hand, did just that. They saw an opportunity and provided an alternative in a way of a cross-over special for world coins where you didn't have to pay the grading fee if your coins didn't cross. It was a no-brainer for me. On one hand I had a company that was telling me to suck it up and move on and on the other hand a company that helped me do just that.

There's a reason a lot of financial institutions are focusing on customer experience as their vision and market differentiator. If you're a service provider in a competitive environment you can either try to win on pricing or on customer experience. And when you think the difference in price is immaterial based on the volumes that you submit over the years, experience is what you're left with. Mine sucked - I walked.

Edited to add that individual experiences may vary.

brg5658

<< <i>Brandon, it's not what they did - it's how they did it. As a customer of NGC I felt that I was being negatively impacted by this change and that my experience did not matter. Quite a few complete sets that folks have been working on for years became incomplete in a very short period of time and not even an acknowledgement of the negative impact or anything to help customers with transition. I asked if we can have some kind of cross-over special for a limited time and was ignored. PCGS, on the other hand, did just that. They saw an opportunity and provided an alternative in a way of a cross-over special for world coins where you didn't have to pay the grading fee if your coins didn't cross. It was a no-brainer for me. On one hand I had a company that was telling me to suck it up and move on and on the other hand a company that helped me do just that.

There's a reason a lot of financial institutions are focusing on customer experience as their vision and market differentiator. If you're a service provider in a competitive environment you can either try to win on pricing or on customer experience. And when you think the difference in price is immaterial based on the volumes that you submit over the years, experience is what you're left with. Mine sucked - I walked.

Edited to add that individual experiences may vary. >>



NGC had (and still has) an ongoing cross-over special for world coin grading. It has been in place for more than a year. I don't fault you for what you did, that's not what I meant at all. I just think it's interesting that everyone was up in such a huff about something NGC did that has been "business as normal" for PCGS since the very beginning. I agree, NGC could have gone about it in a more transparent way, but what's done is done.

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>NGC had (and still has) an ongoing cross-over special for world coin grading. It has been in place for more than a year. I don't fault you for what you did, that's not what I meant at all. I just think it's interesting that everyone was up in such a huff about something NGC did that has been "business as normal" for PCGS since the very beginning. I agree, NGC could have gone about it in a more transparent way, but what's done is done. >>



Yeah, that's the kicker. They ignored me when I was suggesting it as a way to help with transition, but reacted to PCGS's cross-over special by running their own a few months later. By that time all my coins were already crossed-over.

ajaan

For those of you noticing an inconsistency in PCGS's grading, could this be attributed to them opening so many offices overseas? Are the regular graders going there and coins sent to CA have the 'second string' graders grading them?

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>For those of you noticing an inconsistency in PCGS's grading, could this be attributed to them opening so many offices overseas? Are the regular graders going there and coins sent to CA have the 'second string' graders grading them? >>



That's my assumption. I'm keeping a close eye on new certified 8 Reales hitting the market and the consistency recently seems to be all over the place. I hope it's just a few bad batches.

wybrit

A lot of my opinion is based on world copper coins from the 19th century. There are SO many dogs graded 64RB and 65RB (or higher) from PCGS that would be lucky (even on a good day) to cross to such holders at NGC. If I purchase an NGC MS65RB coin, I know what to expect. If I purchase a PCGS MS65RB coin I have been less than impressed. Are there exceptions -- yes. This is an overall "gestalt", not a principle that can be exhibited by one-off examples.

Absolutely untrue when it comes to British coppers of the 19th century. There are a lot of dogs in 65RB and 66RB holders, but not a lot from PCGS.

Mac's entire collection was in PCGS holders, and not a dog in the pile.

LochNESS

I agree with TwoKopeiki's comments and some others' which echo my own experiences. But I'm more interested in objective data rather than subjective ... on that note I wish to add the following:

Gold and copper typically preserve better in NGC plastic. Do I own gold and copper in PCGS plastic? Yes to both. Did I submit them? No, found/bought 'em that way and haven't crossed over.

I've heard the silver types known to be plagued with milk spotting also fare better in NGC plastic, but I have not seen enough evidence.

edit (dangit) to clarify I have not sent any slabs to be considered for crossover ... I did not mean to imply that I attempted crossover and NGC rejected them ...

brg5658

<< <i>A lot of my opinion is based on world copper coins from the 19th century. There are SO many dogs graded 64RB and 65RB (or higher) from PCGS that would be lucky (even on a good day) to cross to such holders at NGC. If I purchase an NGC MS65RB coin, I know what to expect. If I purchase a PCGS MS65RB coin I have been less than impressed. Are there exceptions -- yes. This is an overall "gestalt", not a principle that can be exhibited by one-off examples.

Absolutely untrue when it comes to British coppers of the 19th century. There are a lot of dogs in 65RB and 66RB holders, but not a lot from PCGS.

Mac's entire collection was in PCGS holders, and not a dog in the pile. >>



I believe you mean, "absolutely untrue with regard to the coins that Mac has carefully chosen for his collection". My opinion is based on hundreds of such coins seen for sale over the past 3 years. Yours is based on a collection of specifically chosen choice coins in one person's collection. Again, let me stress, my comments are an overall "gestalt", NOT something you will notice with very carefully compiled single examples in an advanced collection.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>

<< <i>A lot of my opinion is based on world copper coins from the 19th century. There are SO many dogs graded 64RB and 65RB (or higher) from PCGS that would be lucky (even on a good day) to cross to such holders at NGC. If I purchase an NGC MS65RB coin, I know what to expect. If I purchase a PCGS MS65RB coin I have been less than impressed. Are there exceptions -- yes. This is an overall "gestalt", not a principle that can be exhibited by one-off examples.

Absolutely untrue when it comes to British coppers of the 19th century. There are a lot of dogs in 65RB and 66RB holders, but not a lot from PCGS.

Mac's entire collection was in PCGS holders, and not a dog in the pile. >>



I believe you mean, "absolutely untrue with regard to the coins that Mac has carefully chosen for his collection". My opinion is based on hundreds of such coins seen for sale over the past 3 years. Yours is based on a collection of specifically chosen choice coins in one person's collection. Again, let me stress, my comments are an overall "gestalt", NOT something you will notice with very carefully compiled single examples in an advanced collection. >>




In case anyone is scratching their heads, over 95% of my collection was purchased by me in all their raw, naked glory, and they were not slabbed by PCGS until I decided to sell. Of course, I didn't "pick out" coins already entombed unless they were solid for the assigned grade (whether PCGS or NGC). Also, PCGS undergraded over half my coppers, and a few silvers as well, but the bidders took care of that oversight, and bid most of them up to their next level.

I really prefer my wimmin in the flesh.................

LochNESS

I am able to separate the joy I get out of handling coins from the coins being handled. So, I buy a lot of stuff raw, and submit for slabbing. At any given moment I've got dozens of coins on my desk that I can handle and enjoy. But eventually they get slabbed for preservation. I don't mind it one bit. I still have plenty of raw coins to handle, and in some way it provokes me to keep buying / keep a steady supply of newps for handling.

Then there's my red 2x2 boxes of coins that aren't worth slabbing ... but even those I usually don't remove from the flips unless I'm really hard up for metal between my fingers.

7Jaguars

The January Kouros (SP?) sales at Heritage had some overgraded PCG bits in the "hyper graded" Brit silver that was on offer...

I did buy a couple properly graded bits in those sales