Proof yet again..NGC 68 is PCGS 67--done messing with NGC

canadacolornut

I several weeks ago that over the years my crossing rate with NGC holdered coins I submitted to PCGS was about 1 in 3.

This was not a one or two time trial. Over the years I've probably submitted 40-50 NGC coins-m the holder and out of the holder
to get rid of holder bias with maybe 35% of them crossing at the same grade and NEVER higher.

This time I bought an NGC holdered Canada proof quarter that I badly need to fill out my Registry set. The NGC grade was PR 68.
I deliberately paid a premium for the PF 68 grade because I had to have at least a PL67 to qualify for the slot. I told posters at the
time that I would let them know the results. Just in, and the "68" came back PR 67 as I had banked on-just hoping they didn't 66 it.

I realize some posters won't buy into that and I respect their opinion of course. So NGC away guys and wear it in good health.

BTW I broke the coin out of the holder-something I no longer risk unless I'm willing to accept at least 1 grade lower.

"We report, you decide"

JCMhouston

Interesting to compare with LordM's recent results. I've had a similar problem the one time I tried to cross a batch of PCGS to NGC, out of 6 coins (mostly Geo. III copper) only 1 crossed at grade, and none upgraded. So I quit even trying to cross, several of my sets dropped in the NGC registry when the PCGS coins couldn't be used but I don't mind any more.

7Jaguars

Sorry to hear, CCN. I have not always had the same experience as you. I would say that at least as far as Brit coins go, they (PCGS) are all over the place. I daresay in some series that I would be glad to throw my grading skills into the fray with them, and especially with proof issues.

This is one bit, a matte 1951 half crown that really blew my estimate of their grading skills: http://www.pcgs.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=432498
I have seen this coin in hand as part of an original matte set from Spink in the grand old days, and immediately prior to slabbing. Coin is in the 65-66 range, not wiped, not cleaned, absent of contact marks or abrasions in fields or devices, or monkeyed with in any fashion I could tell even under glass.

This jibes with other experiences with one-off or extremely rare patterns that I could go on with.

PS Sorry for the link issues...

TPRC

I agree with you even though this is a gross generalization that does not apply to all types, and even though I have had one or two upgrades from NGC to PCGS, In general, PCGS grades 1 grade higher than PCGS and, in general, the price guides reflect a price differential, at least in the areas that I collect.

brg5658

1) If you're buying the coin, it's YOUR responsibility to purchase the quality you want. It's no secret that TPGs are opinions. Seems to me you're more worried about the number on the slab for your registry set than you are actually purchasing the best coin. Some food for thought.

2) The lack of grading equivalence goes both ways. I have a good friend who collects Wilhelmina gold pieces. When the NGC registry allowed both PCGS and NGC coins, he had about half of his pieces in PCGS holders. When the PCGS coins were no long allowed, he submitted his PCGS coins to NGC for grading, and all but one of them came back lower (one even came back 2 points lower). Only one crossed at grade. He is a serious collector of these pieces, and he will tell you that NGC is much stricter on this particular coin series. My point is this, you cannot make blanket statements about the grades of NGC vs. PCGS. It simply doesn't hold water. For every anecdotal example, there is an equally convincing counter-example standing in the wings.

3) Sage advice I have gotten from many "registry game players" -- if you want the coin in a specific flavor of plastic at a specific grade, then buy it that way. People tend to get frustrated and upset by all of this downgrade, upgrade, cross at grade lunacy. It's not worth the increased stress levels -- this hobby is supposed to be enjoyable!!!

YMMV

Cheers.

brg5658

<< <i>I agree with you even though this is a gross generalization that does not apply to all types, and even though I have had one or two upgrades from NGC to PCGS, In general, PCGS grades 1 grade higher than PCGS and, in general, the price guides reflect a price differential, at least in the areas that I collect. >>



I would say this is the generally accepted "dogma" (or brainwashing, or whatever you'd like to call it) for the grading of USA material. I have had quite the opposite experience with exonumia and world coins.

Sometimes perception is more important than reality. I feel if people repeat something enough times it becomes fact to many. I tend to avoid sweeping generalizations about grading differences between PCGS and NGC because the nuances of the differences vary by country, coin denomination, year of coin, mint of coin, etc. No generalization is going to cover all of those combinations and permutations.

TPRC

<< <i>

<< <i>I agree with you even though this is a gross generalization that does not apply to all types, and even though I have had one or two upgrades from NGC to PCGS, In general, PCGS grades 1 grade higher than PCGS and, in general, the price guides reflect a price differential, at least in the areas that I collect. >>



I would say this is the generally accepted "dogma" (or brainwashing, or whatever you'd like to call it) for the grading of USA material. I have had quite the opposite experience with exonumia and world coins.

Sometimes perception is more important than reality. I feel if people repeat something enough times it becomes fact to many. I tend to avoid sweeping generalizations about grading differences between PCGS and NGC because the nuances of the differences vary by country, coin denomination, year of coin, mint of coin, etc. No generalization is going to cover all of those combinations and permutations. >>



We can agree to disagree on most of this. I do, however, agree that sweeping generalizations are dangerous and I also agree with point one and three of your earlier post. Furthermore, most of my experience is with US material. With US material, it's not brainwashing and I'm no particular fan of PCGS, it is simply accurate to say that coins in PCGS holders sell at a premium to coins in NGC plastic for most US material. And my experience with US coins has been that PCGS grades more conservatively than NGC. I have probably inferred that the same is true for world coins when it may not be.

canadacolornut

Thanks folks.

For the record I ALWAYS buy the coin-not the holder. I see some pretty dull,lifeless scratched or bag marked MS65-66's and PL 66-67's out there
that I wouldn't want no matter the grade on the holder.

The NGC coin was attractive with good mint lustre and very few tics that I could see. Grading it from looking at photos from both sides
I was pretty comfortable that it would make 67 with PCGS but only a faint hope that it would 68.

Just thankful that I could live with a 1 point drop.....

EVillageProwler

I'm surprised that we have a TPG thread in this forum...

Those who know me know that I care about the grade assigned by the TPG. Why wouldn't I? Who wouldn't, assuming that they care enough to get a coin slabbed in the first place or to buy slabbed coins?

Yes, yes - buy the coin. Learn how to grade. I mean really learn how to grade, not just think you know by looking at a few coins and now you're an expert... Then, buy the coin and have confidence in your assessment. For the coins that I, and many others here, collect it's easy to go from AU58/AU63 to MS63 over the grading life of a coin.

That's because both services have much to learn -- even NGC which is the vastly more experienced of the two services. Also, graders vary and can give you what you want.

So, just buy really nice coins and either don't care about the grade that much, or be prepared to patiently resubmit a few times. We are collectors and can be patient. Dealers usually cannot afford such patience. I once bought a better date Seated Dollar in MS62 from an industry sharpie. Upon my first try at re-grade ten years ago, it went up a point. Yes, PCGS. The coin is still awesome regardless of its assessed grade.

So, just buy nice coins and be patient. Or, enjoy. Whatever.

EVP

Zohar

Agree with EVP. I am mostly referring to 16-18th century material where I have seen MS58 and AU62s interchange as well as MS-63/64 being inconsistent. I am not a grader unfortunately and do not GTG well, yet do recognize a "POPPING" coin when it hits me.

This reminds me of the 2013 NYINC where EVP took me to a table where dealer had a super choice NGC MS-63 Ferdinand III Taler. The coin had been removed from slab yet label kept. I remember hesitating as seller was very firm on price and grade (while uttering that he hates slabs). I sent it in to NGC.... and there came an MS-64. Still the same pretty coin in either grade.

coinkat

What is the coin?

cwt

<< <i>Sorry to hear, CCN. I have not always had the same experience as you. I would say that at least as far as Brit coins go, they (PCGS) are all over the place. I daresay in some series that I would be glad to throw my grading skills into the fray with them, and especially with proof issues.

This is one bit, a matte 1951 half crown that really blew my estimate of their grading skills: http://www.pcgs.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=432498
I have seen this coin in hand as part of an original matte set from Spink in the grand old days, and immediately prior to slabbing. Coin is in the 65-66 range, not wiped, not cleaned, absent of contact marks or abrasions in fields or devices, or monkeyed with in any fashion I could tell even under glass.

This jibes with other experiences with one-off or extremely rare patterns that I could go on with.

PS Sorry for the link issues... >>



Link...
Text

canadacolornut

Good comment EVP.

Actually David Hall started PCGS in 1976-about 9-10 years before John Albanese jumped in with NGC, I was dealing with David
and with BJ Searls at the time buying cherry picked world coins on a monthly "Pay if you like it, return it if you don't" basis.

I didn't like it all when PCGS started slabbing coins. I kept mine in plastic set holders, just bought the nicest ones I could find and didn't
pay any attention at all to what somebody else thought a numeral grade cased in an ugly slab ought to be. The NGC slab was "cuter" and
when it came along I holdered some of my coins in it-still have a few. So I'm not exactly "cherry" in the coin collecting field.

I will always maintain-and it's proven to my satisfaction-that Albanese's marketing strategy was based on "Hey send 'em to us. We grade 'em higher!!"

And it worked-at least in terms of getting a bigger share of the world coin market and probably the U.S. market as well.

Others tried that approach but most of them are gone now because they would never cross with PCGS or even NGC.

Bottom line: Want a higher grade? Send the sucker to John. I lost all respect and the figures I've posted are accurate and based on dozens of submissions
over the years in and out of the holder.

coinkat

In all fairness, your comments seem rather harsh. Grading is subjective and is merely an opinion based on a review done at a specific point in time. Opinions can change. Graders and collectors can change their opinion as to the grade of a coin. There really is no right or wrong opinion, however, some opinions are better than others. The opinion of either NGC or PCGS is not better or worse because one graded the coin higher or lower. It is the coin that remains constant unless it is enhanced. Appreciating the coin for what separates it from others of the same date and grade is the key.

EVillageProwler

CCN,

No disrespect intended to your years of experience with both TPG services, but my non-scientific observation differs from yours. I see, or I think I see, the overall chaos from both services. At times, one service is horridly tight, other times it's the other service. And, it'll vary with regard to the series or type of coin.

I find the only ways to game the grading system is to do it microscopically/surgically. And even then, it's just to up the odds of my getting what I want.

Bottom line: I'm uncomfortable making blanket grand market statements about PCGS vs NGC for an area so vast as the world coin market.

EVP

canadacolornut

I don't disagree with that EVP.PCGS certainly has inconsistencies too. I've even called before I sent some coins back, to
complain about the grade and tell them how much I resented paying twice for them to get it right.

The human equation will always factor in. But I'm talking long haul and a vary obvious pattern of lower standards to keep the bucks rolling in.
This is based on close to 30 years of submitting and watching their marketing ploys come into play.

As example, NGC welcomed PCGS coins into their Registry program. I dominated several of their categories and liked the idea of being able to post on both
sites.

But it was just another "come on" to subvert their competition and get PCGS registry set holders into the fold. Then they cut them off when they felt that
they'd made the inroads that they'd planned.

There are credible and straight forward third party graders and there are " I know what!" marketing hucksters like NGC

brg5658

<< <i>
Actually David Hall started PCGS in 1976-about 9-10 years before John Albanese jumped in with NGC, I was dealing with David
and with BJ Searls at the time buying cherry picked world coins on a monthly "Pay if you like it, return it if you don't" basis.
>>



This "historical" information is patently false. PCGS is self proclaimed to have been started in 1985 by 7 dealers, not ust David Hall. As best I recall John Albanese was one of those founders of PCGS also. NGC started one and a half years later in 1987.

Now, it is very likely that David Hall was dealing in coins in 1976 (I wasn't born yet, so I don't know), but I am quite certain that the name PCGS didn't exist, and there was no such thing as slabs.

You can believe what you want to believe, but somewhere in the last 40 years your facts have been confused with old-wives tales -- at least it appears so based on many of the things you state as "truth" in your most recent reply.

canadacolornut

I just checked it again and you're right brg.

My source was another site but I now see a disclaimer in it; went to other sources and see that it was
founded in 1986. But it's not "an old wives"-just rusty memory banks.

I knew he had other dealers involved in the founding. The problem is the founding date. I was in Boca Raton Fla. in the late 70's;
know that David was dealing in collectible school books and had the world coin program I described going at the time. No doubt here
about that.

Thanks for the correction in dates. I appreciate it.

My attitude about NGC remains the same

theboz11

Having resubmitted a number of older PCGS graded coins back to PCGS, and to have the grades changed from ms 64 up to ms65,,,, My question is, How do you know you have it correctly graded by either service??

Zohar

standards change over time so the timing of submission matters. I have seen AU64s from the old gen NGC's which would no longer happen. Like any new product it takes time and experience to get it right.

S&P and Moody's still had it very wrong in spite of extensive experience.

theboz11

"STANDARDS" are NOT supposed to change, that's why they call them STANDARDS. My question stands. ANACS standard used to be the book you went by, PCGS is way stricter than THE STANDARDS and you say they changed which way and when. No offense intended nor do I want an answer., It is what has happened and someone is whining about one grade point TODAY and that is not consitant?? There was a study awhile back that showed that you could not get the greatest consistency out of any of them. I see no reason for any across the board judgement on either of them as being "THE ONE" with the correct grade.