<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
Guilty as charged!
In fact, whenever I get to "choose my title", I may go with "PCGS Fanboy".
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy then NGC and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly, NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
This seems sort of like evaluating laboratory equipment performance in terms of accuracy and precision. I imagine that both NGC and PCGS have internal systems to evaluate these with respect to their own sets of grading standards.
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy then NGC and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly, NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up. >>
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add: To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true?
Why does the perception that you are going to get less money when you sell an ANACS (or NGC) coin than if it were certified by PCGS matter anyway? You obviously (remember, PCGS coins sell for more money) paid less for it when you bought it.
Example: You buy a NGC coin for $500.00 which would have cost you $550.00 in a PCGS slab with the same grade (10% premium). It so happens that you bought a coin that actually went up in value when sometime down the road you decide to sell. Your NGC coin is now worth $550.00 while auction reports say that a PCGS coin would have netted $660.00. Both examples have increased by the same percentage. Makes no difference what slab you bought.
On the other hand, say the market turned the other way and that NGC coin is now only worth $400.00. I suspect that a PCGS coin would then net even less of a premium compared to NGC...say, 5-8 percent rather than 10. NGC slab was actually the better buy.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Edited to add: To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Don't know if this changes your argument, but "less filling" and "tastes great" are both characteristics of the SAME beer. All you have is two groups conversing about why each one likes the same thing; they are not comparing 2 different beers.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
It's a small circle of friends who understand what you put down. Ebay is the entity that lacked numismatic intellect all the while. Hard to flaw the companies who've stayed the course for generations, and in my opinion , it's even worse, anyone attempting to tear the last few remaining. Essentially, I agree. And each of these 3 TPGs have a strong presence and following, for good reason. (The majority of times they get it "close enough for government work ")
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source.
<< <i>..... To get a realistic picture of this I refer to the CDN CMI in comparing TPG's. My 7-14-14 issue shows 82.77 for both PCGS and NGC. ANACS is at 65.04 and ICG at 65.90. >>
I don't know why this CDN CMI thing keeps getting quoted. It's been totally useless for years. No way those TPG's have the same rating unless it's based on consistency to their own personal standards. The pop reports clearly show which companies are stricter in each particular series. There was a time in the earlier years of the CMI where Heritage certified NCI coins where ranked high on that list. Yeah, I didn't believe that back then either.
Do some dealers find it more difficult to sell an accurately graded coin simply because it was graded by NGC rather than PCGS? Half my collection is graded by NGC. Will I have a difficult time selling these accurately graded, eye appealing coins? By ignoring NGC slabs at a coin show, you are ignoring about half of all certified coins and are probably overlooking some great buys on the basis you buy only PCGS slabs.
Answers: Yes, Yes and No.
Accurately graded coins in NGC holders doesn't matter a whole lot. You will usually have to accept much less money for them unless they are generic coins that for the most part can trade sight-unseen. Been there, done that. I preferred not taking 20-30% less at major auction for my eye appealing NGC graded coins (stickered and unstickered). But Mr. Market makes the rules, not Mr. Collector. Some dealers will try to avoid stocking NGC coins just because they are harder to sell than PCGS. And even if they stock a solidly graded NGC coin, they will expect a discount from you when buying it. When you run into a dealer who only sells >90% NGC/ANACS coins let me know. The opposite has already occurred numerous times.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days....
You seem to be saying grading has loosened since the days of the rattlers? It has. And it's never going back there. If there have been brief bouts of tightening in the past 18 years they probably haven't lasted more than weeks or months at a time. The grading of today is about as liberal as it has ever been....not all that much different from 2008 standards. The "legend of the old holders?" That's too funny. I recall one shipment I sent to PCGS for regrade where all 3 coins were MS65 seated halves in ogh's. All 3 of those came back MS66 for me. Yet, I can submit half a dozen NGC coins of similar high quality for crossing and not a single one will cross. Dozens of gem seated type coins over a 10 year period and not a single cross. I even went so far as to have Heritage and others do my submissions in their name to see if it was "just me." Heritage did a little better than I did going 1 for 12. I still take pride in my 0% NGC gem seated cross rate....but my PCGS gem seated regrade/upgrade rate is 100%. That white plastic plays tricks on my eyes. coin submission. They went 1 for 12.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source. >>
Would anyone pay a grading fee and 1% value fee to cross a PCGS coin into an NGC slab? Didn't think so. So why fight on price when you don't have to. Apple vs Samsung, I mean, PCGS vs NGC
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source. >>
Would anyone pay a grading fee and 1% value fee to cross a PCGS coin into an NGC slab? Didn't think so. So why fight on price when you don't have to. Apple vs Samsung, I mean, PCGS vs NGC >>
Right, classic, when you don't the goods try and baffle with BS. I'll assume then as you choose not to actually answer my question that you in fact do not have the ability to actually prove your statement, not a surprise.
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy then NGC and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly, NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up. >>
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add: To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
As others have mentioned; NGC offered to do so for a better $$$ break.
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy then NGC and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly, NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up. >>
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add: To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling. >>
I dare you to find anywhere that I have proposed that one service is better than another, I am one of the most open minded posters on this board because I'm just a simple coin collector not a brand collector. And while your at it just where have I accused RR of drinking the kool-aid?? You need to get back on your meds or get new glasses because you did not read or understand anything I wrote. I am in agreement with RR that grading seems much looser today than in the past, where I differ with his thoughts is that one service is and has been more consistently strict in grading.
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy then NGC and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly, NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up. >>
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add: To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling. >>
I dare you to find anywhere that I have proposed that one service is better than another, I am one of the most open minded posters on this board because I'm just a simple coin collector not a brand collector. And while your at it just where have I accused RR of drinking the kool-aid?? You need to get back on your meds or get new glasses because you did not read or understand anything I wrote. I am in agreement with RR that grading seems much looser today than in the past, where I differ with his thoughts is that one service is and has been more consistently strict in grading. >>
I think you're wrong, however, even if you continue to believe you're right, the market feels otherwise. So (only matters if you're looking to sell) -- maximize. Buy NGC gems that are currently underappreciated, place them in PCGS plastic -- when it makes sense to do so.
over the years i have seen more coins overgraded in ngc slabs than in pcgs slabs. i guess it comes down to whose opinion do you trust more. the general public seems to think pcgs.
Only when dealers and collectors insist in buying certified because it gives them a sense of security in what they buy. But one can buy raw or a certified coin they feel insecure buying. Especially when seller has a reputation in buying coins back or refunding when a coin does not pan out with a grading service of buyer's choice. But what I have learned, if the consensus on a coin's certified grade is wrong, many dealers and collectors as sellers simply crack out the coin to eliminate the debate. And they won't give a guarantee when a coin might or has registered a problem with a certification service. And because the seller will already have the coin marked down below a certified grade/price. Every time, a dealer or collector must decide, whether the coin is raw, certified by any grading service, how much trouble the coin will be to sell down the road. Today, more people than ever look at the coin and must measure its qualities against its price, the reason why the CAC was hatched.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Exactly, this is the only time it matters. Up until that point your coins can be slabbed in whatever holder you like or even raw. If you think you got great value on your purchases over the years, that's great too. But on sale day it's time to judge the coin's true quality....and which holder it is in. There has been a 5-15% min discount for NGC coins ever since 1993-1995 or so (non-generic MS/PF type coins). Anyone who thinks different was never active in the market. This is an apples to apples comparison (same coin placed in two different holders....it almost always brings more money in one particular holder). When Larry Whitlow and type collector Jim Swan tried to convince me in 2002 that quality NGC coins couldn't bring the same strong money as nice PCGS coins I told them they were wrong. After all, I was buying mostly NGC coins and doing quite well at it....or so I thought. Turns out they were right. Jim even picked me clean on an NGC type coin in 2002. I had paid $12,500 for it and flipped it to him for $14,500 on the condition that it could be crossed. It crossed for him. Only 3-6 months later when his set was complete and sold off, that same coin was sold to Oliver Jung for around $20K....a nice little bump for a holder change. I had no idea at that time that a holder change could get you another 30-50% on some seated type coins. And this was the weak 2002 market, not a blistering 2007/2008.
Personally, I don't like a market where a holder (or sticker) can affect an identical coin's value by 30-50% or more. I was quite happy in those dumb days of 5-15% differences back in 1998-2008. At least I could negotiate that kind of market. While there may be buying opportunities out there with this bifurcation, you still have to find someone willing to pay you more for that "opportunity" you happened to discover. The other alternative is to crack, cross, or sticker your way to "opportunity." I never drank Kool-Aid. That stuff was horrible. Orange and Grape Hi-C were my favorite "junk" drinks.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
While I prefer PCGS, you couldn't pay me to use an apple product.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please. Best, Spacehayduke >>
Yes, you can find dogs and gems in any holders. The thing is, you find a lot more of them in specific holders. We're talking about the rule, not the exception. I can go to any coin show and find exceptions in both directions. What I can't do is go to ANY coin show and find a difference in the primary trend. Sorry.
Why was Newman NGC graded? I don't know. Maybe they gave a much better price and the suggestion that they would get the highest grades possible. Did 80% of Newman really CAC? How did you arrive at that conclusion? I just checked the Heritage site and got a 58.2% sticker rate on the sessions sold in mid-November. That's pretty much in line with Gardner that did 55% (PCGS stickered at 68% with Gardner). The other major collections I've followed over the past 5 years had much higher sticker rates for PCGS coins vs. NGC. The most glaring were the Dick Osburn halves (3% NGC vs. 39% PCGS stickers....13x difference).
I have no clue why Smithsonian chose NGC. But since those coins are never going to be sold it really wouldn't matter who they chose. It would have come down to whomever provided the best deal to the Smithsonian. And best deal would be a combination of price, appearance, advertising, good will, opportunities to research, and a whole list of things. I'm also sure that Smithsonian and Newman wanted the fewest "genuine" holders possible. Whomever offered what those guys wanted, got the deal. It's possible the strictest grading company is not what they wanted. PCGS and NGC are both first tier companies. But they are very different in many areas. Why did the ANA choose NGC as "its grading" company a few years back? I'll leave that research to others.
PCGS has the best rep as they have the appearance of doing more in the market for the customer. As for apple no way do I use those products, my Samsung galaxy Note 3 kills any apple phone. Just try to save an image or part of an image using an apple phone so annoing and all I have to do is circle it and it is mine.
As many said "Mr. Market rules (not Mr. Collector rules)." How many times we saw solid NGC coins sold in Heritage, cross to PCGS at the same grade, and double their price in the next auction in the same year? Please name one case you saw the other way. I am listening.
Remember TDN talked about 50c for NGC and one dollar on PCGS is about these cases.
Here are two pieces of TPG history I've heard over the years, mostly from professionals at shows. I really don't know whether either is completely true, partially true, or false. Interested in any feedback. (1) When NGC was founded, some generous grading for dealer friends of NGC's ownership seemed to occur. Although that soon stopped, it left behind a residue of belief that PCGS grading was -- that is, continued to be -- more objective. (2) Although PCGS has always been considered tougher in grading than NGC, they've slightly, gradually softened over the years. "Rattler" grading was stricter than green holder grading, which in turn was stricter than blue holder grading. On that count, I once had a dealer tell me (after PCGS holders had gone blue) that a coin I had in a PCGS holder really should regrade and gain at least a couple points -- but I shouldn't do it, as my holder was green.
<< <i>Here are two pieces of TPG history I've heard over the years, mostly from professionals at shows. I really don't know whether either is completely true, partially true, or false. Interested in any feedback. (1) When NGC was founded, some generous grading for dealer friends of NGC's ownership seemed to occur. Although that soon stopped, it left behind a residue of belief that PCGS grading was -- that is, continued to be -- more objective. (2) Although PCGS has always been considered tougher in grading than NGC, they've slightly, gradually softened over the years. "Rattler" grading was stricter than green holder grading, which in turn was stricter than blue holder grading. On that count, I once had a dealer tell me (after PCGS holders had gone blue) that a coin I had in a PCGS holder really should regrade and gain at least a couple points -- but I shouldn't do it, as my holder was green. >>
Do you have a citation for #1 or is this just hearsay?
<< <i>Here are two pieces of TPG history I've heard over the years, mostly from professionals at shows. I really don't know whether either is completely true, partially true, or false. Interested in any feedback. (1) When NGC was founded, some generous grading for dealer friends of NGC's ownership seemed to occur. Although that soon stopped, it left behind a residue of belief that PCGS grading was -- that is, continued to be -- more objective. (2) Although PCGS has always been considered tougher in grading than NGC, they've slightly, gradually softened over the years. "Rattler" grading was stricter than green holder grading, which in turn was stricter than blue holder grading. On that count, I once had a dealer tell me (after PCGS holders had gone blue) that a coin I had in a PCGS holder really should regrade and gain at least a couple points -- but I shouldn't do it, as my holder was green. >>
When NGC was founded in 1987 the dealers didn't quite know what to make of their product. They knew how to bid on PCGS coins but weren't sure if they should be bidding the same, more or less for the NGC coins starting to appear on the market. I had my collection straight NGC grade in early 1988 and I got some grades much lower than I expected. For instance my monster gem proof 1904 Barber half from an orig gem proof set came back as NGC PF 65 (market value $3500). I had paid $5400 for that coin in 1984 from one of the toughest type coin dealers in the country. I resubmitted it. It came back PF66 next time around which was more consistent with a $5K coin. My near gem 1856-0 quarter came back NGC MS64. I sent that back to PCGS and it came back MS65. So if anything, NGC was tight as heck when they first opened the doors. I don't know if connected dealers got better grades or not at that time. What I do know is that one coin I couldn't get a 65 grade on was retried by the next dealer and they also got a MS64 grade. Thing is, they argued that the coin was a MS65 and sure enough, at the FUN show a month or so later it was in a 65 holder. So the coin I sold for legit 64+ money at that time ($6K or so) was flipped for $12K only a few months later. Obviously some dealers had more pull than others. The "argue the grade service" was not something offered to me or even suggested. After 1988-1989 I don't know if that kind of "pull" was still effective. I did always marvel at the grades received by the biggest buyers at the major auctions of 1988-1989. Frequently, I'd buy a raw coin for near MS64 money (thinking it was a 64) and then get a MS63 or MS62 grade on it. A year or do later I'd see it in big dealer X's case in a MS64 holder. I wondered why that happened quite a bit to me? Bad luck I guess.
For a period from 1987 to 1988 NGC WAS considered the tighter service....at least for gem type coins. In fact I was trying to sell a pair of pop 1 finest known seated quarters (both MS66's) at that time and they were both in PCGS plastic. I was advised to get them into NGC 66 holders (which I did) to take advantage of the market strength in NGC coins. By 1989 NGC sort of lost that edge but were still bringing about the same money as PCGS coins. Both services become looser after the 1989-1990 market peak. When exactly that occurred is debatable. But by 1996-1998 when the Pittman and Eliasberg coins got graded, it was obvious standards had slipped a bit. At that time a couple of my dealers friends told me to send back in all my old holders for regrades as lots of coins were getting upgraded. NGC even offered a special regrade discount to their member dealers. A friend of mine was submitting a package every month and was averaging 80% upgrades on the coins he sent back in. The majority of old holders have now been picked through. Unless you can find a fresh deal that's from pre-1996 the odds of finding upgrades is a challenge. You can't rely on a rattler or ogh to tell you a coin is "nice."
I do submissions to both NGC and PCGS.Both services do a good job.I haven't paid attention to ANACS since ANA sold it.Forget the coin,their holders don't do it for me.NGC has forged way ahead of PCGS in variety attribution.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
To add to my previous posts, following the one above, the only ANACS slabs I buy are ancients. Those coins require a lot more meta-data than recent centuries and ANACS does a nice job of fitting all that data onto the slab label. That's the only nice thing I can say about ANACS slabs.
>> You can't rely on a rattler or ogh to tell you a coin is "nice." <<
I'm not out there beating the bushes anymore, but if you aren't concerned about upgrading, you can find "nice" coins that are stable and less likely to turn.
If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
PCGS IMHO provides superior services to collectors with CoinFacts and TrueView photography. I find all three to be credible graders with some differences that the market equalizes. They all provide great service on authentication, meaning counterfeit detection and alterations. I will also give a shout out to ANACS as they have given me a few walk throughs on a complimentary basis as I live nearby. I would like to see their business improve but do not really care for their yellow slabs.
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while.
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while. >>
I'm not worried about anything. Read what I wrote. It is factually correct as it relates to PCGS in its very early days. I am not sure if NGC was around then. I am not talking about today.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
For those who think PCGS is first, NGC second and ANACS third or not at all, perhaps those grading companies are catering to different levels collectors based on income and age brackets. With the hundreds of thousand collectors, perhaps a few million, where are all these certified coins disappearing to? All coins can't be marketed to the rich. And most collectors love a high grade label. So this is what is happening folks. Maybe the discussion should be towards what percentage of the varying levels of markets each grading company holds.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while. >>
I'm not worried about anything. Read what I wrote. It is factually correct as it relates to PCGS in its very early days. I am not sure if NGC was around then. I am not talking about today. >>
The FTC was making waves in the coin market starting in 1986. It lasted into the early 1990's. They were really after the raw coin dealers like NERCG and Tulving that were hammering the poor uninformed collectors and investors. I wouldn't think PCGS was part of that mess as PCGS grading was as strict as a bear in 1986. NGC didn't show up until 1987. If anything, it was the FTC's threats to regulate the industry that provided the impetus to get the PCGS concept to market asap. The FTC should have approved of certified grading. There are always going to be conflicts of interest in the TPG grading game. Years back Heritage was a 25-30% stake holder in NGC. I don't know if that's still the case though. In the first few yrs of PCGS, working dealers supplemented the grading chores as they took turns grading coins for a few days/weeks at a time.. Certainly that could have opened up the potential to "adjust" grades. From my point of view, back then those guys were the best graders on the planet. I wanted them grading my coins. The grading problem was essentially "solved" back in 1986-1989. I'm not sure I would say that today. Maybe I had rose colored glasses on back in 1989.
I am all for the idea of "buy the coin, not the holder".
The problem is, grading is subjective. I can take a coin and send it to all three major grading companies: NGC may give it a 65, ANACS may give it a 66, and PCGS may give that same coin a 64. The value at 64 may be $100, 65 $750, and 66 $2500.
With PCGS having the strictest grade in this case, the coin is guaranteed to be at least a 64. Let's say that ANACS in fact has the actual correct grade though. Say the coin stays in the PCGS holder and it comes time to sell. With the coin grading PCGS64 and the coin being obviously better than that, there should be no debating that the coin is overgraded, even from the toughest dealer.
Again, ANACS in this example does have the proper grade on the holder, the coin actually is a 66 and in this example, let's say it goes into the ANACS66 holder and the coin is a 66. It comes time to sell, and now a tough dealer can make the argument that the coin is overgraded, that it is a 64 (but sell it as a 66 / get it certified by another grading service as a 66).
Bottom line, learn the grading system, and look at the coin you are buying, and make up your mind if the grade on the holder is accurate.
Lest we forget it's the eyes that make money from the coins which make the grade. A good eye will spot the upgrade without regard to the case it's in. And chances are it will end up ATS or here before it goes to market again, and again and again. Until the coin finds a happy owner who hides it from the rest of us, or until death does it's part. But, the main thing is we find friends who like the same things we do, along that path. Who's not having fun ? It's probably not a good place to be if there's no fun involved.
I'd rather deal with numismatists than junkies, but who comes through that door is the person I serve. Most of them don't have coins in "holders". In fact, 98% of purchases made in the past 5 years are "raw". And 99% which have been sent in were sent to PCGS. A few to NGC, and a few to ANACS. Does it really matter ? Not to most collectors, it doesn't.
Numismatists and collectors are a different breed, altogether. And one TPG doesn't VS. the other. I think they all compliment one another very well. It's WE, the people who have a hard time getting settled in, as a whole. We like to "side". And there's truly no need for that. At most coin shows we will find coins , unless we are looking at plastic and labels.
How many guys LOOK for coins ? I'd say 100% are looking at the coins and NOT the holders. Just a guess, but I believe it's relatively accurate. And people who "spot" the upgrade know what to do. Don't they ?
I like to post my coins on a registry, so that means I don't buy coins in ANACS holders or any of the other "independent" brands. I would buy a token in most any holder if I liked it since most of my tokens and medals are raw.
And yes the brand name does mean something. Even if you find the rare properly described coin in an "Uncle Elmer" brand holder, you are going to have to crack it out and send it in to one of the "big two" to get a fair price for it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
According to the CDN 11-14-14 the CMI Indexes are: PCGS 81.97, NGC 81.26 ANACS 66.32, ICG 66.86. This index reflects Average of Bluesheet vs Greysheet on these coins.
In general while any offer I would make on a certified coin relative to another TPG is infuluenced by this index, my current philosophy is preference to PCGS.
My inventory of coins reflects 95% PCGS and NGC coins with just a few ANACS / ICG.
I prefer PCGS due to qualitative market reasons, and the ease of integrating it into coin facts and the PCGS inventory online tool which makes price updating easy. The PCGS coin facts tool is superior and gives me information at my finger tips well worth the subscription fee.
All of my US coin inventory is tracked in a spreadsheet comparing prices by TPG price guide, CW Trends, Dealer Price Lists, Krause, EB BIN (Ebay research), and CDN x a percentage above bid. A separate section analyzes auction data. In this way a macro overview can be developed in pricing a particular coin once the micro inputs are analyzed. So once I quote a price to someone on a coin well that's it. No interest in haggling, playing games, their opinion, arguing, pleading, BS, hype, etc.
It is interesting to me that the OP has not commented to this thread since early in the discussion. I wonder if he currently agrees or disagrees with the majority of responses. Steve
Quite frankly I have seen some outrageous misses by both NGC and PCGS, both in terms of attribution and also in grade. However, these are British coins in the main so most on these boards probably not interested. I have had to send back in with documentary citations to get the desired results.
That having been said, my general preference is still PCGS even though they certainly are not perfect.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Comments
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
Guilty as charged!
In fact, whenever I get to "choose my title", I may go with "PCGS Fanboy".
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better
grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my
answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out
with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly
graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy
then NGC
and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't
is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly,
NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent
within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust
halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
<< <i>
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better
grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my
answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out
with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly
graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy
then NGC
and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't
is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly,
NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent
within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust
halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add:
To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Example: You buy a NGC coin for $500.00 which would have cost you $550.00 in a PCGS slab with the same grade (10% premium). It so happens that you bought a coin that actually went up in value when sometime down the road you decide to sell. Your NGC coin is now worth $550.00 while auction reports say that a PCGS coin would have netted $660.00. Both examples have increased by the same percentage. Makes no difference what slab you bought.
On the other hand, say the market turned the other way and that NGC coin is now only worth $400.00. I suspect that a PCGS coin would then net even less of a premium compared to NGC...say, 5-8 percent rather than 10. NGC slab was actually the better buy.
Best, Spacehayduke
<< <i>
Edited to add:
To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Don't know if this changes your argument, but "less filling" and "tastes great" are both characteristics of the SAME beer. All you have is two groups conversing about why each one likes the same thing; they are not comparing 2 different beers.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
It's a small circle of friends who understand what you put down. Ebay is the entity that lacked numismatic intellect all the while. Hard to flaw the companies who've stayed the course for generations, and in my opinion , it's even worse, anyone attempting to tear the last few remaining. Essentially, I agree. And each of these 3 TPGs have a strong presence and following, for good reason. (The majority of times they get it "close enough for government work ")
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung.
<< <i>
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>..... To get a realistic picture of this I refer to the CDN CMI in comparing TPG's. My 7-14-14 issue shows 82.77 for both PCGS and NGC. ANACS is at 65.04 and ICG at 65.90. >>
I don't know why this CDN CMI thing keeps getting quoted. It's been totally useless for years. No way those TPG's have the same rating unless it's based on consistency to their own personal standards. The pop reports
clearly show which companies are stricter in each particular series. There was a time in the earlier years of the CMI where Heritage certified NCI coins where ranked high on that list. Yeah, I didn't believe that back then either.
Do some dealers find it more difficult to sell an accurately graded coin simply because it was graded by NGC rather than PCGS? Half my collection is graded by NGC. Will I have a difficult time selling these accurately graded, eye appealing coins? By ignoring NGC slabs at a coin show, you are ignoring about half of all certified coins and are probably overlooking some great buys on the basis you buy only PCGS slabs.
Answers: Yes, Yes and No.
Accurately graded coins in NGC holders doesn't matter a whole lot. You will usually have to accept much less money for them unless they are generic coins that for the most part can trade sight-unseen. Been there, done that.
I preferred not taking 20-30% less at major auction for my eye appealing NGC graded coins (stickered and unstickered). But Mr. Market makes the rules, not Mr. Collector. Some dealers will try to avoid stocking NGC coins just
because they are harder to sell than PCGS. And even if they stock a solidly graded NGC coin, they will expect a discount from you when buying it. When you run into a dealer who only sells >90% NGC/ANACS coins let me know. The opposite has already occurred numerous times.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days....
You seem to be saying grading has loosened since the days of the rattlers? It has. And it's never going back there. If there have been brief bouts of tightening in the past 18 years they probably haven't
lasted more than weeks or months at a time. The grading of today is about as liberal as it has ever been....not all that much different from 2008 standards. The "legend of the old holders?" That's too funny. I recall
one shipment I sent to PCGS for regrade where all 3 coins were MS65 seated halves in ogh's. All 3 of those came back MS66 for me. Yet, I can submit half a dozen NGC coins of similar high quality for crossing and not a single
one will cross. Dozens of gem seated type coins over a 10 year period and not a single cross. I even went so far as to have Heritage and others do my submissions in their name to see if it was "just me." Heritage did a little
better than I did going 1 for 12. I still take pride in my 0% NGC gem seated cross rate....but my PCGS gem seated regrade/upgrade rate is 100%. That white plastic plays tricks on my eyes.
coin submission. They went 1 for 12.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source. >>
Would anyone pay a grading fee and 1% value fee to cross a PCGS coin into an NGC slab? Didn't think so. So why fight on price when you don't have to. Apple vs Samsung, I mean, PCGS vs NGC
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
So do you know this for fact or is this just your assumption? If it is a fact then perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that NGC offered a lower price, the point here is did you see the invoice showing the prices paid or did you just hear it from a source. >>
Would anyone pay a grading fee and 1% value fee to cross a PCGS coin into an NGC slab? Didn't think so. So why fight on price when you don't have to. Apple vs Samsung, I mean, PCGS vs NGC >>
Right, classic, when you don't the goods try and baffle with BS. I'll assume then as you choose not to actually answer my question that you in fact do not have the ability to actually prove your statement, not a surprise.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better
grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my
answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out
with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly
graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy
then NGC
and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't
is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly,
NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent
within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust
halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add:
To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling.
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
As others have mentioned; NGC offered to do so for a better $$$ break.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better
grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my
answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out
with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly
graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy
then NGC
and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't
is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly,
NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent
within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust
halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add:
To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling.
I dare you to find anywhere that I have proposed that one service is better than another, I am one of the most open minded posters on this board because I'm just a simple coin collector not a brand collector. And while your at it just where have I accused RR of drinking the kool-aid?? You need to get back on your meds or get new glasses because you did not read or understand anything I wrote. I am in agreement with RR that grading seems much looser today than in the past, where I differ with his thoughts is that one service is and has been more consistently strict in grading.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You do realize that a huge portion of this forum is PCGS dealers, fan boys and kool-aid drinkers, so asking this question here will not get you very many unbiased answers. >>
During my most active collecting years from 1988-2008.....80% of my coins were NGC graded. I grew up sending all my newps to NGC because they were closest (when they were in NJ). They also tended to give better
grades to toned coins. So if there's a poster boy for NGC it was me. So if you see me saying that PCGS is the tighter service I'm not drinking kool-aid as I'm born, bred, and lived NGC coins for 20 years. I consider my
answer fairly unbiased. I was foolish in those years figuring I could pick out the nice NGC coins and I wouldn't get hurt. I just never saw the hammer coming where all NGC coins were lumped into one pile (tossing the baby out
with the bathwater). That was a rude awakening when even my stickered NGC coins didn't fetch unstickered PCGS coin money. I culled out nearly all the low end coins from my holdings by 2006 but never figured that solidly
graded coins would get stigmatized just by their holders. That NGC deduction of 5-15% that was in effect up to 2008 become 20-40% by 2010....even on many good coins.
PCGS has the highest consistancy
then NGC
and finally ANACS.
This might seem correct on the surface.....but it may not be. Don't confuse consistency with conservative or tighter grading. NGC or ANAC could very well be the most consistent grading services. What they probably aren't
is the most strict grading service. If NGC assigns the same grade a coin 5X in a row (say MS65, 65, 65, 65, 65) I'd say they were darn consistent. Now if PCGS sees that coin 5X they might grade it 64, 65, 65, 64, 65. Clearly,
NGC would be the most consistent. And clearly, PCGS would be the most strict. I've never done a study on consistency but my own gut feel based on 25 years of submissions is that NGC and PCGS are about equally consistent
within their own set of standards. I have heard it said over the years by some dealers I respected that they felt NGC was more consistent. That doesn't change the fact that NGC has graded 4X as many MS65 capped bust
halves as PCGS (ie less strict). This is like a debate on brands of beer being "less filling" vs. "tastes great." I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
One of the biggest problems is that your points while understood are written as if fact, and that just is not the case when opinions and marketing strategies are involved. All services go thru phases where employees change, management changes, points of importance morph; and strictness or tightness changes. This can be seen with the legend of the old holders where many were being cracked out to get higher grades. So even at the service that so many here consider the most strict and consistent the grading has changed, loosened from the rattler and OGH days. Last year I sent in a 20 coin submission ats and the grades I got back were very low, too low. I have since then sent three or four to PCGS and received grades that are one to two grades higher. Ok ok I know that many will be quick to point out that my results were a fluke, the one oddball, the one that disproves the rule. They may even be correct, and of course I only have this one data point in one series so in no way am I trying to prove that a shift has happened. Only that absolutes are rare in this world, and just because one company has been more effective in it's marketing of their product than the competition does not equal better. Both services provide an opinion, an opinion that is subject to change at anytime in the future.
Edited to add:
To use your beer example, is one really less filling or are you just convinced that because it's on the internet that it must be true? >>
Now what's really, REALLY funny is when coinbuf accuses RR and others of "drinking the PCGS koolaid." Oh physician, heal thyself -- it just happens to be a different brand that you're guzzling.
I dare you to find anywhere that I have proposed that one service is better than another, I am one of the most open minded posters on this board because I'm just a simple coin collector not a brand collector. And while your at it just where have I accused RR of drinking the kool-aid?? You need to get back on your meds or get new glasses because you did not read or understand anything I wrote. I am in agreement with RR that grading seems much looser today than in the past, where I differ with his thoughts is that one service is and has been more consistently strict in grading. >>
I think you're wrong, however, even if you continue to believe you're right, the market feels otherwise. So (only matters if you're looking to sell) -- maximize. Buy NGC gems that are currently underappreciated, place them in PCGS plastic -- when it makes sense to do so.
ngc slabs than in pcgs slabs. i guess it comes down
to whose opinion do you trust more. the general public
seems to think pcgs.
<< <i>PCGS vs NGC vs ANACS, Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if only because of how other people's perceptions affect the market.
Every time, a dealer or collector must decide, whether the coin is raw, certified by any grading service, how much trouble the coin will be to sell down the road. Today, more people than ever look at the coin and must measure its qualities against its price, the reason why the CAC was hatched.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Only when it is time to sell >>
Exactly, this is the only time it matters. Up until that point your coins can be slabbed in whatever holder you like or even raw. If you think you got great value on your purchases over the years, that's great too.
But on sale day it's time to judge the coin's true quality....and which holder it is in. There has been a 5-15% min discount for NGC coins ever since 1993-1995 or so (non-generic MS/PF type coins).
Anyone who thinks different was never active in the market. This is an apples to apples comparison (same coin placed in two different holders....it almost always brings more money in one particular holder). When Larry Whitlow
and type collector Jim Swan tried to convince me in 2002 that quality NGC coins couldn't bring the same strong money as nice PCGS coins I told them they were wrong. After all, I was buying mostly NGC coins and doing quite well
at it....or so I thought. Turns out they were right. Jim even picked me clean on an NGC type coin in 2002. I had paid $12,500 for it and flipped it to him for $14,500 on the condition that it could be crossed. It crossed for him.
Only 3-6 months later when his set was complete and sold off, that same coin was sold to Oliver Jung for around $20K....a nice little bump for a holder change. I had no idea at that time that a holder change could get you another
30-50% on some seated type coins. And this was the weak 2002 market, not a blistering 2007/2008.
Personally, I don't like a market where a holder (or sticker) can affect an identical coin's value by 30-50% or more. I was quite happy in those dumb days of 5-15% differences back in 1998-2008. At least I could negotiate that
kind of market. While there may be buying opportunities out there with this bifurcation, you still have to find someone willing to pay you more for that "opportunity" you happened to discover. The other alternative is to crack,
cross, or sticker your way to "opportunity." I never drank Kool-Aid. That stuff was horrible. Orange and Grape Hi-C were my favorite "junk" drinks.
<< <i>
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Because NGC wanted the business and priced it below PCGS. PCGS figured the coins would eventually cross over into their holders, they would get top dollar fee PLUS the 1% crossover fee. Why discount when you don't have to. Same strategy Apple uses. PCGS is like Apple, NGC is like Samsung. >>
While I prefer PCGS, you couldn't pay me to use an apple product.
<< <i>While I prefer PCGS, you couldn't pay me to use an apple product. >>
+1
<< <i>What matters is the coin, you can find dogs in any holder, you can find gems in any holder. Ask yourself, if NGC is second tier compared to PCGS, then why do some of the most important collections get graded by NGC? Let's take the Newman collection for example, graded by NGC, more than 80% CACed. Second tier compared to PCGS? Why did the Smithsonian decide to have NGC holder their collection? Second tier? Explain please.
Best, Spacehayduke >>
Yes, you can find dogs and gems in any holders. The thing is, you find a lot more of them in specific holders. We're talking about the rule, not the exception. I can go to any coin show and find exceptions in both directions. What
I can't do is go to ANY coin show and find a difference in the primary trend. Sorry.
Why was Newman NGC graded? I don't know. Maybe they gave a much better price and the suggestion that they would get the highest grades possible. Did 80% of Newman really CAC? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
I just checked the Heritage site and got a 58.2% sticker rate on the sessions sold in mid-November. That's pretty much in line with Gardner that did 55% (PCGS stickered at 68% with Gardner). The other major collections I've
followed over the past 5 years had much higher sticker rates for PCGS coins vs. NGC. The most glaring were the Dick Osburn halves (3% NGC vs. 39% PCGS stickers....13x difference).
I have no clue why Smithsonian chose NGC. But since those coins are never going to be sold it really wouldn't matter who they chose. It would have come down to whomever provided the best deal to the Smithsonian. And
best deal would be a combination of price, appearance, advertising, good will, opportunities to research, and a whole list of things. I'm also sure that Smithsonian and Newman wanted the fewest "genuine" holders possible.
Whomever offered what those guys wanted, got the deal. It's possible the strictest grading company is not what they wanted. PCGS and NGC are both first tier companies. But they are very different in many areas. Why did
the ANA choose NGC as "its grading" company a few years back? I'll leave that research to others.
Oooooooohhh, Ooooooohhhhh, I know. Because NGC PAID more than PCGS would. Same with the PNG
<< <i>Yes, it matters. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. >>
<< <i>I'd rather have the great taste than being less filled up.
Amen, roadrunner! Great post.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
Remember TDN talked about 50c for NGC and one dollar on PCGS is about these cases.
PCGS - do i win?
.
<< <i>Here are two pieces of TPG history I've heard over the years, mostly from professionals at shows. I really don't know whether either is completely true, partially true, or false. Interested in any feedback. (1) When NGC was founded, some generous grading for dealer friends of NGC's ownership seemed to occur. Although that soon stopped, it left behind a residue of belief that PCGS grading was -- that is, continued to be -- more objective. (2) Although PCGS has always been considered tougher in grading than NGC, they've slightly, gradually softened over the years. "Rattler" grading was stricter than green holder grading, which in turn was stricter than blue holder grading. On that count, I once had a dealer tell me (after PCGS holders had gone blue) that a coin I had in a PCGS holder really should regrade and gain at least a couple points -- but I shouldn't do it, as my holder was green. >>
Do you have a citation for #1 or is this just hearsay?
<< <i>Here are two pieces of TPG history I've heard over the years, mostly from professionals at shows. I really don't know whether either is completely true, partially true, or false. Interested in any feedback. (1) When NGC was founded, some generous grading for dealer friends of NGC's ownership seemed to occur. Although that soon stopped, it left behind a residue of belief that PCGS grading was -- that is, continued to be -- more objective. (2) Although PCGS has always been considered tougher in grading than NGC, they've slightly, gradually softened over the years. "Rattler" grading was stricter than green holder grading, which in turn was stricter than blue holder grading. On that count, I once had a dealer tell me (after PCGS holders had gone blue) that a coin I had in a PCGS holder really should regrade and gain at least a couple points -- but I shouldn't do it, as my holder was green. >>
When NGC was founded in 1987 the dealers didn't quite know what to make of their product. They knew how to bid on PCGS coins but weren't sure if they should be bidding the same, more or less for the NGC coins starting to appear on the market. I had my collection straight NGC grade in early 1988 and I got some grades much lower than I expected. For instance my monster gem proof 1904 Barber half from an orig gem proof set came back as NGC PF 65 (market value $3500). I had paid $5400 for that coin in 1984 from one of the toughest type coin dealers in the country. I resubmitted it. It came back PF66 next time around which was more consistent with a $5K coin. My near gem 1856-0 quarter came back NGC MS64. I sent that back to PCGS and it came back MS65. So if anything, NGC was tight as heck when they first opened the doors. I don't know if connected dealers got better grades or not at that time. What I do know is that one coin I couldn't get a 65 grade on was retried by the next dealer and they also got a MS64 grade. Thing is, they argued that the coin was a MS65 and sure enough, at the FUN show a month or so later it was in a 65 holder. So the coin I sold for legit 64+ money at that time ($6K or so) was flipped for $12K only a few months later. Obviously some dealers had more pull than others. The "argue the grade service" was not something offered to me or even suggested. After 1988-1989 I don't know if that kind of "pull" was still effective. I did always marvel at the grades received by the biggest buyers at the major auctions of 1988-1989. Frequently, I'd buy a raw coin for near MS64 money (thinking it was a 64) and then get a MS63 or MS62 grade on it. A year or do later I'd see it in big dealer X's case in a MS64 holder. I wondered why that happened quite a bit to me? Bad luck I guess.
For a period from 1987 to 1988 NGC WAS considered the tighter service....at least for gem type coins. In fact I was trying to sell a pair of pop 1 finest known seated quarters (both MS66's) at that time and they were both in PCGS plastic. I was advised to get them into NGC 66 holders (which I did) to take advantage of the market strength in NGC coins. By 1989 NGC sort of lost that edge but were still bringing about the same money as PCGS coins. Both services become looser after the 1989-1990 market peak. When exactly that occurred is debatable. But by 1996-1998 when the Pittman and Eliasberg coins got graded, it was obvious standards had slipped a bit. At that time a couple of my dealers friends told me to send back in all my old holders for regrades as lots of coins were getting upgraded. NGC even offered a special regrade discount to their member dealers. A friend of mine was submitting a package every month and was averaging 80% upgrades on the coins he sent back in. The majority of old holders have now been picked through. Unless you can find a fresh deal that's from pre-1996 the odds of finding upgrades is a challenge. You can't rely on a rattler or ogh to tell you a coin is "nice."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
I'm not out there beating the bushes anymore, but if you aren't concerned about upgrading, you can find "nice" coins that are stable and less likely to turn.
If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to.
OINK
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while. >>
I'm not worried about anything. Read what I wrote. It is factually correct as it relates to PCGS in its very early days. I am not sure if NGC was around then. I am not talking about today.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...If I recall correctly, there were conflicts of interest in the early days of PCGS and NGC to the extent that the FTC got involved, or threatened to. >>
If you are worried about conflict of interest, consider that PCGS is owned and graded by professionals in the business of dealing whereas NGC uses third-party graders separate from the market and its influences. But that doesn't bother me at all, since I believe the day-to-day dealings of PCGS folk is what gives them the upper hand in grading. Note this is my understanding and things may have changed over the years. I have not looked at the bios of NGC board members or graders in a while. >>
I'm not worried about anything. Read what I wrote. It is factually correct as it relates to PCGS in its very early days. I am not sure if NGC was around then. I am not talking about today. >>
The FTC was making waves in the coin market starting in 1986. It lasted into the early 1990's. They were really after the raw coin dealers like NERCG and Tulving that were hammering the poor uninformed collectors and investors. I wouldn't think PCGS was part of that mess as PCGS grading was as strict as a bear in 1986. NGC didn't show up until 1987. If anything, it was the FTC's threats to regulate the industry that provided the impetus to get the PCGS concept to market asap. The FTC should have approved of certified grading. There are always going to be conflicts of interest in the TPG grading game. Years back Heritage was a 25-30% stake holder in NGC. I don't know if that's still the case though. In the first few yrs of PCGS, working dealers supplemented the grading chores as they took turns grading coins for a few days/weeks at a time.. Certainly that could have opened up the potential to "adjust" grades. From my point of view, back then those guys were the best graders on the planet. I wanted them grading my coins. The grading problem was essentially "solved" back in 1986-1989. I'm not sure I would say that today. Maybe I had rose colored glasses on back in 1989.
The problem is, grading is subjective. I can take a coin and send it to all three major grading companies: NGC may give it a 65, ANACS may give it a 66, and PCGS may give that same coin a 64. The value at 64 may be $100, 65 $750, and 66 $2500.
With PCGS having the strictest grade in this case, the coin is guaranteed to be at least a 64. Let's say that ANACS in fact has the actual correct grade though. Say the coin stays in the PCGS holder and it comes time to sell. With the coin grading PCGS64 and the coin being obviously better than that, there should be no debating that the coin is overgraded, even from the toughest dealer.
Again, ANACS in this example does have the proper grade on the holder, the coin actually is a 66 and in this example, let's say it goes into the ANACS66 holder and the coin is a 66. It comes time to sell, and now a tough dealer can make the argument that the coin is overgraded, that it is a 64 (but sell it as a 66 / get it certified by another grading service as a 66).
Bottom line, learn the grading system, and look at the coin you are buying, and make up your mind if the grade on the holder is accurate.
I'd rather deal with numismatists than junkies, but who comes through that door is the person I serve. Most of them don't have coins in "holders". In fact, 98% of purchases made in the past 5 years are "raw". And 99% which have been sent in were sent to PCGS. A few to NGC, and a few to ANACS. Does it really matter ? Not to most collectors, it doesn't.
Numismatists and collectors are a different breed, altogether. And one TPG doesn't VS. the other. I think they all compliment one another very well. It's WE, the people who have a hard time getting settled in, as a whole. We like to "side". And there's truly no need for that. At most coin shows we will find coins , unless we are looking at plastic and labels.
How many guys LOOK for coins ? I'd say 100% are looking at the coins and NOT the holders. Just a guess, but I believe it's relatively accurate. And people who "spot" the upgrade know what to do.
And yes the brand name does mean something. Even if you find the rare properly described coin in an "Uncle Elmer" brand holder, you are going to have to crack it out and send it in to one of the "big two" to get a fair price for it.
In general while any offer I would make on a certified coin relative to another TPG is infuluenced by this index, my current philosophy is preference to PCGS.
My inventory of coins reflects 95% PCGS and NGC coins with just a few ANACS / ICG.
I prefer PCGS due to qualitative market reasons, and the ease of integrating it into coin facts and the PCGS inventory online tool which makes price updating easy. The PCGS coin facts tool is superior and gives me information at my finger tips well worth the subscription fee.
All of my US coin inventory is tracked in a spreadsheet comparing prices by TPG price guide, CW Trends, Dealer Price Lists, Krause, EB BIN (Ebay research), and CDN x a percentage above bid. A separate section analyzes auction data. In this way a macro overview can be developed in pricing a particular coin once the micro inputs are analyzed. So once I quote a price to someone on a coin well that's it. No interest in haggling, playing games, their opinion, arguing, pleading, BS, hype, etc.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I think NGC can over-grade, particularly with moderns where they seem to give everything a 70.
I'd only buy a NGC or ANACS coin if I really liked the coin for the money, ignoring the grade.
That having been said, my general preference is still PCGS even though they certainly are not perfect.
Well, just Love coins, period.