@johnny9434 said:
never tried it here. i got the coin because i like it.
But if you might sell it and the future owner prefers another brand of plarstic, you're leaving money on the table. Always be mindful of what the market likes.
@lkeigwin said:
Maybe it varies from series to series, but there is still a significant premium for PCGS over NGC for many U.S. coins.
In the series I focus on there is also a fairly big difference in grading standards which contributes to the premium, no doubt.
Lance.
I agree with you that it depends on the series, however in commemoratives I see a huge amount of evidence that PCGS and NGC are getting the same money. In fact in this specific case, the Spanish Trail, it appears NGC has a slight edge.
Another example, in this case you see the variation within a given holder is far larger than the average variation between holders. MS68 is an exception however that's a segment of the market where few tread.
@NorCalJack said:
So my question is if you have a coin with a green bean and the coin crosses, I hear that you can resubmit the coin to CAC and they will put the green bean back on the coin.
So if you take the same coin and crack it out and it comes back a grade lower. Can you submit to CAC and will they give a gold bean?
Good question. Logic would say yes. (If you had a nice image of the coin in the prior slab with a bean)
No. If the cert number changes (as it will under a crossover or regrade) then the coin must be submitted again and you pay the full CAC fee with no guarantee that it will resticker. The coin will be looked at again with fresh eyes. Restickering only applies ($3 fee) only applies if the cert number does not change, as would happen with a reholder.
@NorCalJack said:
So my question is if you have a coin with a green bean and the coin crosses, I hear that you can resubmit the coin to CAC and they will put the green bean back on the coin.
So if you take the same coin and crack it out and it comes back a grade lower. Can you submit to CAC and will they give a gold bean?
Good question. Logic would say yes. (If you had a nice image of the coin in the prior slab with a bean)
No. If the cert number changes (as it will under a crossover or regrade) then the coin must be submitted again and you pay the full CAC fee with no guarantee that it will resticker. The coin will be looked at again with fresh eyes. Restickering only applies ($3 fee) only applies if the cert number does not change, as would happen with a reholder.
I always get the sticker again when I send an image of the coin in the old holder, and of course you have to pay again. You need to read what his question was. If John likes a coin as a 65, he should Gold it as a 64.
@Iwog said:
In the old days there was an economic reason to do this since PCGS carried a heavy premium over NGC. I think that premium has been mostly erased and that more people are concentrating on the coin instead of the holder.
Actually in the old days (1998-2008) PCGS choice/gem type coins carried a 5-15% premium vs. NGC. In the original 1988-1990 era I'd say they were within 5% of each other...and the coin itself mattered more. These days, the PCGS premium tends to be 5-15% for stickered coins.....and a much larger 20-35% when both coins are unstickered (ie PCGS non-stickered coins are generally believed to be the grade assigned, while unstickered NGC coins tend to be looked upon as the next grade lower).
These days, for any nice ch/gem NGC type coins (preferably stickered) than shouldn't body bag on a regrade, I would just crack them out. It's a waste of time and money to submit them for cross. Get the right grade the first time by cracking them out. I've done up to 5 cross attempts on several high end coins (stickered ones)....then sold them in the same grade. I should have just cracked them out.
@Iwog said:
In the old days there was an economic reason to do this since PCGS carried a heavy premium over NGC. I think that premium has been mostly erased and that more people are concentrating on the coin instead of the holder.
Actually in the old days (1998-2008) PCGS choice/gem type coins carried a 5-15% premium vs. NGC. In the original 1988-1990 era I'd say they were within 5% of each other...and the coin itself mattered more. These days, the PCGS premium tends to be 5-15% for stickered coins.....and a much larger 20-35% when both coins are unstickered (ie PCGS non-stickered coins are generally believed to be the grade assigned, while unstickered NGC coins tend to be looked upon as the next grade lower).
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to comment on this. The auction records speak volumes. For copper coins, the PCGS premium seems to be increasing.
...and to answer the original question, I would probably stop at 3.
Actually in the old days (1998-2008) PCGS choice/gem type coins carried a 5-15% premium vs. NGC. In the original 1988-1990 era I'd say they were within 5% of each other...and the coin itself mattered more. These days, the PCGS premium tends to be 5-15% for stickered coins.....and a much larger 20-35% when both coins are unstickered (ie PCGS non-stickered coins are generally believed to be the grade assigned, while unstickered NGC coins tend to be looked upon as the next grade lower).
I just posted two links that demonstrated the recent auction results for both NCG and PCGS coins and they were almost the same. In fact the NGC coins seemed to be selling for slightly more.
If I were to investigate this 20-35% gap you speak of, for which series do you think it applies? I'm open to this idea but I don't seem to find any examples of it.
I can tell you right now that this gap doesn't exist in commemoratives. I know this from my own sales as well as published auction data.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Here's yet another example of what I'm talking about. If there's such a large gap, certainly I'd be able to see it in recent auction sales right? What I'm seeing instead is the variation within a given holder is much larger than the average variation between holders, which indicates to me that collectors are assigning far more importance to the coin itself.
Why aren't coins sent for crossover entered into a database? That doesn't make sense to me why the same coin - which hasn't changed - wouldn't be worthy of, say, an MS65 grade one day but worthy the next.
Same with CAC.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to comment on this. The auction records speak volumes. For copper coins, the PCGS premium seems to be increasing.
Again I don't understand where this is coming from. I agree the auction records speak volumes so lets look at the auction records.
@iwog - I think the variables that you don't seem to be considering are:
Not all coins of a given grade are the same, a variation in price may be indicative of individual characteristics of each coin that cause it to be perceived as a superior coin. Such coins could be in either holder, and have characteristics that are not determinative of the grade such as toning, luster, originality, spotting, eye appeal, etc..
Dates of the auctions, particularly in your last cited example, as we all know the market moves so comparing results that are months or years apart isn't comparing apples to apples.
IMHO unless you can compare the same coin auction within a very short time period in 2 different holders, there are simply too many variables to definitively support your argument just by looking at the CoinFacts auction results.
@ModCrewman said:
IMHO unless you can compare the same coin auction within a very short time period in 2 different holders, there are simply too many variables to definitively support your argument just by looking at the CoinFacts auction results.
I'm going to pull out an old tried but true cliche so my apologies in advance.
How does the total absence of any data whatsoever trump some data? Unless I missed it, I'm the only one posting auction results here despite several assertion that "auction results show.........".
I agree that the individual coins demand a far bigger spread than the holder. That was my initial assertion. However I would like to point out something interesting here. When I post all the 1909-S VDB auctions over the last decade, and the NGC coins are on average selling for the same as the PCGS coins, can't it be assumed that almost all of those high end NGC coins were submitted to PCGS for a crossover but didn't pass??
Again I adore PCGS and all of my core collection coins are in PCGS holders. I just don't think the data supports the assertion that PCGS coins get significantly higher auction results than NGC coins. What I do see is auction results within the grade for either holder VASTLY EXCEED the differences between holders.
I also want to point out that I'm not cherry picking at all. When lusterlover said something about copper coins, I immediately jumped to the most obvious example I could think of. The first commem I linked was one I've recently sold and the second commem I linked was just the next one I found by clicking the "next" arrow. I honestly sincerely would like to see some data showing bias one way or the other.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
If it's PCGS or NGC cross a moot issue for me. I do crack and submit coins which may need a dip.
Would rather buy coins than rack up grading expense which I expense under Fees.
As long as a coin is Anacs, ICG, PCGS, or NGC would not sweat it. If u think will upgrade if crossing go for it. I only play grading game to win. I do have some ANACS / ICG but they are under $100 an do not justify paying grading fees on the holder game. I price them around CW Trends or if world I got cheap multiples of what I paid bc seller gave them away in Bay auction.
For MV calc I use the respective inventory managers on PCGS and NGC.
Comments
well taken
I agree with you that it depends on the series, however in commemoratives I see a huge amount of evidence that PCGS and NGC are getting the same money. In fact in this specific case, the Spanish Trail, it appears NGC has a slight edge.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/9376
Another example, in this case you see the variation within a given holder is far larger than the average variation between holders. MS68 is an exception however that's a segment of the market where few tread.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/9378
No. If the cert number changes (as it will under a crossover or regrade) then the coin must be submitted again and you pay the full CAC fee with no guarantee that it will resticker. The coin will be looked at again with fresh eyes. Restickering only applies ($3 fee) only applies if the cert number does not change, as would happen with a reholder.
I always get the sticker again when I send an image of the coin in the old holder, and of course you have to pay again. You need to read what his question was. If John likes a coin as a 65, he should Gold it as a 64.
Actually in the old days (1998-2008) PCGS choice/gem type coins carried a 5-15% premium vs. NGC. In the original 1988-1990 era I'd say they were within 5% of each other...and the coin itself mattered more. These days, the PCGS premium tends to be 5-15% for stickered coins.....and a much larger 20-35% when both coins are unstickered (ie PCGS non-stickered coins are generally believed to be the grade assigned, while unstickered NGC coins tend to be looked upon as the next grade lower).
These days, for any nice ch/gem NGC type coins (preferably stickered) than shouldn't body bag on a regrade, I would just crack them out. It's a waste of time and money to submit them for cross. Get the right grade the first time by cracking them out. I've done up to 5 cross attempts on several high end coins (stickered ones)....then sold them in the same grade. I should have just cracked them out.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to comment on this. The auction records speak volumes. For copper coins, the PCGS premium seems to be increasing.
...and to answer the original question, I would probably stop at 3.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
I just posted two links that demonstrated the recent auction results for both NCG and PCGS coins and they were almost the same. In fact the NGC coins seemed to be selling for slightly more.
If I were to investigate this 20-35% gap you speak of, for which series do you think it applies? I'm open to this idea but I don't seem to find any examples of it.
I can tell you right now that this gap doesn't exist in commemoratives. I know this from my own sales as well as published auction data.
Here's yet another example of what I'm talking about. If there's such a large gap, certainly I'd be able to see it in recent auction sales right? What I'm seeing instead is the variation within a given holder is much larger than the average variation between holders, which indicates to me that collectors are assigning far more importance to the coin itself.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/9296
Why aren't coins sent for crossover entered into a database? That doesn't make sense to me why the same coin - which hasn't changed - wouldn't be worthy of, say, an MS65 grade one day but worthy the next.
Same with CAC.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
Again I don't understand where this is coming from. I agree the auction records speak volumes so lets look at the auction records.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/2426
In ms62 the highest sale price is NGC, in ms63 it's NGC, in ms64 it's pcgs, in ms65 it's pcgs, in ms66 it's ngc.
@iwog - I think the variables that you don't seem to be considering are:
IMHO unless you can compare the same coin auction within a very short time period in 2 different holders, there are simply too many variables to definitively support your argument just by looking at the CoinFacts auction results.
I'm going to pull out an old tried but true cliche so my apologies in advance.
How does the total absence of any data whatsoever trump some data? Unless I missed it, I'm the only one posting auction results here despite several assertion that "auction results show.........".
I agree that the individual coins demand a far bigger spread than the holder. That was my initial assertion. However I would like to point out something interesting here. When I post all the 1909-S VDB auctions over the last decade, and the NGC coins are on average selling for the same as the PCGS coins, can't it be assumed that almost all of those high end NGC coins were submitted to PCGS for a crossover but didn't pass??
Again I adore PCGS and all of my core collection coins are in PCGS holders. I just don't think the data supports the assertion that PCGS coins get significantly higher auction results than NGC coins. What I do see is auction results within the grade for either holder VASTLY EXCEED the differences between holders.
I also want to point out that I'm not cherry picking at all. When lusterlover said something about copper coins, I immediately jumped to the most obvious example I could think of. The first commem I linked was one I've recently sold and the second commem I linked was just the next one I found by clicking the "next" arrow. I honestly sincerely would like to see some data showing bias one way or the other.
OK, @SanctionII knows. Let's have a show and tell.
If it's PCGS or NGC cross a moot issue for me. I do crack and submit coins which may need a dip.
Would rather buy coins than rack up grading expense which I expense under Fees.
As long as a coin is Anacs, ICG, PCGS, or NGC would not sweat it. If u think will upgrade if crossing go for it. I only play grading game to win. I do have some ANACS / ICG but they are under $100 an do not justify paying grading fees on the holder game. I price them around CW Trends or if world I got cheap multiples of what I paid bc seller gave them away in Bay auction.
For MV calc I use the respective inventory managers on PCGS and NGC.