ICG Grading Criteria
Chessman
Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭
I was checking out a bunch of $20 Liberties in the recent GC auction, here is a common date graded MS66; http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/92211/1900-Liberty-Double-Eagle-ICG-MS-66
There are many others in this auction graded at or near gem when IMO they may not fit the criteria of gem.
Here is a PCGS MS66: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=360&lotNo=30650#20972097986
Here is an NGC MS66: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1157&lotNo=5148
An MS66 should be a fabulous coin, is ICG watering down the ANA grading standards?
There are many others in this auction graded at or near gem when IMO they may not fit the criteria of gem.
Here is a PCGS MS66: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=360&lotNo=30650#20972097986
Here is an NGC MS66: http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1157&lotNo=5148
An MS66 should be a fabulous coin, is ICG watering down the ANA grading standards?
0
Comments
I think one has to look at the coin in their slab to determine if it warrants the grade on the label anymore.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There is a common misunderstanding about grading "standards." Essentially, the use of "standards" to describe grading is inaccurate (although commonplace). There are no standards in grading. There are guidelines that may or may not change with the market, but no standards.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Also, I will add that ICG seems to be better (IMO) at grading circulated coins than uncirculated coins
www.brunkauctions.com
Of course, this is best done when you can examine the coin in person, rather than trying to evaluate it based on only digital images.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
of a PCGS or NGC 66. Many newbies to the hobby fall prey to this thinking they are getting something for nothing. Some early ICG coins were graded at standards similar to
PCGS and NGC for that time period. Most of those have since been cracked out.
I've only purchased one ICG coin ever. It was an 1864 proof 64 seated quarter that had the look of a 65. I tried a couple of times unsuccessfully to get it to upgrade. In reality it
just had too many hairlines in the large obv fields. Imagine my surprise when I saw the same coin at auction a few years later in an NGC PF65 holder.
The ICG coin may appear to be a good deal, but who are you going to sell it to in getting all the money (for the grade) considering the marketplace preference for coins in PCGS / NGC slabs let alone get what you invested in it. I would pass on this one (especially sight unseen like at an online auction; IMO unless I can examine a coin sight seen under 100 watt lighting and with a glass, then I consider it sight unseen), especially putting up big money.
<< <i>Does anyone really care anymore? And yes I am serious the company played musical chairs with the staff and management for several years it seems.
I think one has to look at the coin in their slab to determine if it warrants the grade on the label anymore. >>
That applies to all third party grading services, even PCGS and NGC. If you buy plastic blindly, you will be burned badly.
<< <i>
<< <i>the ANA employs a "standard" but the criteria used by PCGS is what the hobby as a whole tends to be most concerned with, the "standard" that most coins are judged by. as far as ICG is concerned, they have been a non-factor since as far back as 1998. >>
I disagree with both of you. When ICG first started out, they were very conservative on classic gold coins and many crossed at or within a point of NGC and PCGS standards of the same era. With this said, coins graded more recently, especially after the staffing debacle, are graded more leniently. All of the coins linked or imaged in this thread were graded more recently under the laxer grading standards. If you know what you are doing, you can find attractive ICG coins in the early holders for very attractive prices that will cross at or close to the ICG grade at both PCGS and NGC.
A wholesole looking coin with blasty luster and orig surfaces will often make the 65 grade even if it has a few too many marks. You can't grade a MS65
$20 like you do a Morgan dollar. $20's will always have "too many marks." Most of the MS65's I run across "look like" MS64's to me. The PCGS MS65 1904 pictured
above looks to be quite clean and appealing for a MS65. Not the norm by any means if that photo is a good representation.
The 99-s in ICG MS65 linked by Chessman above is very close to MS65 imo. It has the right look, orig surfaces, good luster, and no severe marks.
The fact that PCGS has only graded several MS65's makes it a rarity in that grade. Just as a MS64+ it could be worth the money it fetched. The 97-s
is also a rarity in MS65 and the one pictured above is not all that far from MS65. It would be worth $5K+ just as a MS64+. But of the two I like the 99-s the best.
Looks closer to MS65 than to MS64 imo. Photos can hide some minute chatter quite well though. There's a reason why so few MS65 $20 Libs get stickered.
And because of that they fetch around a 30% premium.
I disagree with both of you. When ICG first started out, they were very conservative
actually, you AGREE with both of us wholeheartedly. though my 1998 date may have been in error my point was simply that when ICG first started they seemed competitive to the point that they graded in accordance with Hobby-accepted(read: PCGS, NGC and to a lesser degree ANACS) standards. in very short order they made a concerted effort to gain market share which translated into mass over-grading. the thing they did which bothered me most was one-sided CAM/DCAM attribution.
to be sure, there are still coins in their holders from the early days which are competitively graded and probably coins since then which are properly graded. those are few-and-far-between.
<< <i>ICG has become a JOKE grading company. Their submissions were way down, so, they 'sold their soul to the devil'......they made a cozy deal with a 'centsless' person recently. Now they are getting numerous submissions of problem coins and they are ignoring the problems. >>
With a 'centsless' person (obviously, we all know what that means)? Is this for real? That should just about throw the last shovelful of dirt on their grave.
1 - PCGS
2 - NGC
3 - ANACS small holders
4 - SEGS - old holders
5 - PCI - old holders
6 - ANACS - blue/gold holders
7 - ICG
I personally would not send a coin to ICG to get graded nor would I buy one without personally examining it.
PCGS is the market leader if auction results are an indication.
NGC is a close second.
The small ANACS holders are very tightly graded and will usually cross at grade.
I've had good luck with old SEGS and PCI graded coins but the later ones are problematical.
The later ANACS holders and ICG holders seldom will cross at grade, IMO.
That really does not seem to be a reasonable comparison- The 1904 is the most common date of the series. Further, it was one the better products of the series with a survival rate in high grade. PCGS has graded over 4100 in 65. In contrast, the 1897-s $20 did not survive in high grade and PCGS has graded a total of 8.
Which coin will look better? I think we know which will look better.
To put in Morgan terms, its like comparing an 1881-s Morgan to an 1883-cc in 65. The 1881-s is held to a higher standard because the that date is considered to be one of the finest dates for the Morgan Dollar in terms of the end product- terrific strikes, many DMPL and PL examples with a significant surviving population in high grade. While the 1883-cc will look terrific in 65 and there are DMPLa and PL examples, but the 1881-s will usually look better from a technical perspective as there will usually be fewere contact marks.
If a comparison were done of 100 graded 1881-s and 1883-cc by whatever grading service, there would be differences and some dealers/collectors would wonder how they could be graded 65. Grading has a subjective component- that subjectivity is something that just does not translate well into formulas. As I have written here many times- grading is an opinion and some opinions are better than others. What seems to be lost is that grading is more of an art and appreciating a coin for what it is- and while that process has been reduced to assigning a number for a grade- that number is not founded in an exact science whereby agreement will always be the end result.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>To those not extremely familiar with MS65 $20 Libs, they will almost always look like they have too many marks, especially the lower end coins.
A wholesole looking coin with blasty luster and orig surfaces will often make the 65 grade even if it has a few too many marks. You can't grade a MS65
$20 like you do a Morgan dollar. $20's will always have "too many marks." Most of the MS65's I run across "look like" MS64's to me. The PCGS MS65 1904 pictured
above looks to be quite clean and appealing for a MS65. Not the norm by any means if that photo is a good representation.
The 99-s in ICG MS65 linked by Chessman above is very close to MS65 imo. It has the right look, orig surfaces, good luster, and no severe marks.
The fact that PCGS has only graded several MS65's makes it a rarity in that grade. Just as a MS64+ it could be worth the money it fetched. The 97-s
is also a rarity in MS65 and the one pictured above is not all that far from MS65. It would be worth $5K+ just as a MS64+. But of the two I like the 99-s the best.
Looks closer to MS65 than to MS64 imo. Photos can hide some minute chatter quite well though. There's a reason why so few MS65 $20 Libs get stickered.
And because of that they fetch around a 30% premium. >>
Let's look at a few graded $20 Liberty coins and see what people think.
This is the only piece I have graded MS-65.
This is a Type 2 $20 Liberty which is a very tough coin in strictly Mint State condition. Some might think that this is a marginal piece for the MS-63 grade, but it is a nice Mint State coin for the type.
And this is graded MS-64. The surfaces are satin, not brilliant.
This one is an MS-63, and very high end for the grade IMO.
My two cents is the piece pictured earlier in the ICG MS-65 holder was over graded by 1.5 to 2 points.
I really like the 1873- it is the best coin for the grade out of the coins pictured. The 1873 always looks as if it were dropped down a garbage disposal. Your example has wonderful surfaces to make up for the hits- which for the date are just not bad at all.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>The 1857-s really needs to be looked at separately as it is a Type I, and has the appearance of being part of a recovery so it really has a unique history associated with it.
I really like the 1873- it is the best coin for the grade out of the coins pictured. The 1873 always looks as if it were dropped down a garbage disposal. Your example has wonderful surfaces to make up for the hits- which for the date are just not bad at all. >>
Thank you for the comments on the 1873. I bought it in a Heritage auction for a fair amount under Gray Sheet bid. It is the best Type 2 $20 gold I've seen in a while. You can find nice AU examples in droves, but the true Mint State pieces are tough.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I would venture to say that most of these comments are coming from those who have not submitted coins, probably to any company, and certainly not to ICG.
I have submitted coins to all 3, in large numbers as of late. ICG is without a doubt WAY more strict than their early days, at least on Morgans and Peace Dollars. I own the old holders and a bunch of the new. As far as grades, they are as strict as PCGS, on the coins I sent in. So why send any to them? Cheap and fast is your only advantage there. Is it worth it? No, wait the extra 30 days and get a coin graded by PCGS.
I venture to say that if PCGS was to speed their turn around time up, it would be curtains for ICG.
Now NGC, they have become a joke. The inconsistency is unbelievable, and I have pictures and coins to prove it!!
<< <i>Now NGC, they have become a joke. The inconsistency is unbelievable, and I have pictures and coins to prove it!! >>
Part of the problem for any grading service other than PCGS is that many of their best coins get cracked out and set to PCGS. What is left includes a disproportionate number of number of mistakes. As I've said for years, PCGS ON AVERAGE is slightly tougher than NGC, but the population of coins on the market marks that difference seem larger than it really is.
not too many 64s and only a few 65s..................PCGS and NGC are so reluctant to grade at that level because the are actually assigning large cash values to those coins and their reputations are on the line. -----really??
$20 Lib Type 3 % pop increases from Apr 2005 to July 2007:
MS62 +20% / MS63 +22% / MS64 +38% / MS65 +60% / MS66 +27% (largest increase by far was at the 65 grade)
$20 Saints with motto:
MS60 -2% / MS61 0% / MS62 +4% / MS63 +11% / MS64 +33% / MS65 +79% / MS66 +66 / MS67 +11 (largest increases in the 65 and 66 grades).
I've owned more than my share of MS65 $20 Libs and MS65 Saints. I've purchased up to 18 MS65 $20 Libs at one time and twice that many MS65 Saints. The MS65 ICG coins pictured are at worst MS64 from what I can see from the photos. The MS62 and MS63 $20 Libs pictured above look like MS62's and 63's. I can see a 1 pt difference but not 1.5 to 2 pts. The ICG 1899-s is a darn nice coin imo....a no brainer MS64 unless there are some major wipe lines not shown in the photo. I would imagine that most (who don't buy gem gold) would say that 1857-s has a few too many ticks, scuffs, chatter to be a MS65. But it's a real 65. And I would agree that the 1896 could get a 63+ or 64 grade on the right day. The MS62 1897-s looks typically scruffy and doesn't compare well to the MS65 ICG 97-s and 99-s. 2 pts difference imo. In common date $20 Libs there is really nothing as a "nice" MS62 as there is no price spread, hence no premium. They are either acceptable or unacceptable. The 97-s and 99-s are priced as common dates in MS62 and MS63. Based on the prices those ICG MS65's are going for, someone thinks they are ok as MS64's. Solid MS64's of those dates are not easy to come by. The prices for MS63's would be less than half those amounts. The only Type 3 - S mints that are fairly findable in nice MS64 are the 1898-s and 1904-s. None of the others are.
<< <i>That's why we have CAC and if you can get the green bean it is worth the premium.
Current bids on CAC $20s are: Buying PCGS/NGC CAC
MS63 $20 Libs @ $2150 per.
MS64 $20 Libs @ $2525 per.
MS65 $20 Libs @ $4525 per.
MS64 Saints @ $2070 per.
MS65 Saints @ $2675 per.
MS66 Saints @ $3725 per.
Compare to HA's bids on non-CAC or copper spotted coins. Though CAC still stickers copper spotted generic gold. >>
Those CAC premiums are a result of the grading expansion I mentioned above. I've witnessed shipments of >100 MS65 Saints go to CAC with <10% getting stickered.
I'd venture that the average stickering rate for gem $20's in in the 5-15% range. In my mind the CAC premiums are a bargain for fresh looking, original, unspotted coins.
When one considers how many coins get rejected the 20-35% price premiums aren't all that stiff. Unless one has access to fresh piles of gem $20's off the market for 5-10 yrs,
finding unstickered coins on the bourse that can eventually sticker is a difficult task. Comparing stickered $20's to generic ones is like apples and oranges. Almost 2 entirely
different markets with widely varying standards. It was interesting to note that during the run up of gem $20's in late 2009, that the CAC premiums shrunk to around 5%. One
has to wonder if there's another promotional run on $20's down the road will the same thing happen? There weren't enough stickered coins in 2009 to feed a promotion. And promotions
need a lot of coins to keep the thing going. In the 2009 promotion the only criteria was slabbed and no spots. Marks didn't matter. There are a lot more stickered coins today -
maybe 5 to 10% of the total slabbed gem $20's. There are about 4600 stickered MS65 Saints out there. Many are probably in strong hands.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Keep in mind the CAC coins and the prices are for common date coins. An 1897-s in 65 would be more than a common date such as a 1904 >>
Even in MS64 1897-s is far from a common date. But unfortunately, the price of bullion has turned nearly all the formerly scarce 1891 to 1907 - S mints in MS63 and lower into "common"
dates at common date money. So if you're spending $2,000 or so for a MS63 $20 Lib, by all means find a 92-s or 99-s in MS63. I pained me when I had to sell my MS63 1907-s for a tiny $50 premium to common date money. CAC hasn't stickered a MS65 1897-s. In fact they have only stickered 28 Type 3 S mint $20 Libs, with 24 of those being 98-s and 04-s. Of course, should gold get to $3,000 or even $5,000/oz in the next 2-7 years, even MS64's of those tougher S mints could become basically bullion coins as well.
While ICG is a convenient scapegoat for the grading of gem $20's, they shouldn't be carrying the blame for an entire market.
On another note concerning stickering $20's. A friend of mine submitted about 2 dozen MS66 Saints to CAC 1-2 months ago that were from a very nice old time deal. The package got swiped in transit from CT to NJ. If anyone happens to run into a few dozen, very nice MS66 $20 Saints popping out of the wood work where they seem out of place, feel free to drop me a line.
Considering that there are only a couple of MS65's, the MS65 price is probably a guess until one sells. I'd venture that a low end one is worth $10-12K and a solid one $20K or more.
For $2750 you would undoubtedly get a low end coin or a very average one that you'd have to make excuses for. Sign me up for all the solid MS64's at $2750. That's probably
why this ICG MS65 went for over $5,000. The majority of MS64 1897-S $20's are very average to lower end. You'd probably have to search through 50 MS64's to find that lone
coin you think has a decent shot to go 65. And even if it does, it will be low end.
On CAC I sent in ten MS63 Saints and five passed, that is my average. I guess you have to sort out any coins with problems beforehand.
I've hand selected a number of decent MS65 saints over the years before CAC came around. My sticker rate was <10%. I even hand selected MS63's and MS64's with
half of them being oghs and rattlers. My batting average on those was about 40%. I was quite surprised it was that low. The obvious no brainer upgrades I had long since
cracked out. They never saw CAC. Considering there is little difference in price between 63's and 64's, the CAC stickers on 63's still bring very little premium. It does give
CAC a ready pile of coins to buy if they need to, but I doubt stickered 63's will ever catch on like the 65's since the price of gold essentially swallows any premium. If you look
at the grade expansion I posted above, the MS63 and lower coins held their ground better. For that reason I'd expect 63's to sticker at a higher rate than the 64's. And likewise
the 64's sticker at a higher rate than the 65's. The fact is that relatively few 63's are getting reviewed as there is little demand for stickers. It's also quite easy to find very strong
63+ coins in holders without a sticker. Just buy those and save on the premium. In fact it's not hard to find 63's that are the equal of lower end 64's. I think a 30-40% sticker rate
for 63 Saints is reasonable, 15-25% for MS64's, and 5-10% for MS65's. Of course, we could go out and only pick the very nicest coins to ensure we earned a high CAC rate. But I've
always bought Saints that I felt were choice. Just because they won't end up stickering doesn't make them junk. CAC is looking for something very specific in what they want. The
$20 Saint and Lib market encompasses a huge amount of dollars. It's basically $2,000 per coin now. CAC doesn't need to sticker 50% of the market unless they plan to have the funds
to buy them all. As fussy as they are now, they would need >$50 MILLION to buy all the 63's to 66's they have already stickered. They don't need 3X as many coins. I think they are
doing well stickering a small percentage to keep the numbers manageable and the demand high. So far around 20,000 MS63 and higher twenties are stickered.
If gold got to $3,500+/oz the CAC premium 65's & even 66 Saints would probably be as low as 5-10%...maybe even 0%. In that case, the non-stickered coins would have been the
better performers over the long haul. I think we may see that. In gold, it's going to come down to the ounces, not the quality....sad to say. Those that held on to MS61's from years
ago will probably be the big winners....or for that matter just AGE's. Those 3 AU58-MS61's you could have bought for a single MS65 back in 2002 will be hard to beat.