Whe the difference in census population
Gazes
Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have noticed that the census population on better date coins on the higher end of the grading scale seem to have a pattern of higher census numbers for NGC than PCGS. In other words, a PCGS coin may have 1 in 65, 2 in 64 and 4 in 63 whereas NGC will have 5 in 65, 7 in 64 etc.
What is the reason for this? I have thought this could be because PCGS is just tighter on their grading and therefore this occurs. Also, could it be because PCGS does a better job keeping its census figures and not counting resubmissions (as much)? Could NGC simply have more coins in its holders? A combination of factors? Other reasons? Just curious.
0
Comments
Sadly with all the crossovers and crackouts the pops are really quite meaningless.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
I agree with JJSingleton. The grades for higher end coins, especially better date or variety coins have been skewed by crack-outs and resubmissions. For example, you might look the population report for the 1854-D Three Dollar Gold Piece and think, “Wow! there are lots of nice AUs around. I should be able to find one.”
No, those numbers represent the same few coins that have been graded multiple times in attempts to get the much-coveted Mint State grades. The same logic holds for the combined NGC and PCGS populations. With so many crossovers, adding the PCGS and NGC population numbers will give you an overstated view of the number of coins that have survived.
As for the higher graded on NGC coins than PCGS, that is a reflection of the different grading standards between the two companies.
We wouldn't have nearly the extent of this problem if coins submitted for grading could be individually identified and available as such in a database.
I'd hoped PCGS' introduction of Secure in 2010 would be the start of such an effort, but alas, it's remained a paid-for marginal service. I understand the routine and universal individuation of coins would discourage crack-outs, resubmissions, etc., though: a substantial income stream for our hosts.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
The need for computer grading and certification grows..... It is the future, and technology is already there... still a prohibitive cost involved. However, much like CAC was a step forward in grading, rather than a Fifth party grading, certifiable computer grading and identification will be the next step... and the final word. Cheers, RickO
I disagree, ricko. I am not a fan of computer grading. You might think that a digital record will leave a fingerprint that will be detectable, which could fix the population report problem, but never underestimate the abilities of coin doctors. They will look for ways to get around the system and might destroy a few coins in the process.
I also don’t think that computers can replace humans with the eye appeal issue. That is a part of grading whether people like it or not.
Finally the population reports are damaged beyond repair. There are so many duplicate entries in them the nothing short of invalidating everything that has been graded and starting over could fix them.
[All of the numbers are "populations" not a "census" which is a complete enumeration. Populations are easily skewed, as Bill Jones notes, and not reliable indicators of reality.]