I have a small pile of labels that I will give to a couple of different grading companies at Winter FUN, assuming there is a Winter FUN. I won't spend time and money to ship them anywhere though.

@bidask said:
I have about 40 NGC labels where the coins have crossed but I have yet to send into NGC cause I’m paranoid they would not perform on my request to delete the coin from their database.

So- because you're worried they won't delete the coin from their database, you choose a course of action that, in effect, assures they can't delete the coin from their database? I guess I'm not seeing the upside here.

@bidask said:
That is correct . No upside until I can be sure they will be deleted !

??? As long as you hold onto them, they can't be deleted. Do you want them deleted, or not?

1735 MO 8E in 65, never updated the NGC database despite the label going in

1765 Guatemala 8R, been 3 weeks, no update to the NGC registry.

Experience not good with them updating.

@PerryHall said:
Didn't the grading services pay 50 cents for each returned label?

Once upon a time they did. My understanding is NGC merely says thank you now. I think I heard PCGS will do something small for a large enough batch like a free grading cert or something. But neither may be true today any longer.

@bidask said:
These are rare coins ....Mexican 8 reales first republic ( granted darkside but same issue ) .... what do you suggest ?

Send them in. They'll either do it or not. You can be pretty sure that, as long as you have them, they won't get deleted. Sending them pics of the labels? I'd be surprised if that would work. How would they know that the image you sent was legitimate? I'm quite sure it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to create a fake pic of labels of "cracked out" coins.

@lkeigwin said:
After a cross I usually secure the old, often higher grade NGC cert to the reverse of the PCGS holder. So that it's clear this PCGS AU58 was previously graded MS62 by NGC, for example.
Lance.

Do you do the same thing when the new PCGS grade is higher than the old NGC grade?

@lkeigwin said:
I'm a little OCD. So I first put the NGC label on a piece of clear packaging tape and fold the tape over it, effectively laminating the cert. Trim with scissors. A little double-sided scotch tape finishes things nicely.
Lance.

Just a little OCD ...

nonetheless, good idea

@bidask said:
And if they do not then what ?

Nothing. As far as the pop reports go, you're no worse off than if you keep them.

@Boosibri said:
1735 MO 8E in 65, never updated the NGC database despite the label going in

1765 Guatemala 8R, been 3 weeks, no update to the NGC registry.

Experience not good with them updating.

Based upon the coins I have seen BidAsk post, I knew if was mostly or entirely non-US. If the coin is really rare like the two you listed here, I don't think it matters. Any knowledgeable buyer is likely to know or can find out it's a duplicate. It isn't like this type of coin hardly ever exists in the same grades as these two. It's cheaper coin but I have a 1759 Peru 2R MS-63 that is listed in both that I know is a duplicate.

Different consideration but there is a difference in relative marketability between US coinage and others. I understand why others cross US coinage. I wouldn't bother with the coins I own because I don't think it would make any difference.

Most serious buyers understand the limitations of the pop reports.

edited to add... And if the buyer is really a serious collector, he will have a pretty good idea of when the pop report is wrong, and why.

That's certainly your prerogative.

@bidask said:
Most serious buyers of rare coins look up pops.

If I looked up a 1759 2 reales I would think 2 coins grade at 63 ....one at each service .

They don't know the series if they think that. Sure, it's possible but very unlikely.

@bidask said:

@coinbuf said:
Complete foolishness. You assert that you can prove something by holding the certs, prove to who? Buyers

Why would a buyer care that you have purposely skewed the NGC pop report by not sending in the cert when the coin is in PCGS plastic?

@coinbuf said:

@bidask said:

@coinbuf said:
Complete foolishness. You assert that you can prove something by holding the certs, prove to who? Buyers

Why would a buyer care that you have purposely skewed the NGC pop report by not sending in the cert when the coin is in PCGS plastic?

If crossing a coin with a super low population across the board. For non ultra rarity example think cameo proof Buffalo nickel, non-1939 cameo Mercury Dime, or cameo Liberty Walking half dollar, I do think keeping an accurate population report shows the true rarity of the coins. It might hold true for PL/DMPl coins as well for certain dates. Then there are ultra rarities and very tough varieties.

First world problems, for sure.

@coinkat said:
In thinking about the OP, world coin submissions are still at a stage where the population reports could still be managed. Unfortunately, it has not really been established that there is an appetite to effective update pop reports. And it should be noted that the world coin market is just different in that one can not and should not rely solely on population reports to determine rarity and surviving population.

Correct, it just depends upon the series. Generically, here are the primary reasons it isn't representative and why it's usually badly understated:

One: The coins are mostly owned by collectors who do not like TPG, particularly outside the US and the low number of other countries where it isn't preferred. (This would mostly be China, South Africa and maybe Canada. Excludes NCLT as it's a lot more common with this coinage and the survival rate is close to 100% anyway. I have also noticed the counts are meaningful for other coinage but don't know or believe it indicates a strong preference. Example is Australia and Korea.)

Two: TPG grading does little if anything to noticeably improve marketability. In some instances, it's my opinion that "details" grading reduces it. The coin is worth more ungraded in the home market than in the holder.

Three: The coins are owned by non-collectors who don't know what they have. This is more likely with more recent coinage or in markets with little if any organized collecting.

There are no absolutes here. I use a combination of the TPG data, prior sales, mintage data and a guesstimate of attrition by comparing the coin or series to those (mostly US) with better estimates.

One other thing to consider with world coinage is that with population counts so low, a higher supply (if it actually exists) doesn't necessarily mean the coin should be worth less. The supply for many of the most preferred world coinage is so low that there is at least equal reason to believe that it reduces the (potential) collector base since there is little if anything to buy. A higher supply might be more than offset by increased demand.