Hypothetical grading question
Boosibri
Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭✭
So you have a very rare coin, legitimate rarity, 5 extant. PCGS has no coins in the census, NGC has 3.
One NGC coin Is being sent in for crossover as a 58. Coin is solid for the grade, not super strong but ok. No issues. Normally, PCGS grades this coin a 55 2 out of 3 times. Do they give the coin the benefit of the doubt and cross as a 58, Or do they hold to their normal standards and grade the coin a 55 as before?
Basic question, does rarity get the benefit of the doubt at this grade level?
0
Comments
I don't get coins graded but I would hope that my coin would be graded on its merits and not be given a benefit of doubt because of it's rarity.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
I'm cautious and cynical, so I would expect 55.
Well, the statistics show that most of the coins they see don't cross at all.
Apart from that, the only thing I've learned over the years is that they base their decisions off of the coin in front of them. What they usually do or sometimes do is completely meaningless in the context of a single coin.
As for rarities, I think they generally just grade the coin, with some consideration given for very early poorly made federal issues, extreme rarities, or other special circumstances.
Some people here will claim PCGS will generally grade a coin one grade lower than NGC.... and that's sometimes true..... but just as often they do something else.
Based on some of the best known rarities having played musical chairs between the two major grading companies and increased in grade during the process, I’m under the impression that they tend to get the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, perhaps that’s just perception and with such coins in the spotlight, their grade increases are far more likely to be noticed.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In a perfect world: It should get a 58.
Yes, I think it being high profile in rarity may help it's cause.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I know of several examples of what I perceive as a rarity grade bump. These were top pop early gold examples of tough dates. CAC did not concur with the grade in almost all cases.
I have no clue. I would hope the grade would be the grade based on standards. In this hypothetical situation, the actual grade probably only matters if the 5 coins are bunched up with each other condition-wise. If the coin's getting crossed, I would assume it's because they want PCGS' opinion, regardless of what the NGC holder showed.
For my one primary series (non-US), I consider PCGS more consistent but wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. I have only submitted to NGC but disagree with their assigned grades occasionally. Less so with PCGS but that's also possibly due to them having graded far fewer for this design.
It's also possible that whoever is grading your coin isn't aware of it's rarity. The TPG graders can't have this knowledge across the board. As one example, NGC lists one 1931 South Africa circulation strike 2 shillings in their census. (PCGS is zero). The accepted mintage is 383 and I'd rank it second out of the approximately 600 coins in the broader Union series. I personally suspect the coin is actually a proof but if NGC had been aware of it's significance to South African collectors, I presume they would have profiled it on their website.
Should it? No.
Does it? See e.g., Class I 1804 Dollars over the years, and draw your own conclusions.
First question: is it being graded in holder or cracked out first? One gives you a complete look at the coin and the other most of the coin and some things may be hidden.
“Crossover” implies in the holder, though not everyone uses the term to indicate such. If the coin’s removed from the holder first, it’s a grading submission, not a crossover.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I cannot answer that question.
Yes, I meant crossover in the NGC holder.
My view in a case like this is:
1) As mentioned, the coin is solid for the grade but cross overs tend to be conservative this 2/3 chance of failure but eventually it crosses.
2) if submitted raw 2/3 times the coin 58’s.
3) The difference between 55 and 58 is marginal and inconsistent already.
4) the recognized rarity (it isn’t an esoteric piece) pushes the bias out.
Latin American Collection
Not trying to be difficult...
So if there is not one in the PCGS consensus, what is the premise for the belief they would grade the coin a 55 two out of three times? Is it solely based on how they have graded other coins within the series? Are there any characteristics associated with this date that stand out that may influence a grading opinion that may vary from other coins in the series? And that seems to be a critical question because how would they know without having the benefit of seeing one? I suppose they have some references that could provide some guidance.
Grading remains an opinion and trying to handicap or predict how a TPG will grade a coin such as your hypothetical is highly speculative.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
My premise is you grade coins generally the same regardless of series based on technical merits. The coin is a “B to B-” 58 which I think generally fails to crossover at grade but I’d cracked out would more than likely grade 58 if submitted raw.
Latin American Collection
"Coin is solid for the grade, not super strong but ok. No issues."
Using this as my premise I would expect it to cross at same grade. I would also add to "cross at same/assigned grade only" on the sub form if you will not be happy dropping a grade...just as a precaution. Given the rarity of the coin I think it may have a better chance. Our host may want to see it reside in their own plastic tomb for this fact if nothing more. Just my 2 cents
>
You didn't mention the coin but I wouldn't assume PCGS would know the rarity or significance even if it isn't esoteric.
The example I gave doesn't fit that description, as it would likely be a mid-five figure coin if those who collect the series and have the financial means to buy it agree with NGC. It's that most US collectors have a limited knowledge of most rare coins from elsewhere.
This is less likely for Latin coinage (which I presume yours is) but there are still many coins where (almost) none have been submitted to NGC or PCGS because the coin is rare or at least scarce enough where few (and maybe no) survivors are worth submitting..
I would think PCGS (knowing it's rarity) would default to the conservative side. It would be an embarrassment to them to have, as an example, an AU 58 in NGC plastic that looks the part and a second PCGS AU 58 they crossed, that doesn't meet the merits.
I have always felt that the grading services were wrong for grading different dates on a different standard.
Example, to get an 1889-cc $1 to go ms64, it has to look nicer than most common dates in ms65+
Do get a 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914 etc $20 saint to go ms65, it must look nicer than most ms66 common dates.
This entire discussion demonstrates the need for standards - which do not exist in coin grading at this time. I know AI grading is being pursued, and once implemented (done properly), coins can be assigned a repeatable, technical grade. Rarity and eye appeal will not enter into such an evaluation. Perhaps there will be other designations for those categories. I look forward to standardized coin grading. Though it certainly will affect the crack out and regrade business. Cheers, RickO
Standardization? With that - why would you need two TPGs, much less any of the others? It would kill profits.
We see market grading for coins with attractive toning. Why would extreme rarity be different? (rhetorical question)
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I think it is less likely as the value makes them want to be extra sure of no surprises inside the holder. I don't think it is a grade focus that will give you your answer but a liability risk vs reward.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
From my experience, I would suggest sending it in and accepting the 55 grade, as they are cautious of the grade. Then, after it's been in a PCGS holder, you can re-submit it where they can crack it out (guaranteed to stay at least 55), but likely will upgrade because they can actually see the coin raw.
My hunch is your referring to a world coin, which is a whole different ballgame in my experience. My take:
Good luck
Are you saying the graders grade crossovers in the slab but crack out their own kind for reconsideration?
I agree that this is practically the least risky strategy for getting the coin in the 58 holder without cracking it out.. Meanwhile the submitter will pay 1% for the crossover "guarantee" and 1% for the "upgrade guarantee". The 1% guarantee premium should cover the risk for the fact that NGC cannot fully see the coin and it could have issues. The logic for the upgrade fee escapes me other than PCGS wants to capture their share of the upgrade game.
In the end the strategy I would follow as a submitter would be to 1) crack it out myself, or 2) leave it as is and enjoy the coin in the NGC holder because who really cares in the end about the plastic.
Latin American Collection
If you say it would grade 58 2/3 times, I would send it in raw. That way you eliminate any bias, and they actually have to grade it rather than "agree" with any pre-assigned grade.
I agree with this. The intent for my hypothetical and the use of the 2/3 graded raw was to focus the question on "would the rarity and general fame of the issue give it a grading bump from say a logic of 58.3 = round down, to 58.3 + rarity = round up"
Latin American Collection
.> @CoinscratchFever said:
@cardinal is saying a cross decision is made while the coin is in its slab. So, accept a lower grade (I usually accept "any") and then resubmit the coin for regrading if it didn't get a fair shake at the cross. (A regrade is cracked and the coin is judged raw.)
I agree. But this is annoying, time consuming, and more expensive.
PCGS should adjust its practice and take another look at the coin, after the cross is approved and a grade assigned, and it is moved along to the crack-out-and-slab phase. I.e., don't let a conservative decision be the final one when there is an opportunity to see the coin again, once it's raw.
Yeah, it's extra effort and maybe doing so mucks with the flow of work. But the crossing and grading process should allow for this.
Lance.
A real life situation: Some years ago, I purchased a NGC graded 1798 Bust dollar. It had been graded by NGC as MS60, and then MS61. I submitted the coin for crossover with PCGS, and they graded it AU58. (I figured that an NGC 61 would have been the same value as a PCGS 58.) Later on, I re-submitted the coin to PCGS, and it came back MS63! True story!
Bonkers
Latin American Collection
What you say makes sense and is good for the customer, however it is not good for the TPG bottom line as the TPG incurs additional work but no additional revenue.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I would naturally want any and all coins to be graded raw regardless of what they were previously in and having faith in my TPG. But if 1 grade point equals thousands of $ then I would think sending in its current holder is the prudent move.
But again, if I actually did have said thousands of $ and moved lots of coins I would still want to have that level of trust.
Right.
It's disappointing, though, when a company has an opportunity to improve its product or service, and chooses not to do so because there is no immediate additional revenue generated.
That's short-sighted, IMO, and bad for the business in the long run.
Lance.
It's not that PCGS chooses to not provide those services; however, when a NGC coin comes in for crossover, all the graders see is the coin - likely obscured by the NGC plastic. (YES, the plastic of NGC slabs have a noticeable grain to the plastic itself.) A customer wouldn't like it if PCGS cracked out an NGC coin (without the customers' written approval) to get a better look at it, and then rejects the coin, and when sent back to NGC to be re-slabbed NGC downgrades it! Think about all of the lawsuits that would arise if PCGS did that?
If a coin deserves a particular grade and the owner plans to hold onto it for significant time, the cost of the lesser grade crossover and the cost of the latter re-grade, should be minor in the whole scheme of things.
A lot of assumptions in your thinking, what if after re-grade the coin has not gone up from 55 to 58. It very well could and may take multiple re-grades with no guarantee it will ever be graded 58, there is just as good a chance that the costs will be significant.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Sometimes, the coin is all there for the grade in its NGC holder and PCGS crosses it at grade.
Then again, I’ve had an unusual case happen to me once on a NGC crossover to PCGS.
Many years ago, I sent in a coin in a NGC AU58 holder hoping it would come back PCGS 58, but instead I got a PCGS 62! That was a shocker. Then again, the coin was in a old fatty NGC holder.
It just goes to show you that anything can happen.
Dave
No assumptions needed. Please see the last paragraph of my comment - "If a coin deserves a particular grade" and the owner plans to hold onto it for significant time, the cost of the lesser grade crossover and the cost of the latter re-grade, should be minor in the whole scheme of things."
Of course. But that is not what I said. Let me rephrase.
If a cross is approved a grade is assigned. The coin then moves down the conveyor belt where it gets opened and slabbed.
Why not have another look at the coin when it is raw but before slabbing in order to give the coin a fairer appraisal?
Yes, it cannot then be lowered in grade (which is why the initial judgment was conservative). But it might deserve a better grade, saving the collector the cost and hassle of regrading later.
Lance.
I understand that.
If that were the case, then EVERY crossover would need to be graded twice. Considering how long it takes PCGS to grade a coin once, do we want PCGS to double the time to get coins graded? (I say this, after waiting for 5 weeks to have previously PCGS graded coins to be re-holdered.) After a crossover submission fails or is accepted at the minimum grade, non-graders crack out the coins (or not). None of those personal are graders, so the coins would have to circulate back to the grading staff. Do you think PCGS would implement the double grading without any extra cost?? Remember, Collectors Universe is a publicly traded company. Would the stockholders approve double grading without any extra revenues?
My guess is who's grading table your submission lands on at the TPG's. So many variables involved. I have been dealing with PCGS with their mechanical error with a label and they are charging me all kinds of hidden fees that I did not know about. It was their mistake! Also be careful with your minimum grade. I put in for a MS63, and the coin was sent back to me in a labeled flip-minimum grade and invoiced as AU63. I wish the could have contacted me, I would have stabbed it as an AU63.
I consider you to be quite astute with the coins that you acquire, and so also a good grader. The PCGS grading guide takes into the variations of strength of strike, and what that coin would typically look like. So, if you believe that the coin merits the grade of AU58, go for it. With a recent submission of 14 Great Britain coins - all crossovers from NGC holders - All 14 crossed to PCGS and 3 were upgraded. So, again, with your experience go for it!
They will grade it based on their review. If it downgrades you lose. Specify a minim grade on the form to avoid downgrade’/ loss of MV.
No I would not expect them give it benefit of doubt bc of whatever. No reason they should.
@cardinal . That's what I was thinking. And how much is this high paid finalizer gonna make? Sitting there undermining every coin I grade. Why do I even work here the graders might ask.
I like the fact that PCGS is willing to consider any coin in a holder, such as NNC, Anacs, ICG and NGC. NGC only is willing to consider a coin in a PCGS holder. No grading service is unbiased, I would just hope for an open mind when a coin without problems and with eye appeal gets submitted. As Warren Mills of RCNH has pointed out, there are many coins among the "walking wounded" in plastic tombs, their "final resting place". I don't think crossovers are likely with them.
PCGS is dropping their fees for their mechanical error. I was told that if this ever happens again, call them first before submitting. My minimum grade arrived in Newprt Beach today to get stabbed along with another submission with 10 coins. It is worth the time to call them immediately if you have a problem with a submission. Always learning.
This is a tangent but since it's been raised...
A mechanical error (truly a dumb term) has been discussed many times here. There has never been a fee to correct one. You simply need to contact PCGS and present evidence of the error. Then, a PCGS rep will walk you through the process for submitting the coin for correction, at no cost. No fee to ship, to correct, or to return ship.
This is the very least PCGS should do. Some would argue there ought to be a little more compensation.
Lance.