Who has the deeper capability for variety attribution: PCGS or NGC?

Options
AngryDragon
AngryDragon Posts: 90 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

We have a customer who presented a 1795 H10C for sale. Because its authenticity was in doubt (several counterfeits were found in the collection), we submitted the coin on the customer's behalf to CAC for authentication and grading. Unfortunately, CAC came back with "questionable authenticity" which also left us unimpressed with CAC's research staff.

The coin's diagnostics lends itself either to LM-7 or LM-8. Obverse has 7 curls and reverse has no berries. However, placement of star 1 leaves me conclude it is LM-8. While the coin does not display typical die breaks common to most examples, that (in my opinion) does not automatically mean it is counterfeit.

While PCGS has certified nearly twice as many 1795 half dimes as NGC, NGC has variety attributed far more LM-8 than PCGS.

My objective is to obtain a definitive attribution for this coin: either COUNTERFEIT OR AUTHENTIC. Questionable authenticity is an unacceptable outcome. So, which grading service do you consider as having the superior research and attribution service, and why?


Comments

  • DelawareDoons
    DelawareDoons Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 29, 2024 7:11PM
    Options

    I'm having a lot of issues with basic attribution with NGC right now so I'd be sending that to PCGS if I thought it was real.

    "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • coinbuf
    coinbuf Posts: 12,577 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    @AngryDragon said:

    Questionable authenticity is an unacceptable outcome.

    I have always thought that questionable authenticity = not genuine, maybe I'm mistaken.

    @DelawareDoons said:
    I'm having a lot of issues with basic attribution with NGC right now so I'd be sending that to PCGS if I thought it was real.

    And then we have the bungled submission thread complaining about the variety attribution issues that submitter is having with PCGS, I'm not sure one is better than the other at the moment.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • DocBenjamin
    DocBenjamin Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Have you established the alloy mix? Have owned a handful of this date and the images instill a pot metal look. Though CAC should have figured that out.

  • MFeld
    MFeld Posts: 17,150 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Don’t the major grading companies usually label coins “questionable authenticity” rather than use the word “counterfeit” in such cases?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • DelawareDoons
    DelawareDoons Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 2:52PM
    Options

    1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 are easily ruled out with coinfacts pics based on date position, LIBERTY, and reverse characteristics (centering dot, namely).

    It has to be 6 or 8. Only reason there's even a question is that, interestingly enough, I think the VF25 LM6 is a misattributed LM8, look at LIBERTY compared to the AU50 plate coin example. So if it's real, it's 8.

    LM8 CF plate coin;

    LM8 CF plate coin #2;

    LM6 CF plate coin;

    LM6 CF plate coin #2;

    "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • AngryDragon
    AngryDragon Posts: 90 ✭✭✭
    Options

    @DocBenjamin said:
    Have you established the alloy mix? Have owned a handful of this date and the images instill a pot metal look. Though CAC should have figured that out.

    We don't have the means to conduct an alloy analysis. I am relying on TPG service to do that.

  • logger7
    logger7 Posts: 9,870 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    On something high end I wanted to get something definitive on, maybe going to the ANA and trying to find someone who could vouch for authenticity would be a possibility. Maybe the grading services aren't paying enough to attract and keep top professionals on staff.

  • jmlanzaf
    jmlanzaf Posts: 43,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 3:14PM
    Options

    @MFeld said:
    Don’t the major grading companies usually label coins “questionable authenticity” rather than use the word “counterfeit” in such cases?

    They do, although I have on occasion seen a "counterfeit" label.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • jesbroken
    jesbroken Posts: 11,253 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    @DelawareDoons said:
    1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 are easily ruled out with coinfacts pics based on date position, LIBERTY, and reverse characteristics (centering dot, namely).

    It has to be 6 or 8. Only reason there's even a question is that, interestingly enough, I think the VF25 LM6 is a misattributed LM8, look at LIBERTY compared to the AU50 plate coin example. So if it's real, it's 8.

    LM8 CF plate coin;

    LM8 CF plate coin #2;

    LM6 CF plate coin;

    LM6 CF plate coin #2;

    2nd LM6...Is not the base of the I being higher than the base of the L indicative of the LM8?
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • DelawareDoons
    DelawareDoons Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    @jesbroken said:
    2nd LM6...Is not the base of the I being higher than the base of the L indicative of the LM8?
    Jim

    Look at the position and spacing of LIBERTY relative to the definite LM6.

    It's definitely not a 6 and looks much more like the 8's I showed.

    "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • AngryDragon
    AngryDragon Posts: 90 ✭✭✭
    Options

    We received this response from CAC for clarification ...

    Good Morning ,

    Thank you for contacting CAC customer care. Questionable Authenticity is a deceptive detailed code we currently do not holder. These coins are those that we cannot, for any reason determine the authenticity with certainty.

  • RobertScotLover
    RobertScotLover Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    It is surely not a 6, not even close. Its definitely an 8, perfectly legit just damaged imo. I believe CAC took the conservative approach and due to its condition they didn't want to go out on any limb, took me awhile to verify the Logan McCloskey number so it is quite understanding . But the piece has problems so really no big deal of any consequence.

  • lermish
    lermish Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 4:03PM
    Options

    For two of series I collect, none of the above. I have experienced and seen additional truly awful errors in authentication from both services. Some very high dollars also.

    EDIT: As for the why, I don't think it's fit for public consumption at this time for a variety of reasons, including message board rules.

    chopmarkedtradedollars.com

  • RLSnapper
    RLSnapper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    NGC can't even attribute an 1846 small date LC I have....the holder claims medium date. Mechanical error or quality control error or worse a basic attribution error.

  • mr1931S
    mr1931S Posts: 7,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Make no mistake, ANACS is the leading TPG for attributing varieties.

    "Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
    -Albert Einstein-

    Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.

  • MFeld
    MFeld Posts: 17,150 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    @RLSnapper said:
    NGC can't even attribute an 1846 small date LC I have....the holder claims medium date. Mechanical error or quality control error or worse a basic attribution error.

    No grading company I know of is immune from making similar errors, many of which have been posted and complained about here.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • fathom
    fathom Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    Agree it looks like an 8.

  • TrickleCharge
    TrickleCharge Posts: 507 ✭✭✭✭
    Options

    I think "questionable authenticity" means a coin could be genuine. For reasons that are usually not explained in detail, the TPG doesn't want to risk putting their name on it. If it had been returned "counterfeit", it would mean the TPG identified the coin as a known or obvious counterfeit.

    You could try any of the other grading services and see what they say. Don't expect any of them to put in the extra time to perform, or give you, the results of a metallurgical test.

    When assessing it, I doubt CAC went as far as some of the forum members here did in narrowing it down to a specific die marriage. If you submit somewhere else, I would note it as LM8 on the submission form. Narrowing down the specific die marriage could help a TPG get on board with authenticity.

  • DennisH
    DennisH Posts: 14,041 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options

    As a longtime Morgan VAM collector, I learned long ago to not believe attributions on TPG holders until I confirmed them for myself. In terms of accuracy, I consider ANACS to be head and shoulders above the rest.

    When in doubt, don't.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Comment As ...

Categories