NGC World Population Reports
coinkat
Posts: 23,770 ✭✭✭✭✭
I looked at the NGC World Population Report for Great Britain. I have looked at the NGC pop report in a while- not exactly sure when I last visited.
I thought it was interesting that they have included "Details" graded coins at various grade levels... including VF; EF; AU and UNC. And what struck me was the number of submitted GB Crowns from both the reigns of George I and George II were significantly higher than I was expecting. However, the straight graded population consisted of a mere fraction of the total number of coins graded.
And after seeing the Crowns through 1751, I did a quick look at the Guinea and early Sovereign population. And again, the graded numbers were higher than I would have expected, but I anticipated that the surviving population of the gold coins would be higher. But there was still an issue with the "Details" grade consisting of the lion's share of what has been graded.
This basically confirms in part what I have always believed and that is simply that the surviving population of original coins at the higher end of the grading spectrum is significantly less than I have previously thought. And this breakdown really does not account for coins that straight graded that were "enhanced" or even "processed" as some numismatist might write.
There are questions in terms where and when some of these coins were submitted, but even those answers do little to change the narrative in terms of the surviving population of original coins.
The real take away here is simply to enjoy and appreciate the original surface quality of coins as those coins seem to less available based on what the collective numbers are telling us.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
I think there is something weird going on with the NGC census. They combined the Details and MS pages recently (at least on mobile) and I wonder if there is a glitch. Take the 1813 Zacatecas 8 reales, a coin which only a War of Independence enthusiast could love. The census lists 65 (!!!) graded coins, 30 of which are G Details? Kind of a bonkers number, most early coins like that have single digits graded.
There's something wrong with the system, from what WCC and I concluded on the Peruvian pillars, they're like 8X the correct amount. This is likely based on a number of factors, but primarily on one coin. I have a 1772 1R in XF, it's been cleaned. It's the only one WCC or myself have seen in that grade, nothing else is even close. I submitted it to NGC and got an XF details grade for cleaning. The census shows 8 details graded XF coins, which is so very very unlikely that it must be an error.
If you look at most of the details graded coins they're in multiples of 8. So if you divide by 8, you'll get the real details population.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
I like the old way of doing the pop reports more.
I used to watch the changes in the populations
'22, '23, '24
2022
2023
2024
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
NGC population on certain coins is way off and by a lot in some cases. Just look at the 1752 2 reales Peru for example. They state 21 graded total I highly doubt that that is way to high. Ten in F detail and ten in VF detail. They need to fix this issue.
Is it a possibility that that coin was submitted and cracked out multiple times trying for a straight grade?
Not really, I've owned it for a few years, it was in Spain for about ten years before that with a collector/dealer who bought it from one of the Spanish auctions that was unphotographed in that auction. It's very unlikely that it was submitted more than the one time I sent it in.
There's almost no possibility that there's been eight of them out there over the last thirty years hitting NGC, it's very unlikely that they're was even half that many, they've just never been seen on the market or in any archives.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Simon is correct but it's more than that.
I check the NGC census for the series both of collect fairly regularly, to see if any new coins show up. The populations on numerous details coins increased by a factor of 8X before and after the change.
It's not just the one coin Simon used as an example, I see this happened on many others though I can't identify all of them.
Are you referring to coins which NGC or PCGS consider eligible for a numerical grade? Or something else?
If numerical grade eligible, it's my belief that the (vast) majority of even "older" world coinage is not even close to fully captured by the NGC or PCGS population data, usually.
Yes, it varies by country and series depending upon collector/market preference and value.
Any way to get this resolved by NGC? It is not so good it makes very rare coins seem not so rare (especially with newer collectors that have not followed them as many of us have for years and some for decades).
As another completely insane War of Independence example, the NGC census claims there are 45 Nueva Vizcaya 8 reales graded, with 20 in AG details and 20 in F details. The non details numbers seem correct to me.
I suspect the "crackout game" is responsible for the over-estimation of Details-slabbed coins.
If you submit a Details-worthy coin, and it comes back "Details" - and you really really don't think it's Details, and everyone you show the coin to also doesn't think it's Details... then you'll crack out and re-submit. Repeat, until eventually someone at NGC agrees with you, or maybe you give up and admit defeat after 20 re-submissions.
Or: submit a Details-worthy coin, get Details back, use the coin as a pocket-piece for a while, then re-submit. Repeat, until eventually the thing that caused the Details judgement is no longer visible and the coin straight-grades. This would be even harder for the TPG to detect, as the coin will physically look different each time.
When one adds into this mix the observation that they didn't start compiling Pop Reports until some time after they started slabbing world coins, and one can only conclude that TPG Pop Reports are inherently unreliable records in terms of guesstimating actual numbers of slabbed coins in the market. I really have no idea why anyone puts faith in them or uses them to determine market value.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
Let me take a moment to provide a few examples…of NGC pops for graded British Crowns:
Cromwell 1658/7 crown 480 graded with 390 being details graded. Out of that 390, 271 are AU details graded.
1666 elephant 24 graded of which 20 details graded
1716 190 graded of which 139 are details graded and out of that 70 are AU details
1720/18 66 graded of which 50 are details graded… currently PCGS has graded 3.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Seems like a lot of Cromwells as example. I had once a while ago noted a likely problem with NGC censuses on the Jamaica 1882 London minted penny and the gold West African States 1982 5000 CFA francs on specimen versus currency.
Well, just Love coins, period.
No, most of these coins (the vast majority) aren't worth enough to do that. The NGC details census is just flat out wrong now. It's not multiple resubmissions.
I do have details coins that i believe are "market acceptable". In the current coin market, it's better to crack it out and consign it to a non-US auction who will "net grade" it, which IMO is how these coins should be graded anyway.
I've owned coins that were excluded, but I've never heard this before. Not disagreeing with you, just never heard it.
But the primary reason the pop reports aren't reliable is because most non-US collectors of world coinage who in the larger markets still do or might own most of the better higher profile more valuable coins don't prefer TPG. I've seen more graded coins in non-US auctions recently but still see most not graded. Where it is graded, I presume it's almost entirely for US buyers, not because most locals actually prefer it. Other than marketing to US buyers, I don't see that they would care because there is either no local market for graded coins or a very shallow one. It's also the same coin, regardless of the label on a holder and it's not necessary for preservation either, as the coins survived for centuries well enough without it.
I've looked at the NCG data extensively, though not for every series in every market. NGC also recently made its ancient data available, or maybe I just noticed it. Looking at the hoards (large and small) in both ancients and colonial Latin America, it should be evident that since this coinage exists at minimum in this number, practically all other coins exist in numbers which are a noticeable multiple of the current counts and larger or much larger number than most collectors seem to believe too.
Yes, this is the same pattern as the pillar coinage, Peru at least.
At least until recently, I don't believe hardly anyone but US based submitters have been submitting this coinage or for that matter, much Spanish or Spanish colonial coinage of any meaningful value either. I've seen a very low proportion in Spanish and European auctions more recently, but that's all.
What @WCC said, at least some of these numbers can’t be accurate.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Mexico 1922 2c:
118 in BN
11 in RB
Absolutely. No. Way.
Just one of the reasons I don't play this game.
karlgoetzmedals.com
secessionistmedals.com
There were only 190 of those in auction sales over the last 25 years. 61 NGC graded. And many of those are duplicates.
There's definitely some glitching with the census at NGC. There's only 1 certified 1789/8 Carlos III 8 Reales in Details grade (discovered by Kent, certified and owned by me last year) and the pop report shows 10.
Same story with the 1799/8 - should be only 1 in details and it shows 10
8 Reales Madness Collection
I am less concerned about the Cromwell as I know the surviving population is a reasonable number and still outstripped by demand.
The concern I have is over what is listed for the George I and George II Crowns. I seriously doubt the NGC numbers. While the mintage figures for most issues are low and subject to guessing/estimates, it really is the surviving population that matters. For George II, he 1746 LIMA, 1743 and 1941 are the most available and we can argue at the other end of the rarity scale as to whether it is 1734, 1735 or 1751 as being the most challenging.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
This thread turned into some larger discussion about slabbed pops or whatever - that's not the point. For anyone who's actually perused their census before... they always had one spreadsheet for straight-graded and one for "Details"... However many weeks ago, someone decided it would be better for everything to be in one... which wasn't a bad idea, particularly for World coins where few are known AT ALL. Was awkward to bounce between two spreadsheets to figure out total pop.
But anyway, at that point, clearly a data merge error occurred. They simply need to straighten that out.
Any other philosophical debates about what gets graded, what it indicates about the market, etc., are for another day.
I looked at the populations today and it seems to me like the bug was fixed. Everything I have looked at today seems back to normal.
Good, and the clutter from all those "+" and * grades has been removed too.
That is great news!!! New collectors will have a much better idea just how rare some coins truly are.