Grading Standards and the Big Two...
OneCent
Posts: 3,561 ✭
It seems to be the consensus that both NGC and PCGS are very tight right now with their respective grading standards. Historically, NGC has been known to be about 1/2pt to a point more liberal than our host. My sense is that this has changed recently and now both are grading to pretty much the same standard. Does anyone else have a sense for this?
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
0
Comments
<< <i>It seems to be the consensus that both NGC and PCGS are very tight right now with their respective grading standards. Historically, NGC has been known to be about 1/2pt to a point more liberal than our host. My sense is that this has changed recently and now both are grading to pretty much the same standard. Does anyone else have a sense for this?
I hope so...it would be a good thing for both to grade tighter.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
However, there are other factors which may ensure a continuing differential:
- the PCGS registry does not allow NGC coins
- the PCGS slab is generally considered a better presentation
- ...
So even if grading becomes the same, there are other factors.
most AU lib half eagles in ngc plastic are not at all good looking to me.
now before you say i soak in koolaid... when it comes to the grade
ranges of 1-35.. i like them both equally and this includes ANACS.
it is that AU to low MS range that I really get discouraged by the
way ngc grades versus pcgs.
other people who collect the same coins i do tend to agree and have
learned their lesson when it comes to crossing them over, ngc to pcgs. multiple point drops.
I have not sent coins in to either service recently, so I don't know that either have tightened up or not. I definitely agree that in general PCGS has historically been a little tighter and brings the better money, but wanted to add that there seems to differences by series. A friend of mine with multiple sets of indian cents claims NGC is the tougher of the two services at the AU/Unc level. He owns dozens of coins from both services, so I respect his opinion.
could be the ol' CAC intimidation
Also looking for VF-EF Seated halves.
Sell me your old auction catalogs...
<< <i>It seems to be the consensus that both NGC and PCGS are very tight right now with their respective grading standards. Historically, NGC has been known to be about 1/2pt to a point more liberal than our host. My sense is that this has changed recently and now both are grading to pretty much the same standard. Does anyone else have a sense for this?
With bullion coins, NGC is consistantly 1 point off.
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems to be the consensus that both NGC and PCGS are very tight right now with their respective grading standards. Historically, NGC has been known to be about 1/2pt to a point more liberal than our host. My sense is that this has changed recently and now both are grading to pretty much the same standard. Does anyone else have a sense for this?
With bullion coins, NGC is consistantly 1 point off. >>
I find it hard to believe most NGC 69s are PCGS 68s.
Now, if you're only talking about 70s....
Who was responsible for the standards to get so loose anyways?
If PCGS and NGC are so skilled at their trade, how did this happen?
I'd much rather have a gradual 'gradeflation' that happens over the course of one's collecting years (say twenty years). At least this way, when you buy a coin raw, you would be 95% sure of what grade it would realize.
Now, you're at the mercy of the graders. Not only are they too strict, but 1 in every 4 coins comes back BB'd.
There's my contribution to the 'weekend rant'.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>I think it's a travesty that there is such a thing as 'tightening up of grading standards' in the first place!! >>
Agreed, but it's a little easier to swallow as long as they are tightening up on EVERYBODY submitting coins, including Heritage, etc. and not just tightening up on the submissions from the smaller dealers and collectors. Oops, didn't mean to open up that can of worms!
<< <i>I think it's a travesty that there is such a thing as 'tightening up of grading standards' in the first place!! >>
Yes, but many people think it is a travesty that there's such a thing as loosening of grading standards that necessitated tightening!
<< <i>Who was responsible for the standards to get so loose anyways? >>
Crack out artists, slammers, and many others.
<< <i>If PCGS and NGC are so skilled at their trade, how did this happen? >>
Randomness in grading combined with non-randomness in crackouts.
<< <i>I'd much rather have a gradual 'gradeflation' that happens over the course of one's collecting years (say twenty years). At least this way, when you buy a coin raw, you would be 95% sure of what grade it would realize. >>
Many people are upset exactly for the opposite reason over the same situtation. Coins they collected as condition rarities became less conditionally rare as the TPGs relaxed their standards, thus the value of their coins would diminish even as the known best examples stayed the same but only changed grades.
<< <i>Now, you're at the mercy of the graders. >>
You were at the mercy of graders before
I believe that the consistency of the top two TPG's is, and has been the single most important function of their existence. For the studious numismatist, it has helped us learn how to grade consistently as well. And as the next two decades unfolded and the internet brought us together and the technology allowed us to share high-resolution images, the studious numismatist has become a better and better grader ... a more and more informed "consumer".
Do I believe the standards have changed over the last twenty years. I don't think so, I am (almost) certain of it. In 1990, a Gem coin (MS65) was a big score, and was almost always a true Gem. A 66 was superb. A 67 ... if it was a classic, it better be damn near perfect. Actually, back then I think that NGC held a slight edge in "strickness".
Either way those standards shifted sometime around/by 1993/4 (if memory serves me).
Then the lower standards started to change too. It was easier to get the 63 and 64 ... eventually falling into the circulated grades. AU55's became last decades nice 50's ... with some of today’s 50's being the 40's of yesteryear. Coins that would have been bagged every time started to get graded.
The changes were slight, but over the course of time are noticeable. Whether or not they knew what they were doing is questionable, but I believe forces outside of the TPG's themselves pushed the changes.
Even the marketing statements from the TPG's explain they are doing some of this (net grading) as a service to the industry.
After 20 years there is no turning back, even though many would like that. The coins that were graded already to the in-between standard (say 1995 until now) would be stuck forever as a drag on the market.
The important thing for the TPG's is to learn from the past. It would have been far better (IMO) to educate collectors, investors and point chasers into understanding how rare truly Gem coins are (or any other grade), than to allow the standards to change further from this point. Especially today, when knowledge is much easier to dissimulate than it was 20 years ago, let the market adjust ... don't adjust to the market.
Just because there are not twenty 65's and above (or any number of any grade), or fifty non-problem slabbable 1792 half dimes, don't create them. Let the buyers and sellers learn that that's what it is.
If we let the market control grading (which to a large extent the TPG's and many collectors, investors and dealers have), then the standards will change constantly as the market shifts.
If the "independent" third party graders are truly independent ... and held to their standards ... and god-help-you if you don't agree because we are consistent to a fault and we're not changing ... then eventually the market would come to terms with that.
In closing, it's kind of like the FED always coming to rescue us (hahahah! notfunny). If they would quit changing the rules and tow the line, then the market would come to terms with that. Because they don't, the market doesn't have too.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
<< <i>when it comes to lib half eagles pcgs is much tighter.
most AU lib half eagles in ngc plastic are not at all good looking to me.
now before you say i soak in koolaid... when it comes to the grade
ranges of 1-35.. i like them both equally and this includes ANACS.
it is that AU to low MS range that I really get discouraged by the
way ngc grades versus pcgs.
other people who collect the same coins i do tend to agree and have
learned their lesson when it comes to crossing them over, ngc to pcgs. multiple point drops. >>
I have stopped buying low MS Liberty Quarter Eagles in NGC plastic. Too many would grade AU holder at PCGS. AU graded Quarter Eagles in NGC holders are often disappointing. Many dealer on-line inventories have a disproportionate number of NGC holdered pieces that are not selling. I have more confidence in pieces graded by ANACS.
Mark