What's with PCGS?

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 7:15AM

Alright, I have been studying grading services and self slabbers for many years, and have submitted coins to ICG, ANACS, SEGS, PCGS, NGC, PCI and a few others that I might have forgotten. I have purchased hundreds of coins graded by all major players, mostly PCGS, but any service that's been around for a long time. I have compared grading, compiled the pictures and put them all on my website along with a few guides and advice.

I grade my coins via microscope and a 10x Triplet Loupe. I own the original ANA, photograde, PCGS Grading Guide among other coin grading books. I use coins already graded by PCGS to help me grade coins for my submissions. If I want 1997-D MS67 Lincoln Cents or better, I use MS67-68 Lincoln Cents already graded by PCGS, then I carefully search the original rolls I might get in a collection. I'm very careful on how I handle the coins, even using white cotton gloves. (I have to endure Michael Jackson jokes from my children! lol).

Anyway, I send the coins to PCGS, and when they come back in a grade less than I expected. I compare them to the PCGS Graded coins that I used to aide me in grading, to see what I missed. Often, I will see that there was something I missed, because hours of looking over cents can do that to your eyes. However, I always get back two or three coins where there's no explanation for why the coin didn't grade MS68 instead of MS67.

I'm a perfectionist, and do very well with PCGS when grading modern proofs and silver dollars, but where I seem to fail the most is when I think a Franklin should at least grade Cameo PR67 and it comes back PR66, but it's obvious that the coin has cameo devices on the obverse and the reverse with well over 3 inches of clear mirror reflection. Also, I seem to fail to find one single MS68 1997-D Lincoln Cent, I know it jumps in value from MS67 to MS68, and that's why I took my time to search 60+ plastic wrapped bank rolls, and used MS67 examples to grade.

Do you know what happened, I kid no one, my 1997-D Cent PCGS graded MS67 had less marks then the graded example I already had on hand. I knew this before I sent it or I wouldn't have submitted the coins. I though about sending both coins back in their holders and asking PCGS to explain.

Alright, I will stop ranting. I'm not mad or upset, I live and learn. I have over 20 coins I will be sending to PCGS soon, and it might reach 30. I'm here to learn, and would like any info that might help me be better at grading modern coins like the cents in the MS68 range, or if any of you have had similar experiences with PCGS submissions.

Should I just resubmit the coins in question, if the value would increase with a grade increase enough that would make it worth the trouble?

Do I just have a lot to learn about grading?

Does PCGS favor certain Lincoln Cent dates over others? I'm all ears. Over-all I haven't lost any money, but I have been so close to big one that I wonder if I need to go a step further or something? I know there are three sides to a coin, but how much does the edge play a factor in coin grading? I'm beginning to think this might be the problem. Any advice?

STONE · June 16, 2009 7:23AM

If you want to grade your coins like PCGS, then use a 5x loupe (or less) or just your eye.....that's how they do it!

STONE · June 16, 2009 7:26AM

But to be honest, one of those 67's (which you discuss about in the above) seems low-end, the other high-end, for the grade.
This is the best I can tell ye without decent pics!

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 7:30AM

<< If you want to grade your coins like PCGS, then use a 5x loupe (or less) or just your eye.....that's how they do it! >>

It might be what they claim, but I find it hard to believe that if I grade a coin using a 10x or a microscope that I'm not going to find more marks than PCGS will. I don't send coins that will never make the grade, I see more. Imagine this, PCGS grade a coin MS68, I look through several rolls using my microscope and find a coin that appears as clean as their MS68 does with the naked eye. So my magnified coin has cleaner surfaces than a PCGS MS68, but they send my coin back as MS67.

I'm not making this up! I wish I still had both coins, but I sold them. I will put together some pictures. If I'm grading with a microscope and they are grading with a 5x loupe, logic will tell you I'm grading more conservative than PCGS 9 out of 10 times, but this is still not good enough? Come on.

illini420 · June 16, 2009 7:30AM

If there's a huge price jump from 67 to 68 and if we're dealing with copper coins, some folks here would say that PCGS may be limiting their liability under their grade guarantee. Seems plausible, but I would hope that they would just honestly grade the coins, but they have shareholders to be responsible to as well.

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 7:31AM

<< But to be honest, one of those 67's seems low-end, the other high-end, for the grade.
This is the best I can tell ye without decent pics! >>

What are you taking about my ebay auctions?

braddick · June 16, 2009 7:48AM

The lofty grade of MS68 for modern Lincolns is not determined only on the lack of marks. Luster and strike play an equally important role.

Like silver Roosevelt dimes that grade MS68 with PCGS, the Lincoln has to have "it". There's a look to MS68's that although difficult to describe must be present before the grade is assigned.

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 7:53AM

<< Since CAC they have been tight as a drum. I have gone 0 for 18 on cross overs on high end coins

in the past my success rate was 35-40%. I suspect they are just as tight with raw coins, I suspect your lincoln

was a pre CAC 68 post CAC 67. >>

I never though of that, thanks for your posts.

JupitarCoins · June 16, 2009 7:53AM

Its fairly easy when it comes to grading very very modern proofs like commems or silver eagle dollars. The real problem seems to me to differentiate between a proof 69 to a proof 70. I cannot tell the difference or should I say see the diiference. Can someone tell me what to look for? I can for the most part see the difference between a cameo and deep cameo.

BlindedByEgo · June 16, 2009 8:00AM

A question was asked in another thread about PCGS bias. While I do not believe that they are biased against NGC, I have realized for years that PCGS does market grade.

For example, MS63 Morgans coming back in 62 holders when a substantial price jump exists at 63. Uncirculated gold coming back AU58. And especially so since the advent of CAC.

Resubmission for the right grade is all part of the game.

Wiscane · June 16, 2009 8:01AM

PCGS has gone over the top trying to tighten things up. What makes me ticked off is their nonsense about the "color" not looking right. NO EXPLAINATION..... I would understand if they said it was cleaned /dipped. I suspect in my case I submitted several coins on the cheap and got hit for that IMHO.

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 8:05AM

I'm sure glad that I'm not alone in this, I have considered all the points that have been posted here. I will always use PCGS because I know the coin is AT LEAST that grade. I will try some resubmissions.

MikeInFL · June 16, 2009 8:25AM

<< Since CAC they have been tight as a drum. I have gone 0 for 18 on cross overs on high end coins

in the past my success rate was 35-40%. I suspect they are just as tight with raw coins, I suspect your lincoln

was a pre CAC 68 post CAC 67. >>

Except, of course, that the CAC doesn't sticker 1997 Lincolns.

Steve27 · June 16, 2009 8:37AM

The only factor you failed to consider was time. Over time PCGS grades go up and down, which I attribute to nothing more than the turnover in graders (sorry I don't buy into the CAC conspiracy). We are now in a down cycle.

Classof67 · June 16, 2009 8:40AM

<< Its fairly easy when it comes to grading very very modern proofs like commems or silver eagle dollars. The real problem seems to me to differentiate between a proof 69 to a proof 70. I cannot tell the difference or should I say see the diiference. Can someone tell me what to look for? I can for the most part see the difference between a cameo and deep cameo. >>

I'm with Jupitar!

19Lyds · June 16, 2009 8:49AM

<< PCGS has gone over the top trying to tighten things up. What makes me ticked off is their nonsense about the "color" not looking right. NO EXPLAINATION..... I would understand if they said it was cleaned /dipped. I suspect in my case I submitted several coins on the cheap and got hit for that IMHO. >>

Grade opinions please:

The coin is fully lustrous.

LindeDad · June 16, 2009 8:51AM

I will note that yes they are tight on moderns now Like you I have put coins beside older allready slabed 67's and say yes I will send this in and have it come back as a 66.
And in my experience the rims must be mark free and bold for a 67 or 68 grade so yes be sure to check them too.

abitofthisabitofthat · June 16, 2009 8:54AM

Hi - I think that the 10x loupe is not going to help you. Very often, the difference in an MS 67, vs a MS68, is attributable to luster, not surface marks. Looking at 67s and trying to find cleaner examples may not yield any 68s at all.

After using a loupe to check the surfaces, put it down and take a fresh look at the coin. If it does not dazzle you with its strike and luster, it will likely not 68 regardless of the surfaces. A 68 should make your jaw drop, and you just can't see that through a loupe.

Best of luck.

LindeDad · June 16, 2009 8:56AM

<< Grade opinions please: >>

MS66 one lower than it probably should be.

Bochiman · June 16, 2009 8:58AM

In addition to what has been said so far, and to further the point about using a microscope and 10x loupe to grade......
When you do that, you are focusing on portions of the coin at a time. Not the coin as a whole. So, for graders that only use their eyes, or a 5x loupe, and grading in under a minute, you aren't doing it the same way.

Grade it like they do so you can see the "pop" of the coin, if it is there, as a whole coin. If that "pop" isn't there, you won't get the lofty grade....

droopyd · June 16, 2009 9:01AM

<< PCGS has gone over the top trying to tighten things up. What makes me ticked off is their nonsense about the "color" not looking right. NO EXPLAINATION..... >>

I think they need to get some metallurgists in to explain and demonstrate the myriad "looks" that various metals can get when they oxidize.

Bear · June 16, 2009 9:01AM

The tightening and loosening might be as small as 0.3 of a point

to 0.6 of a point. These are fine gradations indeed and one must

have mastered the art by looking at many 10s of thousands of coins.

An experienced grader will come to recognize the "Look" to be acceptable

for a grade. Further, they will be able to quickly adjust that "Look" to meet

an adjusted standard. The "Professional Graders" are an elite and skilled

group of people indeed. I wonder, are there any women in this elite group?

DNADave · June 16, 2009 9:02AM

Grading is subjective

SeattleSlammer · June 16, 2009 9:08AM

....beyond just marks--strike, luster, color and eye appeal account for some of it.....the rest depends upon the grader and whether he had a good night before coming to work....humans are human...

MorgansForMe · June 16, 2009 9:14AM

Next big coin show when all the coin gods are in one place cut a few MS coins out of the PCGS holders. Take around as ungraded to PCGS, NGC, and all the others get back to us and tell us how many different grades you received.

droopyd · June 16, 2009 9:15AM

<< Grading is subjective >>

Yet PCGS (and to be fair other TPGs) tout its services as "standardized" grading.

MorgansForMe · June 16, 2009 9:24AM

Been collecting since 1974. I'm with "SEATTLE SLAMMER" LUSTER. LUSTER, LUSTER, LUSTER, LUSTER. Ever seen a coin in a MS66 holder with weak strikes but has a luster to die for. Strikes of a MS67 no luster because its been dipped and all the luster is stripped from it comes back in a bag, but most will take the one with the strikes.

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 10:07AM

I think I'm getting this very well. I have gone through 10's of thousands of coins in my short lifetime, and my dad and I always put back the coins with that POP! However, when I look at it more closely with my scope and loupe, the coin isn't as clean as another with less POP! So, guess which coin I send to PCGS? You guessed it, the one with less POP! and the cleaner coin. Hum. You huys have me thinking, and I appreciate all these responses.

I never grade my coins by luster or eye appeal because that's not supposed to affect the grade, but when human err is factored in, it must matter. I can see PCGS graders now, looking ever more closely at a submitted coin because it appears dull, and thus they assign a grade, but when they get a coin with POP! they marvel ot how nice it looks and don't see that it's not as clean as the duller version without POP!

Also, PCGS is about money, and they want to grade coins in a high grade that have the best eye appeal because it's what collectors want and look at first. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but we all love the standard version of beauty. Thanks guys, I think I've got it, or at least 40% since I'm batting almost 0% now. lol

19Lyds · June 16, 2009 10:31AM

<< 

<< Grade opinions please: >>

MS66 one lower than it probably should be.

>>

Thats what I thought but someone at PCGS thought:

Tight is not the word I'd use.

Bear · June 16, 2009 10:34AM

I start out looking for coins with the "POP"

However, I usually end up with coins with

the "POOP".

MorgansForMe · June 16, 2009 10:38AM

Nothing better than 100+ year old coin with aged "beautiful" luster, think about it.

Frankcoins · June 16, 2009 10:47AM

<< I grade my coins via microscope and a 10x Triplet Loupe. I own the original ANA, photograde, >>

The grading services determine the "value" and then assign a "grade" representative of the "value." What you are doing is "technical" grading and
will seldom agree with the "market" grading approach of the services.

nicetoning42107 · June 16, 2009 10:49AM

<< 

<< 

<< Grade opinions please: >>

MS66 one lower than it probably should be.

>>

Thats what I thought but someone at PCGS thought:

Tight is not the word I'd use. >>

They must've thought those diagonal lines were slide marks instead of mint-made?

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 16, 2009 11:00AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Grade opinions please: >>

MS66 one lower than it probably should be.

>>

Thats what I thought but someone at PCGS thought:

Tight is not the word I'd use. >>

They must've thought those diagonal lines were slide marks instead of mint-made? >>

That's what I was thinking.

abitofthisabitofthat · June 16, 2009 11:11AM

<< I think I'm getting this very well. I have gone through 10's of thousands of coins in my short lifetime, and my dad and I always put back the coins with that POP! However, when I look at it more closely with my scope and loupe, the coin isn't as clean as another with less POP! So, guess which coin I send to PCGS? You guessed it, the one with less POP! and the cleaner coin. Hum. You huys have me thinking, and I appreciate all these responses.

I never grade my coins by luster or eye appeal because that's not supposed to affect the grade, but when human err is factored in, it must matter. I can see PCGS graders now, looking ever more closely at a submitted coin because it appears dull, and thus they assign a grade, but when they get a coin with POP! they marvel ot how nice it looks and don't see that it's not as clean as the duller version without POP!

Also, PCGS is about money, and they want to grade coins in a high grade that have the best eye appeal because it's what collectors want and look at first. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but we all love the standard version of beauty. Thanks guys, I think I've got it, or at least 40% since I'm batting almost 0% now. lol >>

Luster and eye appeal do affect the grade. That is not a human error element. They are both key parts of a coins grade.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 16, 2009 11:13AM

It's a big giant teeter totter.
In spite of how good one set of eyes are, there are at least 3 other sets subjecting a coin to opinion. That's about as simple as I can figure.

MorgansForMe · June 16, 2009 11:23AM

If your looking for undergraded coins look at NGC old fat holder coins. Not all but a lot are ungraded at least in Peace and Morgans. This said I have a large collection of Old Fat Holder Morgans that Ill never sell and never crack out for regrading, dont need someone to tell me what grade they THINK they are. Many are very, very lustrous (beautiful) and beyond anything for the most part in a PCGS or NGC holder that has been graded as of late.

LindeDad · June 16, 2009 11:52AM

Yours looks better than my 65 that Gary made a few years back.
Good thing it only cost $14.00 to have them try to get it right again.

kranky · June 16, 2009 12:06PM

Like some others have said, maybe you are focusing too much on surface marks and not enough on luster, eye appeal and strike.

Wiscane · June 16, 2009 8:57PM

<< Like some others have said, maybe you are focusing too much on surface marks and not enough on luster, eye appeal and strike. >>

All those things you can perhaps see....... COLOR ...... ???? A raw IHC copper coin can naturally turn a different shade over the last hundred years + as it sits in a box. It doesn't mean that it has been doctored or circulated. Dipped or cleaned is another issue all together.... I get THAT!

greghansen · June 16, 2009 11:15PM

The lofty grade of MS68 for modern Lincolns is not determined only on the lack of marks. Luster and strike play an equally important role.

If not a more important role!

I never grade my coins by luster or eye appeal because that's not supposed to affect the grade

This totally, completely, 100% wrong from what I have been told. In fact, just the opposite. On higher grade coins, usually the luster and eye appeal are the differntiating characteristics.

CoinAuctionsHelp · June 17, 2009 2:14PM

I would like to add this, grade 1-59 are determined by the amount of wear and contact marks. Grades 60-70 are determined by contact marks, and not just based on a coin luster or eye appeal. If it is, then explain to me how many MS62 coins have brilliant luster, PL devices and have better eye appeal than an MS64 with dull luster?

I will agree that what others have posted is true, but coin grading is subject to human error. I sent a coin to PCGS, it was dull, oxidized from being kept in a envelope and was pulled from circulation by a friends grandmother. I knew the coin didn't have great eye appeal and I knew that it wasn't UNC, but PCGS sent it back as MS63. You see, I knew the exact disposition of this coin, but PCGS sent it back as if they new better.

I'm not bashing PCGS, but they need to grade all coins better, all across the board. They need to grade by there data base of coin pictures and coin slabs, and not be conservative for a couple years, then lighten up, and be more conservative again. We live in the technology age, and I think all coins should be ran through a laser scanning device that can count all marks, their depths, lengths and widths, plus the scale of luster, depth of strike, and match this against what is known about the strike of the date and mint of each series.

In this method, a grading service would compile a reliable data base of all the allowances for a certain grade. It would take a knowledgeable numismatist to develop the software, but we need a standard, and I don't think PCGS is the standard. PCGS has become so popular and large that they can control much of the coin market. If they only grade a limited amount of the 2009 Cents MS68 and none MS69 for the next few years, guess what happens the first time they grade a 2009 cent MS69-MS70 when it shows up on Heritage Auctions? It sells for much more than the coin is worth.

I have been studying the market for several years, and it's time that we get a standard for grading coins, that helps eliminate opinion and human error.

stinkinlincoln · June 17, 2009 2:35PM

<<that helps eliminate opinion and human error.>>

Thats the problem from the very start. Grading is done by humans. We are not perfect, nor consistent.

As long as grading is done by people, it will vary. Period.

19Lyds · June 17, 2009 2:52PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Grade opinions please: >>

MS66 one lower than it probably should be.

>>

Thats what I thought but someone at PCGS thought:

Tight is not the word I'd use. >>

They must've thought those diagonal lines were slide marks instead of mint-made? >>

That's what I was thinking. >>

Those striations are common on IKEs and are produced before the minting process. They are not necessarily grade limiting.

GRANDAM · June 17, 2009 2:59PM

<< Yours looks better than my 65 that Gary made a few years back. >>

Yes, a few years back,,,,,, "The Good Old Days"

I haven't made a big time IKE since "The Good Old Days"

And NO, these aren't "The Good Old Days"

GrandAm

What's with PCGS?

Comments

Leave a Comment