Have NGC Standards been improving? PCGS vs. NGC standards

I;m sorry Doug but you CANNOT exclude specific data when making specific comparisons regardless of how many or how few months the sampling is taken from.

Of the increase in 2004 and 2005, how many of that total number were actually 2004 and 2005 coins vs how many were from years 1986 - 2003?

Random, unqualified numbers is just that.

For example, how many coins were graded in 1986 - 2003 and how many were graded in 2004 - 2005?

Up until a couple of years ago, no 1971-S Eisenhower Business Strike Dollars had graded MS68 yet today there are 2.

Better yet, on 1/6/2006 the 1971-S Silver IKE Populations were:

MS60 - 1
MS61 - 0
MS62 - 9
MS63 - 79
MS64 - 711
MS65 - 1579
MS66 - 1312
MS67 - 192
MS68 - 0

On 10/4/2008 the pops were:

MS60 - 1
MS61 - 0
MS62 - 12
MS63 - 103
MS64 - 836
MS65 - 1812
MS66 - 1835
MS67 - 313
MS68 - 2

Thats close to a 3 year period with some big increases in the higher grades. Is it because PCGS changed their standards or is it because more folks started submitting only what they felt were higher graded coins?

I am in no way disputing your claims but the figures that were presented need to be qualified before they make any sense other than the populations increased. The question of "why" they increased needs to be addressed other than simply because you feel that the grading standards changed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Seriously pay me for my ulcer, and you can have my soul. I will immerge from a dark cave 20 years later.

 

On this topic, I would comment on $20 Liberties and the population figures over the last 20 years or so. If you looked at the changing population of rare dates from Philadelphia issues, and the "O", "CC" branch mints, would you see a trend either in laxity or strictness? I don't think so. When a coin is worth over $2500, the grading services get more strict across the board in my experience. With common date $20 Libs in MS63 and MS64, they do not agonize over increasing those pop figures. They do with MS65 and 66s but there are more than a few that would not be "gem" in my opinion. Review Heritage Auction records on 1900, 1904 and 1904s on "gem" coins and you will see a huge variation in that category. IMO PCGS has always graded on overall aesthetic quality, while NGC does more technical grading. They have had slack periods, but so has PCGS.

 

Someone needs to start documenting all of this information from CT and turning it into a catagorized book. I'm afraid something like a glitch in the system will short the internet, and thousands of years of collectors first hand information will be gone.

 

How about the numbers that graded PR68DCAM? Or PR67.

Better yet, how many were graded during your window?

 

It will happen someday, I really miss the relationships I had to books. The internet gives us the resources for free, but someday a meteor storm could ground the satellites that make it work.

As for documenting this, it would be a lot easier if you could download the PCGS, NGC and ANACS population reports and do a statistical analysis of the changes from year to year. I doubt there are any populations that go down unless the coins get lost or destroyed in a fire or other disaster, so all the populations are going up as coins come out of the woodwork.

The CDN does graphs on most of the coin series--the only problem is that there are significant anomolies in the actual market pricing and what they present. If they were really on the ball they would download all verified industry information into the pricing on a weekly basis. They don't want to lose subscribers so they are hesitant to run a lot of negative pricing in keeping with current auction and transaction history. I'm not saying they need to run the negatives based on a few results, they undoubtably use up to date weighted averages and ignore problem coins in good holders, or run those on Bluesheet.

 

I'm thinking about starting a documentation on Franklins. I'm going to scan CT and take hundreds/thousands of photographs, print them out, and start modifying/documenting from there.

 

If you are good enough to work for them then you are probably good enough to make significantly more by not working for them.

Most of the competent graders I know don't worki for the TPG's because they were tired of being underpaid for their skill. They make much more now capitalizing on TPG mistakes.

 

meaning you learned that the hard way. becoming a spin doctor eh GD ?