ICG v ANACS - Who's worse?

So, it's pretty clear that folks prefer PCGS or NGC to other non-first tier graders, but I was curious on how individuals feel about the second-tier graders.

If you could post in your response whether you're posting from the vantage of a collector (better coin for your buck) or dealer (higher marketability), that'd be great.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In my mind, PCGS>NGC>ANACS>ICG

ANACS is pretty solid when it comes to slabbing varieties that don't appear in the Cherrypicker's guide. I would prefer them over ICG.

 

Good God they are both horrible.

 

I've owned both. I think it depends on the era of the slab. I prefer old ANACS holders over ICG. But lately, if I was choosing between the two, it would be nearly a toss up with a very slight edge to ICG.

 

I would say that ANACS has always been a little better than ICG. At one time, both were considered decent but they no longer are as both have changed hands. In fact, if memory serves...one of the owners of ICG actually sold the company and bought ANACS. But, I think both have changed hands again since.

Today, I think ANACS is held in higher regard than ICG...but I think both stink.

 

I mostly depends on which ICG/ANACS slab you are talking about. IMO the old small ANACS and pictured grades are as good as PCGS/NGC. I am not familiar enough with ICG's history, but have been told they were once good. However, my 67 ICG's are garbage compared to any ANACS I have seen.

 

What I liked about the old ANACS holders is that—at one time—they net graded problem coins. Nowadays, the only net grading is done by the Early Copper types (EAC and C4 for those who know what the initials stand for)

 

If you go by the ratings in the graysheet they are essentially tied.
But those numbers reflect sight-unseen ratings.

 

What a weird way to ask the question. Why not ask which one is better?

 

I would choose ANACS over ICG any day, and agree the old ANACS small holders seem to reflect accurate grading.
On a separate note, I think the modern ANACS slabs are ugly and strange. Still would choose them over ICG for grading, though.

 

I am not trying to advertise ANACS, but when you talk to Morgan collectors they all seem to see ANACS as top TPG simply due to the number of VAM varieties they recognize. Maybe they are more lenient when it comes to grading. So what? If you know about that, pay the price you think the coin is worth. If we start bashing TPGs it should be those giving a proper grade to problem coins (basement TPGs). Just my opinion...

 

Honestly...imo id go with ANACS before NGC. NGC has had so many...I mean countless mistakes with weak grading and attributions. And I don't mean just VAMS. Not to mention...its easy to get a DPL designation from NGC. ANACS and PCGS are real tough on DMPL and mist of what I see grab a DPL from NGC would be really lucky to get a DMPL from PCGS and ANACS. Also...the last couple or few years ANACS has been real solid with grading. I know they had a bad wrap in the past but obviously kicked it up...unlike NGC imo who has totally dropped the ball. Also...ANACS has great prices...that never hurts. Neither does having JR for the attributions. I know I'll get some...YOUR CRAZY responses but I've seen it with my own eyes countless times...so has many others in the past couple years.

 

Not a chance with ANACS over NGC--they are just not that accurate at grading. I would go with them as a THIRD choice (ANACS), but only the older holder coins. As of recently, I think they're in the Second Tier status firmly.

 

I agree.


IN addition, at the last ANA, I was speaking to them, and said, how many letters do I need for a VG V-nickel from you guys?

I handed them a slab, he walked it over to the grader, wrote it up and had me sign.

I asked how much, he said "nothing, it's our mistake".
[I think I did pay postage, but, I'm not sure since I sent in some other pieces.]




Name another grading co that'll do that!

Note: I didn't have not explain the 1909 S/horizontal S to them, he asked me if I realized that it was the variety.

 

Both lost me when they slabbed / graded previous year's silver eagles in current year's first day of issue limited edition labeled holders.

 

Does it really matter?, plastic is plastic ;p

 

I feel ANACS is just as solid if not better as far as grading is concerned...not to mention the tons of mistakes NGC has had. I've personally had to send 4 coins back to NGC to fix. 1 may be a coincidence...not 4. On the other hand...I hate...yes hate the way ANACS labels GSA dollars...and very much dislike how PCGS does their (plastic over....plastic) I really like how NGC grades theirs. I have many coins in all kinds of slabs...I see the differences. Not to mention consistancy. I forget where...but some website or organization sent multiple coins in to the TPGs, noted the grades, sent them back, noted again etc and ANACS was the most consistant. I'm a firm believer in buy the coin, not the slab...well to a point. I'm just really impressed with ANACS...NGC used to be my prefered...even ahead of PCGS untill they started doing what they have been.

 

Of course it does! Plastic is not plastic. I mean look at the premiums some bring. I wish it was that way...but its not. If it was what would the point for the TPGs to excel?? Not to mention the basement slabbers...tho I'm sure your just talking about the main players. So..a PCGS 1884s MS63 and a 1884s MS63 in ICG...for same price...same eye appeal...which would you buy?

 

It does matter. I know we need to "buy the coin, not the slab" but when you buy coins graded by reputable grading companies you are buying the coin as well as an experts opinion of that coin. Now, the buyer should always evaluate the coin for them-self and decide if the experts grade meets their (the buyer's) standard...but that market accepted expert opinion that comes on the slab does have a value. Assuming of course, the grading company on the slab is one that is considered reputable. IMHO, PCGS and NGC are the only truly reputable companies today. If I buy a coin in any other slab, I personally consider it raw (ie, the "expert" assessment has no value).