Which TPG is "stronger" for each series?

I own two SLQs, an ANACS T2 in AU55 and an NGC T1 in AU58FH. Each time I bought one, I decided against PCGS coins of the same grade, as in the pictures they appeared to have slightly more wear and they weren't cheaper either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it depends on the day and time pcgs of late has been over strict on Trades their calling coins xf-45 that are clearly as good if not superior to au-50-53 in both their slabs and NGC slabs I know someone here that took a fresh graded xf-45 trade in pcgs and crossed it to au-50 in NGC they've been also putting some cions in detail slabs especially cleaning detail slabs that I just don't see it and I'm not alone. On gold I just crossed 2 anacs coins cracked out and submitted raw to pcgs one an au -53 $10 and an au -58 $5 both came back in pcgs plastic the exact same grade

 

For Copper Coins (Lincoln Cents esp) ... PCGS is more strict and grades will be lower by typically 1 grade over NGC. So an NGC PR67, will generally come back as a PCGS PR66. This is just a generalization and sometimes the opposite will be true for particular cases -- though that might be due to PCGS's inconsistency as someone else mentioned.

For Morgans, grades seem to be closer, however NGC is more lenient on color. PCGS seems to go NUTS with their Genuine Questionable Color designation at times.

NGC also misses a lot of problem coins. I know of several coins that were graded by NGC as problem free, but PCGS detected "Tooling", "Altered Surface - Lacquer", "Cleaning", etc. So I have more faith in problem free PCGS coins. For this reason I rarely buy super expensive NGC coins (say over $900 or so) because you can easily get burned.

 

Pcgs can be over tough on early copper too they'll call environmental damage on a lot of coins that would probably pass at NGC case in point this one vf details

 

I think their both equally inconsistent in Morgans no reason why a ms 63 1880-s looks better then a ms 65 1881 cc etc they should hold all dates and mintmarks to the same standards

 

But was what PCGS detecting actually there? There have also been plenty of PCGS (And NGC) coins that have been called detail coins which when cracked out and resubmitted come back as problem free.

 

Same coin, but 2 grade drop going from NGC to PCGS ...

 

Same coin, 1 grade drop going from NGC to PCGS and lost the STAR ... (well to be fair, PCGS doesnt have a star, but they do have a + for eye appeal)

 

I did have this one that went the other way (higher at PCGS), but it took 2 submissions. The first time I submitted this to PCGS it came back "Genuine - Planchet Flaw".

 

The PCGS + is not for eye appeal, it indicates high end for the grade.

 

I agree 100%.

 

I appreciate all the responses everyone. The more anecdotes and information the better!

 

I agree with this completely. I think for early copper PCGS is tougher - certainly not perfect. I do tend to see more problem (in my eyes) coins in NGC holder than in PCGS. But I do still look at NGC coins - I have cracked quite a few NGC coins for my album. So while PCGS is better I would not just discount NGC coins when looking.

 

I completely disagree...different dates have different traits (that rhyme was purely accidental). The 1880-S is famous for having an amazing strike and excellent surfaces. As a result, these coins have been graded more harshly long before the TPGs came into being.

For an extreme example, take an average 1880-S Morgan and an average 1892-O Morgan. Look at the details on the coins...they are very different. They really can't be graded using the same standards.

 

Why? If the 1880-S Morgans are the better coins, just grade them higher.

 

They have different characteristics. They are basically different coins and are treated as such.

 

Exactly. Even though there are some decently struck dates from the New Orleans mint, on the whole, they're more weakly struck than any other issue, especially with the Morgan dollar. Thus, the TPGs take this into consideration, and strike is only one part of the grade (as it should be). On the other hand, early S mint Morgans are superbly struck, and have great surface preservation in a large quantity of survival rate. So, they are correspondingly tough on those dates--that is not at all inconsistent, as we know that strike is only 1/3- 1/4 of the overall grade.

 

I m well aware this is how they grade them I just don't nessicarily agree my feeling is they all should be held to the same standards and if it made the tougher dates even tougher in high grade then so be it makes it more of a challenge

 

I agree, same coin - same standards should apply.

 

Conder, I just wanted to teach you something you didn't know!

Check out PCGS grading standards (shown below), which is displayed on the PCGS website. Note that EVERY TIME a + appears in the grade, there is a reference to above average "eye appeal". I circled all those instances in red. Just try to find a reference to eye appeal in the chart below on a line that does not have a + on it. So YES, I was right, a PCGS + coin is noted by the PCGS graders to have above average eye appeal. That being said, PCGS did something that I think is dumb. They MERGED an "in-between grade" designation and the "above average eye appeal" designation into a single + symbol. So a PCGS slabbed coin has to be BOTH in between grades AND have above average eye appeal to get a + designation. While NGC has a cleaner and easier to understand system where they use a STAR to denote above average eye appeal and a PLUS to denote in between grades. In other words, PCGS's + system is DUMB and RETARDED! NGC's system using both + and STAR makes infinitely more sense.