Some comentary for those who think that PCGS is aways better than NGC

I have been building an early 20th century date set of quarter eagles. I have long found these dime sized coins to be more attractive than their $5 and $10 sisters. Since I had a set of the Indian quarter eagles, I decided it would be fun to complete the 20th century set from 1900 to 1929.

I already had a few dates, 1900, 1905 and 1907. I went to the last Winter FUN show looking for the other dates. I found them all except the 1902. I looked at an MS-67 graded piece really hard but finally rejected it because it had a rather nasty "hiden" bag mark on Ms. Liberty's nose. I decided that a coin graded MS-67 should not have that.

I bought a 1902 $2.50 in PCGS MS-65 in an on-line auction. When I received the piece, I was disappointed. The luster was not as good as I though it was from the photo, and it it's share of marks and then some for the grade. Here is the coin.



Here is a 1901 $2.50 in NGC MS-65. The luster is much better.



And to set the standard for those who are very impressed with CAC, here is a 1904 in PCGS MS-65, CAC.



And rounding this out, this 1907 is graded NGC MS-67.



My photography has a tendancy to make some marks look bigger than than they appear in person. This 1907 $2.50 has honey colored surfaces and is totally original. It's never been dipped or fooled with.

What do you think of the grading and these coins?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If the 1907 has been fooled with, I'm a buyer for a jug of that of dip.

What do you think of this one? It's only graded MS-63 in an OGL holder, and for good reason because of some marks. The luster is strong.



This one, which I bought over 60 years ago, got an MS-62 grade over 25 years ago. It has hardly a mark on it, but the luster is more muted.

 

Submitting a common date gold coin for an upgrade from MS-63 to 64 is not worth it these days.

 

One word comes to mind,