PCGS Overpriced vs NGC

I don't get he CDN, so I don't have any here at the house. I was at a local coin dealer's store and we were discussing the TPGSs and he took out his loose-leaf of Greysheets and showed me the listing of percentages I listed in my post (there were three-High, low and Average for each of the eight TPGS- PCGS, NGC, ANACS, ICG, PCI, SEGS, NCI and INS. If you're really interested, I expect I'll be going into town this week and I'll make a copy, scan it and include it in this tread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your LCD may be "dealing" using out-of-date CDN's with higher prices.

AFAIK when ownership of the CDN changed a while back they dropped the box with TPGS percentages.

 

"Gambling in Casablanca? Rick, I'm shocked!"

Yeah, same as coin dealers running mini-scams to increase margins.

 

A companies ability to "quasi-grade" coins as 70 isn't a reason at all for preferring them over another. As far as I'm concerned, ASEs and other "coins" graded 70 by TPGs are assigned such grades by a random number generator -- "70" anything is smoke and mirrors. If it's priced the same as the 69, I'll buy it. Otherwise, it's wasted money.

 

I have a complete mint set 1957, and I understand that one or more Coins could be worth quite a bit. I have not opened the original packaging and I am not sure if I should before sending them in to get graded. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

 

You should absolutely open a 1957 mint set before sending them to be graded -not just send them in blindly and pray. In order for any denomination of that year to be worth the cost of grading, they would need to be in impeccable condition and strike quality.

 

Definitely look at it first, blindly sending it could be a big disappointment

 

That is most assuredly untrue. AU is a common designation within the realm of NZ coins (at the very least).

 

The Standard Catalog of World Coins has not used it (yet) for New Zealand. In that volume, it is a grade used exclusively for the U.S. In much of Europe, several of our grades we use here have no precise equivalent in their home country grading systems.

 

I’d have to disagree with that statement. I’ve seen far more inconsistencies with pcgs than NGC. So many examples I see of coins being sent to pcgs multiple times receiving a different grade every time, sometimes not receiving a straight grade when it was cracked from a straight graded holder and vise versa.

 

That volume is wrong then and New Zealand isn't the only country it is wrong about

 

This.
Nicely toned coins will almost always grade 1 point, and very often 2+ points, higher than they would if they were just white or had avg toning.

 

As they should since eye appeal is part of a grade so really not sure what your criticism is. 100 percent mark/wear counting grading has been gone for a long long time

 

I prefer NGC. I collect early silver commems, and NGC is much tighter on them then PCGS from what I have seen. I have passed on numerous PCGS 63's and 64's because I felt them to be closer to 60-62's. The overgrading (of that series IMO), and made me shy away from PCGS (although I do own quite a few), and look for the NCG coins. There was a recent thread about a Norse in a PCGS MS64 slab, and I added my NGC MS62. My 62 was in much nicer condition, and everyone agreed (except those that thought it could have been a strike issue on the 64).

I think PCGS overgrades more frequently then NGC or ANACS, and I think that's why dealers like them, and promote them. I also believe that the majority of PCGS buyers are not collectors, and trust the grade on the slab more then their eyes.

 

A lot of what you wrote was very uniformed as @Insider would say. The place where PCGS vs NGC makes the biggest difference is at the high end of the market where the collectors are the MOST informed and have the strongest opinions and the most eyes on the pieces.

EAC grading guide also found PCGS to be tighter with copper than NGC, but please go on telling us how PCGS buyers aren't collectors. Make a tread saying that on the CU forum and see how well that goes over from guys who have forgotten more than we will ever know.

 

Gee thanks for those kind words @baseball21

I'm not saying all buyers of PCGS, and certainly not those that take collecting seriously, like those that participate here and on other forums (folks that aren't 'truly' into collecting don't bother educating themselves). It's folks who are new to the hobby, folks who think they know everything, or folks as stated before that have too much money and want to buy into rare coins. Ebay lemmings would also fit the category.

I just think PCGS has been hyped enough by dealers and the like, and their heavy presence on ebay make newcomers think they are (as mentioned earlier) the 'Gold Standard', and blindly buy the slab.

There are plenty of properly graded, and undergraded coins in PCGS slabs, but IMO, they have a higher % of overgradeds. Take the 69 vs 70 conversation earlier. Is NGC undergrading 70's? Or is PCGS overgrading 69's? It has to be one or the other. Based on my personal experiences (albeit not in 69/70 coins, as it's not what I collect), I lean towards PCGS overgrading the 69's as 70's.

One other thing about NGC's standards/requirements vs PCGS that made me shy away from PCGS was the different requirements for Franklin FBL's. NGC requires both sets of lines to be complete. PCGS requires only the upper set to be complete. Which would you rather own, or better yet, which would you consider to have full bell lines? A coin where only one out of the 2 sets is complete, or the coin where both sets of lines are complete?

Just as a let's see, should this Mercury be FB? What kind of grade does this warrant? MS 62, 63, 64, 65?

 

The fact you would ever type "I also believe that the majority of PCGS buyers are not collectors, and trust the grade on the slab more then their eyes." just lets me know that you shouldn't be listened to about this. The misinformation confirmed it.

Out of those three companies only one company is dependent on a single submitter. Two of those companies could lose 30 percent of their business and still be fine.

So you are giving an opinion on something you have little to no experience in and where you don't collect but are convinced you know what the explanation has to be? It doesn't have to be one or the other at all. Your statement actually shows how uneducated you are in this area.

Can you tell me the percentage of submissions who opt to only have 70s slabbed and anything lower returned raw which means 69s never enter the population? You were aware that's an option right? You're also aware a lot of people are doing that now right?

This is false. You might want to go look that up again.

 

Unless either PCGS or NGC changed their standards recently, he is correct. NGC requires 6 full lines (bot sets on bell), whereas PCGS only requires the 3 (bottom set).

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/125538-wyntk-full-bell-lines-on-franklin-half-dollar-fbl/

http://www.franklinlover.yolasite.com/full-bell-lines-guide.php

http://franklinhalfdollar.org/full-bell-lines-franklin-half-dollars/

It's pretty well known among the Franklin collectors that non-designated Full Bell Franklins can be found in NGC holders and upgrade to Full Bell PCGS holders.

 

He wrote the "upper set" not the bottom though.

 

I would assume that was just an erroneous mistake on Beefer's part and the intentions of his statement can be implied...