Will Grading Companies Ever Give a Grade to Each Side Instead of As a Whole?

Just wondering if there was ever talk about this...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

PCGS sometimes can do this: "A split grade may be assigned when there are significant differences in the obverse grade and reverse grade of the same coin. Split grades are normally denoted with a dual grade in obverse/reverse format. For example, a coin with a split grade of F/VF would have an obverse grading Fine (F) and a reverse grading Very Fine (VF). Typically, coins with a split grade are valued at the level of their lowest grade, whether obverse or reverse." And ANACS used to do this.

 

Right. ANACS used to do it. Search on eBay for “anacs photo cert” and you’ll see some examples.

 

I believe, if I searched my collection of ACG slabbed double eagles, I could locate an example showing grades for both sides, for which considerable criticism was directed against the TPG. I suspect you may have seen same.

JMHO

 

AN EXCERPT FROM AN INTERNET EDITORIAL ABOUT 5/26/03 INDEPENDENT STUDY

"In the May 26, 2003 issue of Coin World, their editorial staff reports on an investigation that they conducted with the most popular grading services. This was an elaborate scientific blind test in which the same 15 coins were submitted to all eight of the major grading services, including PCGS, ANACS and NGC during 2002 and 2003. Eleven months were required to complete the test as each coin was sent to each of the eight services. No single coin was graded the same by all eight services. One coin which should have been the easiest to grade, a 1943 Walking Liberty Half Dollar, garnered grades ranging from AU 58 to MS 65 and many other grades in-between, a seven-point spread !! In one case PCGS graded a 1901-O dollar as MS 61 that PCI a less popular and less expensive service, graded as AU 58. Effectively, PCGS was therefore claiming the coin to be worth twice as much as one of its competitors, based on its final grade value. In another case, PCGS graded a 1893-CC $5 Liberty as XF 45, where ACG graded the same coin as VF 35 and SEGS stated that the coin had been cleaned. PCGS and ANACS graded it without noting that it had ever been cleaned. In yet another case, ANACS and PCGS graded an 1853 Gold Dollar as AU 55 whereas ACG would not give it a grade, noting that it had been "cleaned, surfaces brushed". Either PCGS obviously cannot tell sometimes when a coin has been cleaned or not, or they are showing favoritism, or they just don't mention it because they would rather collect the grading fees. Further evidence of all of this was brought to bear a couple of years ago when they graded the Brother Jonathan shipwrecked coins, most of which had been cleaned. Although PCGS and other services claim that they do not know who owns coins that are submitted, this cannot be true in many cases concerning coins of great rarity and significant collections or hoards. In many cases such as the Brother Jonathan find, they knew who owned the coins. To many dealers and collectors we've spoken with, the grading on many of the ANACS, NGC, PCGS and other services appear inconsistent when compared side by side at various shows. For this reason and more, we should all encourage collectors to learn to grade for themselves, and not spend needless time and money on expensive grading services, which are losing their credibility."

I've seen similar results (sans "top tier" TPG lack of cleaning statement) with my independent grading submissions, where ACG coins removed from their slabs realized grades greater than received from ACG. ACG "sight seen" slabbed coins, generally on the average, appeared to be competitive (i.e. reliably graded relative to new "top tier" TPG grade) with the accuracy of the 4 prominent TPG.

JMHObservations

 

I do not believe any services used obv/rev grading for slabbed coins, but several services that used photocertificates did, including ACG. ACG did have one variety of photocertificate, it seems to be pretty rare, I have only seen a couple of examples. (And I do mean photocertificate not photoslab.)

I take it back, I did find one service that did use obv/rev grading for a coin in a slab ACCGS. A startup from 2003 that didn't last long.

Found another, or three depending on how you look at it. DCGS (Distinctive Coin Grading Service, not to be confused with Digital Coin Grading Service. Digital was a different company and came first.) which became CCGS (Don't know what the initials stood for and it gets confusing as there have been at least three, possibly four different companies that have used those initials.), which finally became NSCGS. Once again I don't know what the initials stood for. But in all three iterations they used obv/rev grading on their slabs.

 

isn't that what the plus ( + ) grade for Pcgs is ?

 

Thank you for your understanding. As an individual who hates injustice, spends the majority of my "free" time doing Pro Bono work, I was prepared to supply Alan with clear evidence that your "exception" statement/hypothesis could be disproven.

A considerable portion of my ACG collection has been submitted to the 2 "premier" TPG to prove same. I would be willing to place a significant wager on evidencing that one of the TPG couldn't compare favorably against ACG for a consistency grading challenge of the same date/mint double eagles, when regrading its coins. I expected that would be volunteered for a future grading lawsuit. You may see the proof in the not to distant future, based on seeming current grading trends.

Although I probably have identical date/mint coins by the "premier" TPG, they probably would be CAC-like sight-seen anomalies. I believe it's possible to consistently locate the same coins in current auctions that would receive a lesser grade when resubmitted to the same or the other "premier" TPG.

JMHO