Is ICG really as bad as many people say?

There still is a ton of variety with both PCGS and NGC. Buyers still need to educate and do their homework. TPGs are paid to render an unbiased opinion...but that still leaves a TON of wiggle room.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe the following currently offered linked coin may be a questionable example as previously mentioned. Is it technically graded MS67? Micro S? (there were 3 different size S used on the 1945S Mercury coin), "Full Band"?, I believe that coin would meet the lesser (i.e. quoted by others) PCGS standard, where the NGC quoted standard dictates that grading should have the middle bands completely separated as the lower/bottom bands.

I somewhere have all 3 S mint coins together on a card, where the "Micro s" really is obvious relative to the other 2, but I can't locate my photo.

If anyone knows of the comparison photo, a posting would be appreciated.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1945-S-MER...160740?hash=item46805b0a24:g:VjEAAOSw-KFXdrvt

JMHO

P.S. I apologize if my 2 posts were/are inappropriate for this thread, but the 1st was in response to a query as to how the top tier TPG might normally respond in the event of "trying" details. Since there is considerable discussion pertaining to support documentation, the second post was to support my initial observation/post, but using current ads which I believe establishes possible frequency of occurrance.

 

I don’t disagree with that at all. My point was regarding the scenarios described earlier with the quid pro quo’s. That takes things into completely different territory.

 

You’re right...but you never know if that’s happening or not. You have to be able to grade it yourself.

PCGS is being sold to new investor ownership. Who’s to say they won’t cave to big money dealers?

 

Not really. Yes, when submitting a coin to a TPG you are expecting to get an expert opinion/grade on a coin. As a buyer, you aren't paying a TPG for their opinion; it's already been done. Knowing that ICG had an issue with over-grading should make you want to not blindly accept the grade, even if you know that the coin was graded during that time. The grade could be fine. That's why I think one should have the skills to evaluate the grade before buying the coin. In general, NGC and PCGS haven't had those issues and have built reputations for their grading; although they still make mistakes now and then. If PCGS or NGC were ever found to pump up grades for any of their big customers they would lose respect from the numismatic community and their business would suffer.

 

Reputable TPGs in the past have let their standards slip after ownership changes. That’s my only point. It’s important to learn to evaluate the coin no matter who grades it.

 

Just to be fair, since I offered criticism previously, I looked up ICG Morgans for sale currently on eBay. Since it is my area of expertise, I figured I would pick a “typical” Morgan, and analyze the grading.

Here is the quintessential Morgan that people buy—a gem grade 1881s. The coin is prevalent in gem grades, and tends to be graded conservatively by TPGs, as high grade specimens and great looking coins are plentiful.



Ok, this coin was graded MS 65+. It has a superb strike, great luster, and very clean fields. The reverse is close to perfect, and I would say it is a solid 66+. The obverse is clean and lustrous, with some bagginess on the cheek, but those contact marks are minor. Obverse is a 65, as I see it.

Overall eye appeal is very strong; this is a coin that a serious collector wants to own. A 65 obverse with a 66+ reverse would come out as a 65+, and that is what the coin received. I compared it to my PCGS MS 66+ CAC, and the coins are fairly comparable. So, this coin is graded appropriately.

I found many other coins similarly graded with thought and accuracy. So, Skip—you are correct. The current ICG is nothing like the old ICG. Grading appears to be right on.

Granted, this is only one coin. But, I feel it is indicative of the company being accurate on grading.

 

I hate being first, cause I suck at this, but I'll say MS67 because that is a lovely cent.

 

Yes. We all know that even the good graders have their off days. But the scenario you are describing would be a disaster not only for the TPG, but for the entire hobby. Their reputation is the most valuable thing they have.

 

Someone has to be first.

I'll go second and guess MS 63 RB ....it looks fairly clean but being a semi-key date, I doubt it is graded that high (I could see up to 65 depending on the generation of ICG grading).

 

AU58 RD

 

I saw a touch of wear in the cheek and jaw. I’m going to say AU55 RD.

 

In the spirit of the question, "why did they grade it that way and how does ICG compare?" look at the following four SLQs from eBay - the AU ICG was sold, the other three were active, I couldn't find an ICG in the exact same grade - the first two are MS64 (PCGS & NGC) and then 2 by ICG an AU53 and MS66. Do you feel these were graded fairly? If not, what bothers you about which one(s)? The PCGS bothers me a little on the date, but the pre-1925 SLQs have notoriously weak raised dates.

 

09 cent MS65 RD

 

09 Cent 64 RD

 

I'll go with 65 on the 1909 S cent.

 

I do. At coin shows one if the things I look for is coins in icg anacs pci and other slabs that are accurately graded and eye appealing that I can crack or cross. Just like I look for quality raw coins I can get graded. Or graded coins I can send to cac. It’s all part of the game

 

Personally I’d try cracking the quarter out snd trying again. Lightly cleaned yes. But I’ve seen a lot worse in straight holders. Try pcgs. Next

 

Nice coin. I’d go 65 red and I could actually see 66 If the luster is there in hand