PCGS vs. NGC for grading ultra modern coins (1965 and beyond)

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I just wanted to know which topics you like to talk about? The problem with emails and the written word is you can not judge a persons attitude by what is written. You thought I was being rude or mad. I was neither just wondered what you liked to talk about on this forum.

 

I took Doug's comment of "its a waste of time" to mean he believes its an endless, unprovable discussion. People will simply have opinions and nothing will ever be learned or settled really. I agree with that, but I also find many people love debating unsolvable issues like that. Doug may think its a waste of his time, but I do not believe sir he thought it should not be a topic allowed here. There are tons of topics discussed, like what will the price of silver do, that are unknowable yet attract a lot of discussion here. I do believe you will notice that Doug usually does not participate in those either, I think he just has a better internal filter to know what discussions to get involved in than I do.

Chris

 

OK, I am hearing from some of you that it really makes no difference if you use PCGS or NGC to grade a particular coin, because essentially they are the same (grading fairly with each other basically), that neither will probably undergrade a coin any more (be really conservative in grading) , and that there may be slight overgrading by a company. I am assuming that this latter portion may be to counteract the tendency for some people to want to crack a slab and send to the other to get a higher grade, it's less likely if all the top TPGs are less conservative but not too loose with their grading.

So, for a concrete example, if I choose to send my 1999 WAM to any of the top three (PCGS, NGC, or ANACS) and get it back, all things being equal with them looking at the COIN, it should grade accurately. And that it's value at that grade is then equal across the boards, so that if I sell it as a NGC or ANACS slabbed coin, it should then fetch the same as if it was in a PCGS holder at the same grade. And anyone that tells me that they would like to pay less for it because NGC and ANACS tends to grade a coin at a slightly higher (overgrade) grade is just spouting nonsense, correct? (Meaning if NGC would grade at a MS-63, then someone seeing it would not be likely to say the PCGS would have graded it as a MS-62, and therefore it's only worth the MS-62 price).

Or is PCGS slightly conservative? And their grade more "accurately graded" than the other top TPGs?

Still trying to figure out the crux of the matter without getting into people's personal issues with any of these TPGs.

I know you might think it's a matter beat to death, but I am new to this and need/desire info to go on or to be able to resolve my questions.

 

Kasia, I would say there really is a top two nowadays. PCGS and NGC are the preferred TPGers, with PCGS being the one preferred TPG in some circles. Any other slab will, rightly or wrongly, will be worth less on the marketplace.

Anyone trying to downplay NGC or PCGS grade is trying to rob you basically. I saw a kid trying to sell his dad's collection at a show a year ago, (I guess Dad passed away), and the dealer, (thief), was telling him the NGC slabs were no good, and the coins weren't worth the grades assigned. While there occasionally will be a bad grade, on the surface a NGC or PCGS graded coin should be worth full book price. Now if you are selling to a dealer they need to make a profit, so they can discount for that but not because of the name on the slab.

 

Thank you so much. It's hard for me to make sense of this based on some of the things I see either going on or on the web, without having years of experience in it. I have to ask these questions directly to get past my limitations and decide how I'm going to act in getting my coins graded.

That being said, from some of the other posts you've made on CT, I really respect your opinion on this. I think I may just then send it to NGC, as I have a couple other coins I can do there and I am an ANA member, so I can get the grading done. Also I respect the opinions of a lot of the other people I see responding here too, as their posts show a lot of thought has gone into being specific and covering what needs to be said.

Kasia

 

Agreed...


I sort of fell into that one is better than the other hole for a little bit myself when first buying slabbed coins. Sort of like the 69/70 Commemorative boat. While some coins are best if you can find a 70 ( low population census ) I've learned to save myself some cash since it is the coin and not the slab.

 

What truly amazes me, is when two identical coins in the same grading service holder are auctioned off with the inferior coins fetching multiples of the nicer example simply because of a point difference on the label. Great example was the recent Heritage auction of Chinese rarities. Perhaps I was missing the more subtle details because I could not inspect the coins in person. But on multiple pairs of lots that were identicle with the MS65 example superior to the MS66 coin, the higher graded coin always fetched more. Kind of like taking S&P at their word when they rate collateralized mortgage securitues if you ask me. Far more important than the grade is authenticity in my opinion. The grading services seem to have a better record of consistently doing that than of assigning grades consistently.

 

Especially with Chinese coins and antiquities today, you have inexperienced buyers who simply trust the experts. If someone knows little, they will believe the slab and pay more for a 66 than a 65.

The biggest ancient Chinese coin dealer in the US just threw in the towel. He stated because of insane prices he can no longer get authentic material from China, jacked up his old stock, and said it was the end of the road. Lots of money in China chasing assets to buy, and since they do not have well developed stock markets yet, that money is chasing Chinese coins and antiquities, gold, and anything other asset they can find.

 

I very much considered the old ANACS to be fairly relaible in their grading. I also liked the old ANACS holders much more than the new ones. For the life of me I don't understand why they changed it. I can even understand using a larger holder to accommodate a greater number of large coins, but the grade of plastic is so much cheaper in the new holders that it more resembles a PCI slab than anything remotely related to their earlier slabs. A shame in my opinion.

 

Probably just cutting costs. I can't imagine ANACS getting nearly as many submissions as are NGC and PCGS now-a-days. At least, not based on what I see from slabbed coins for sale. What they have to be careful about is that cost cutting sending them on an unstoppable downward spiral. Much easier to loose customer confidence than it is to gain it.

 

This is especially true when people buy plastic.

Here's a description from Heritage Auction about a really nice coin that is in an ANACS slab. It reflects the current market sentiment about who the best is:

The assumption here, of course, is that PCGS and NGC are the two top graders and everyone else runs a distant third...or worse.


guy

 

Didn't know that.

I wonder what collectors didn't like about the old holders aside from them being significantly smaller than their peers. I thought the grade of plastic in them was probably superior to either PCGS or NGC. When stacked together and viewed sideways, you could see through the entire 2" width of the holder with no observable distortion, something pretty hard to do with cheap plastic. They also stacked nicely, something that NGC holders in particular seem to have problems with. I'm not even certain the new ANACS holders will stack at all, never owned one much less two of them.

Of the two gorilla graders, --NGC and PCGS-- the better plastic would have to be in the NGC holder in my opinion. It is much more brittle than the PCGS plastic, hence a proclivity to chip if the holder is dropped on the floor. But the harder plastic makes the holder much less susceptible to scratches than a PCGS holder, which means over any period of time the NGC holder is going to look more attractive. I also think the NGC holograph is much cooler looking. Hey, that's an important criteria don't you think??

 

I dont believe the slabs of either one are worth more than the other - that is nonsense. I prefer NGC and the idea that a PCGS mod in 69 or 70 is worth more than the NGC coin is simply rubbish.

 

I like both NGC and PCGS. I think they do a comparable job.

For coins 1968 and later, I prefer PCGS. But for earlier coins, it depends on the series and what they're grading.

PCGS gets higher prices, but this is not always warranted. A big difference is Full Bell Lines for Franklin halves. NGC has a higher standard than PCGS in that specialty. I bought a 1952 Franklin graded MS64FBL by PCGS on Teletrade and when I got the coin and could inspect it more closely, I was surprised to see that only the lower bell lines were full. The upper bell lines were not full. I researched that, and it seems like NGC requires both upper and lower lines to be complete whereas PCGS only requires the lower lines.

So you can't just say PCGS has higher standards across the board... you need to look specifically at each series.

But that does offer an opportunity for collectors. If PCGS is getting higher prices for the same coins, it could pay to buy an NGC coin and send it to PCGS for slabbing at the same grade and make some money on arbitrage.

But I'll collect both PCGS and NGC (except for Franklin FBL, which I only go with NGC now). I buy the coin, not the holder.

 

+1.....+2.....+3.....+4....+1,200,000!

Chris