PCGS vs. NGC - anyone send the exact same coin to both?

I agree entirely! How can a "so-called" professional grader see a weak D and another no D. Discriminating between an AU53 and AU55 is a random judgment call IMO - I mean really, have they found a way to actually measure that fine a difference on wear and/or luster? I think not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Help then...I sent off three coins to PCGS. Two came back graded but my 1897 came back like this. Can anyone with knowledge tell me why it was not certified ? Should I send it off to NGC ?

 

Well... it appears it was not graded due to it being cleaned....

 

But haven't other coins graded by them been certified and stated that it has been 'cleaned', 'harshly cleaned' or even 'improperly cleaned' ?

 

No pcgs uses "cleaned" and ngc uses "improperly cleaned" and I'm guessing you told them not to slab details coins. Your morgan I can see going both ways. The grader you got probably was thinking an old dip then album retone. Notice how "flat" the surfaces look and that touch of white haze that looks like frost but isn't. (The dipping stripped the surfaces then the coin was put into an album which gave it that dark target having a freshly "exposed" surface to work with). What's the rev look like?

 

I sent in three coins, two Morgan's and one Peace. All to be graded on the form I filled out. As for this Morgan, are you saying this could be an AT ?

 

"Min Grade" means you told them not to slab it if it was below a certain grade; cleaned coins don't make that grade either way.

 

I noted on the form XF-40. I think this Morgan is that or better.

 

Yeah, and as a cleaned coin it cannot make XF40, or any other grade, by the measure you specified. Sort of an unwanted consequence of the Minimum Grade thing here, I think.

 

I guess I'll just have to sell it.

 

Why do you have to sell it? You liked it enough to buy it.

 

I guess snap judgement. I would like to know what light source they use to get deep into the coin to see how it was 'cleaned'.

 

The regularity of the finish on the obverse, contrasting with the ring of toning around the rim, is an immediate red flag to me of a dipped coin in recovery. It's too "clean." I don't think you'll find any mechanical indications, though, just chemical.

 

If I am seeing the pics correctly, the coin is shiny but without luster. A bit of luster is lost eacj time a coin is dipped. This one might have been dipped too many times or for too long.

 

I regularly search for, and locate/acquire "non-modern" certified relatively expensive semi-key/scarce-date coins of various TPG, which I believe "undergraded".

Having studied the grading idiosyncrasies of PCGS, knowing that many consumers prefer a PCGS product, I submit certain type coins to PCGS. The coins are submitted by another party, high volume submission dealer, amongst other minimum 10 coin lot, to PCGS.

I've been very successful in selecting coins that PCGS will grade higher than NGC. However, I'm certain that the coins would've received an even higher grade, if submitted to another "top tier" TPG. but haven't removed the coins from a PCGS holder once the higher grade is attained.

I'm reasonably certain that other type/date/grade coins wouldn't realize the same success, as I believe disparities are coin specific. A general statement about TPG grading disparities can't be established unless all TPG state/adhere to specific common standards.

JMHO

 

How about consistency of grading even within the same TPG. The most egregious discrepancy I have seen in grading the same coin twice is a Morgan Dollar graded by PCGS, and they even TrueView photgraphed it both times. I'm certain there are others, but I added this one to my files as reassurance that the TPGs are only an opinion. AND, you want to know what's really funny about this -- the coin got a CAC green bean at the MS67 hyper-inflated grade!

First time: MS64 (price guide = $79)




Later (after who knows how many re-submissions): MS67 (price guide = $4900)




(cough) -- Now that's consistency for you.

 

Holy crap. How does that even happen?!

 

Add a dash of inconsistency, and a pinch of grade-flation for toning -- and voila! You have just made a couple thousand dollars.

I have said for years, NGC grades more consistently than PCGS, even if PCGS gives on average maybe a half point or full point lower numerical grades. The point is that I personally would rather have a coin in a consistently graded holder, than a coin in a holder that may be the high-end outlier among the inconsistent population of PCGS graded coins. At least when a coin is graded consistently, I know where I am...

Below is a graphic representation of my thoughts.



Just my opinions and observations over the years.

 

Given the above, I wonder why NGC doesn't simply grade their coins (consistently) lower. Sure, in the short run, collectors and dealers wouldn't notice any change in perception, but as more and more people submit coins to both, wouldn't they eventually come to realize that NGC graded coins are both more conservative and more consistent, thereby increasing the value of NGC slabbed coins at any given grade? Or, are these two companies' market positions fixed as far as the "roles" they play, given the current TPG dynamic?

 

What you suggest is exactly what I think has been happening. I think NGC's image has become one of more conservative grading in the past 2-3 years, and PCGS' image has become one of more loose grading over the same time. Regardless of the grade-number on the slab, I still care more about the small variability (consistency) of that number -- it allows me to use the number for something other than just a measure of how bad a day the graders were having.