Why does NGC think their arrogance doesn't smell?

Why do people look down their noses at ANACS and IGC? Seriously?

Perfect example

I've got a raw 1882 CC Morgan GSA coin, I've posted it here when I purchased it. Forum consensus was 63 ++ which I don't disagree with. Not posting reverse because I was advised reverse was a 65, but that Morgans are judged on the obverse. Here it is. Next is a NGC GSA coin stickered as a 64 that looks like a battered spouse. Comments? I am telling you, I think ANACS is a much tougher grader based on anecdotal evidence. Discuss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have had great experience with ANACS and IGC. I do not care to do business with Arrogantes. I don't want to give them any free publicity and will only say "the top two." Thanks for the post.

 

I use NGC for grading. I've owned ANACS and ICG slabbed coins as well. I think, until you get to the MS grades, both companies are essentially equal. My issue with all of the TPGs is in the MS category. There's a lot of inconsistent splitting of hairs from one point to the next.

I recently submitted two ICG buffalo nickels to NGC, a Type 1 and Type 2. The type 2 graded the same with both at MS66, the type one dropped a point from ICG MS63 to NGC MS 62.

 

I don't get my coins graded. I only buy them graded. I like PCGS and NGC holders though. Why do all the "leg work" and spend all kinds of money when you can buy the finished product for possibly cheaper?

 

Silly.

 

Oh brother

 

Can you spare a dime?

 

What?

 

For me there is really only one reason. Raw sleepers that need grade authenticity but more importantly, documented attribution for Morgan varieties. At some point, my wife or heirs will have solid evidence of a more known value should any of us want to liquidate. Grading evidence cost is just part of the investment process, similar to bank vault or home safe expenditures.

 

To quote the late and great Hobson, "One must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of her stature".

 

First, ANACS is a top grader right up there with PCGS and NGC. The issue stems from the initial years after being dropped by the American Numismatic Association when they became independent. The grading was questionable, but in time it improved dramatically. And like happens with any company, a few negative responses cancel out thousands and thousands of positives which take years to recover from. From years of experience at coin shows and local shops, ANACS graded coins are spot on when comparing them side by side with the top two firms. As for ICGS, again seeing them side by side, the grades more often than not are one or two higher comparatively. In the end, I buy the coin not the holder or brand. Submission wise, ANACS. I can not justify the additional membership fee with NGC or PCGS.

 

Don't get carried away, now.......

 

You compare a raw 1882CC with a graded 1884 Morgan… raw coin appears to be looking nicer… you share images of the obverse only… image quality is different, too… what‘s the point and how does this make NGC arrogant?

 

I've had anacs coins when cracked out and sent to pcgs go up. And significantly. Ms 62- 64. And AU 53 to 58.

 

Sniff under your own wing, bucko, before you go sniffing other people's.

 

My point is that, in another thread, consensus was that the raw coin (mine) was a 63 or 64. I was just showing the obverse comparison, because the forum consensus was the reverse was 65. There are some very astute posters here. The market seems to look down their noses at ANACS. PCGS will do crossovers for ANACS slabs, NGC will not.

 

Consensus from a bunch of internet wannabes grading from photographs and a $1 will buy you a cup of Ronald's bad joe.

 

Some NGC apologist seems triggered? Oh.... and in the future address me as the III (3d) as well. We even have our own coat of arms.