ANACS vs NGC

I actually did do that method with them about a year ago, I want to say the ANACS label came back with the submission but cannot remember 100 percent. Your suspicious that they put the label in the flip may very well be dead on. You should post a thread of questions people want asked for your trip, may get some good ideas of what to ask while you are there

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IMHO, If a person cannot tell what caused virtually any tiny mark on a "gem" coin they should stick to graded slabs or start collecting comic books!

I'll tone this down a bit as that was a stupid remark. If a skilled, knowledgeable, experienced collector/dealer/professional numismatist cannot tell what caused a tiny characteristic on a gem coin, they should take a grading class - pronto! The simple reason is this. Mint made and PMD marks do not look the same under magnification. Only in very, very rare occasions (less than about 3 times a year) does it take any more than several seconds w/a stereo microscope and florescent light to make the correct determination.

 

When was the last time that you saw a grader use a stereomicroscope at his job?

Chris

 

@Insider

You assumed SAE, but did you notice that the OP never mentioned the type of coin?

 

I subconsciously made that assumption as well that it was a coin of that nature or a proof. If it was a circulation coin that 69 could have very well increased the value

 

You got me there. The last time I saw a grader examine a coin with a microscope was probably at the FUN show at the ICG table.

 

Yep, and that makes me a donkey as everyone knows how plentiful MS-70's are in other types of coins.

 

I thought that was a prop.

 

and another assumption... he also never stated MS or PF 70

although the number of MS-70s are fewer, you can't tell me that PF-70s are few in number

 

Or if it was from a program grade, either ...

 

Have a gander at THIS comparison. Check the relative pops of SP69 vs. SP70 for the 2014 and 2015 Sac/Native American coins - the ones that came in the currency set. Not similar ratios, at all!

 

although generally a stickler for details, it seems that @Insider got a little quick on the draw in this case.

 

Queecksdraw, is that you?

 

Guess you had to join the donkey club with me as PR or MS does not matter in the OP's original experience.

 

If you're in the club... I'm happy to be a member

 

Not at all and especially not this time. From what I see, most collectors buy/prefer modern Proofs rather than Mint State coins so I'll bet more proofs are sent in for grading. However, that has absolutely no bearing on how many coins will make 70 in an even sample of coins. From what I have observed, if 100 MS and 100 PR coins - SE or modern commemoratives - are examined, more of the MS coins will reach perfection simply because defects (including micro hairlines) jump off a mirror surface.

 

that's not what makes you one... but I digress...

 

Thanks I think, but you do not want to be in that club w/me . Writing something that is easily proved to be incorrect (see CWT thread) is extremely embarrassing and it stays on CT forever!

 

So are you attributing the difference on the Sac SP/EU's as bigger fields on the 2014 relative to the devices? The high construction one was quite devoid of field.

 

To be honest, I didn't look at your comparison. If you wrote it, it's probably true.