I submitted this question to NGC this morning: "NGC used to use the KM# to document the type on the label (where applicable), which was both accurate and easy to understand. I understand the desire to use descriptions that aren't tied to a particular catalog, however, since NGC has gotten away from using the KM#, many world coins have had to adopt "flavor text" on the labels to describe the types instead. Sometimes this has worked well, but many coins have ended up with type descriptions that are: Just plain incorrect. Whereas the KM# is just a catalog number and can't really be incorrect, the same cannot be said of the accuracy of the text descriptions for world coins in Krause. Some instances of incorrect type descriptions are unfortunately from NGC adopting incorrect text descriptions from Krause. Technically correct, but inconsistently applied. For example when one or two types in a series of coins are inexplicably using different type descriptions than the rest of the coins in the same series. Not incorrect per se, but do not match with how collectors actually refer to the type. This is when there is already an established and accepted way to describe the type, but NGC has made up their own text instead. Why arbitrarily make up a name for a type that already has a name? This would be very confusing to new collectors. I believe this is due to Krause not listing a description for a type, whereas other more specialized catalogs for a particular country may consistently be using the same type description. I have a pile of NGC graded coins that have disappointing newer labels with the problems as described above, that I would like to send in to get corrected. I'm not sure how to go about it since the errors on the labels are from how NGC has chosen to identify the types after getting away from the KM numbers. I also have raw coins that I haven't been sending in because I know if I sent them in they would get incorrect labels (I've seen other graded examples since the change from KM#s and they are incorrect). What I'd like to do is to be able to get NGC to correct these labels in the NGC catalog, so that if I send coins in for grading or label correction, the new labels would be fixed across the board. Thanks for your help." I got a reply from an administrator fairly quickly thanking me for the feedback and asking for me to submit a chart showing the NGC Catalog format (with cert numbers as examples when I had them) and what I thought the corrections should be. He said after I submit it, they will assess each item for me, and that they want their catalog to be as accurate and accessible as possible. I've had good results getting NGC to add missing coins to their catalog (adds grading eligibility for the type) in the past, so I'm assuming they will do a good job assessing these issues. I'm doing this primarily for Austria-Hungary 1848-1956 and the Artex restrikes of these coins from the 1960s. If anyone has any similar problems for the countries they specialize in and wants to have those items ride along on my list, I'd be happy to include your items with my list. Please send me a PM that you're interested in doing this and then follow up with the info as soon as you can compile it. I'd like to get this list out by Thursday night.
A little late... but maybe it doesn't exactly apply: NGC is also inconsistent with labelling its S. Korean mint sets it places in multi holders (this is a product that NGC only provides to "bulk submitters" [i.e, coin dealers/retail businesses]). Take a look at these three labels for exactly the same mint set, the monster-key 1998 Bank of Korea mint set:
The changing around bugs me. I had an old slab called type I or II (can't remember) which was the equivalent of a 'connected character' variety. In the process of moving from the generic I/II (which did not follow the 'real' standard found in the JNDA) to the description version (which did follow the JNDA), I was unable to add a coin to a registry. Once it happened and they let me add it anyway (they had photos of their own). Another time I had the honor of sending it in for a 'variety' grade/fee. Sigh. So far I've preferred the grading of NGC vs. PCGS for my Japanese and Albanian coins, but PCGS is getting way ahead of NGC in terms of attributions, following the JNDA and going farther back than just 1870.
Something came up and I haven't had as much time to work on this as I had anticipated, so I haven't sent out a reply yet except to let him know one was forthcoming. If you want me to add anything I can. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Sure! Why not the image of the 1998 mint set above? There should be no problem for any TPG in certifying/grading this set: All 1998 BOK mint sets have 1991-dated Five-Won and One-Won coins in them (since none were produced that year; they just threw in some leftover 1991s), while the other four coins are dated 1998. Even more egregious is the fact that the multi-holder set in the middle has a "data card" that actually states that the Five- and One-Won coins are dated "1998." Checking the dates on the reverse images of this sets, they're 1991, of course. Obviously, the people at NGC didn't even bother to check the dates on the coins for that one... It would be nice to have a consistent labelling applied to these mint sets, as well as accurate data cards.
So what should it say, ideally? South Korea 1998 Mint Set (as per the middle example) but with the correct dates?
I believe that this wording in appropriate and with the correct dates, yes. However, I don't know how NGC receives these coins. Do they receive them in the Original Mint Packaging, with the coins contained in the original plastic blisters; or do submitters break the coins out beforehand and send them in Saflips, but note that the coins come from the same set? If NGC gets the coins in OMP, and the grading company has to break them out, then "South Korea 1998 Mint Set" is the most appropriate, for sure.
