Is ICG really as bad as many people say?

If there was an exam with only one question: Is there a correct answer? I could fill two blue books.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thats because technical grading ignores several aspects of grading included in market grading. It is a more simple process, stands to reason there would be less variance.

 

Here's a nice Ty 2 SLQ I bought loose at a show last year thinking it would pass muster. NGC gave this a purple label, cleaned. The details are excellent. It's not a FH, didn't need to be cleaned but somebody must've dipped it at some point and NGC wouldn't grade it. I wonder what PCGS or ICG would've done with it? I assume the same?

 

I am going to stick with PCGS and NGC. My coins have had personal and monetary value to a very high degree. I like the “top two’s” service, respect their grading, and like the ancillary services they provide. Since I am not employed by another grading service, I am not unduly biased by the conflict of interest inherent therein. Nor am I obligated to provide commercials for the company that employs me, under the egis of “grading objectivity.” Have I owned beautiful ICG coins? Yes. I have even owned beautiful Accugrade coins. However, they don’t stay in “garbage slabs.” They get cracked out and are sent to the reliable and respected companies, PCGS, and NGC.

 

Less variance sure, but it is absurd for someone to claim that there is no subjectivity in it. If someone was sent 10k coins over and over over 5/10/or even 15 years in random submissions of various sizes there is 0 chance they grade every coin the exact same every time. That means there's subjectivity even in that. If you ask someone 10 trillion times what 2+2 is the answer is always 4

 

Dipping is perfectly acceptable unless you mess it up or do it on something silly like a heavily circulated coin

 

I don’t think the dipping is the reason for the details grade. There are some small hairlines strewn about the surfaces of the coin, and NGC noticed them. I will bet they are not noticeable to naked eye, but under a loupe, cleaned.

 

My experience with NGC is that they're notorious for sending coins as yours back in a details slab, while the other 3 top tier TPG may grade that coin from AU55 to MS63.

You definitely wouldn't want to send some coins requiring a multiple details/lines of confusion such as a uncirculated Mercury 1945 micro S, full split bands, which required 3 submissions. I expected a details slabbing in the process.

JMHO

 

I think it was lightly cleaned. That is why it got detailed. Not a heavy cleaning, but a bit of buffing. I also see hairlines, and circular buff marks on the reverse.

 

I asked you: WHAT IS TECHNICAL GRADING? You replied:

baseball21, replied: "Lol that's funny."

Well, it's not funny at all. No, YOU go on. Otherwise, it's Just another case of a "fly-by-birdie" comment that allows what I consider to be misinformation to go unchallenged and not defended by anyone who thinks they know what the true, original, technical grading of coins involved.

Here is a clue for you while I stupidly wait for an answer to my question from you that (judging from the past) will not come.

The grading done by the ANA in Colorado WAS NOT "technical" grading. They didn't have a clue either.


Lehigh96, posted: "That's because technical grading ignores several aspects of grading included in market grading. It is a more simple process, stands to reason there would be less variance."

Excellent response without the weasel words. Not entirely complete but "A."

 

Morgandude11, posted this libelous nonsense when I asked him to back up the nonsense he posted below: "Since I am not employed by another grading service, I am not unduly biased by the conflict of interest inherent therein. Nor am I obligated to provide commercials for the company that employs me, under the egis of “grading objectivity.”

Morgandude11, posted: "This thread is ludicrous, as it is dominated by one person, who has a very specific agenda. [Yes, my agenda is to comment on pure NONSENSE as this particular post attempting to get me to cross the line. I have explained I work for ICG. I have agreed with the reasons ICG will never be #1 or #2. Now, what is really ludicrous to me besides your opinion here is that NOT ONE EMPLOYEE of any TPGS is allowed to comment about their TPGS? I wonder why?] I thought commercial advertising was verboten on the message board threads, except for the “buy, sell, trade” board. [I'm NOT advertising anything. Read the thread title. I don't need to grub around looking for new customers as they decide with their checks who to use.] One person is trying to vindicate his company [ Did you read the thread title yet?] in which he has a vested interest. [Already posted that long ago. FYI nothing on this web site is going to hurt our bottom line. Members already have their favorite TPGS.] Lots of misinformation being promulgated, with colorfully adorned text galore."

When I read this discussion, I find that most of us agree on the important points stated about each TPGS! As you are a very knowledgeable and important member here, I'm going to ask you the same thing I've asked of every member on CT blowing smoke up the rear end of our "computers." Please back up your post with examples we can discuss. Please point out the misinformation I've personally posted not the misinformation posted by others here. Hopefully, you will be a better poster than those that fly by, poop on a discussion and leave. I'll be waiting...

At the least, you responded and dug your hole deeper. I don't know you but I consider you to be a valuable member of CT. However, now you have accused me of two serious things.

1. Being biased towards a particular TPGS that I presently work.

2. Posting misinformation here on CT.

Either would be HORRIBLE to do. So, I'll ask you again. Please post examples of misinformation I've posted and examples of me being biased toward ICG. Apparently, you are not well-read or you would know my choice of the #1 TPGS when all aspects of a TPGS are considered. IMO, ICG only leads in two or three of the categories and that FACT can be proven, unlike anything you have sadly posted concerning me.

 

Yawn!!

 

GoldFinger1969, post: 5183532, member: 73489"]Insider, Big Picture: Have you and your colleagues at ICG or contacts outside ICG disgussed the implications of the CU deal ? Do you guys see any secular trend in terms of coins and/or other colletibles ? Do you sense a tailwind from stay-at-home ? Any thoughts ?

I was late to the party. My boss, one of the NGC guys I was on the phone with, and one other person all knew about the sale before I did. I see no effect on anything. It's just business and time will tell.

baseball21, posted: Less variance sure, but it is absurd for someone to claim that there is no subjectivity in it. (Since you have continued to demonstrate that you have no clue what the "original and only true technical grading system was in 1972 on...; the ONLY THING ABSURD is what you are posting.)

If someone was sent 10k coins over and over over 5/10/or even 15 years in random submissions of various sizes there is 0 chance they grade every coin the exact same every time. (Now that's really funny! It can be demonstrated EVERY DAY that your favorite TPGS changes grades on even the exact same coin often in less than a few months!) That means there's subjectivity even in that. If you ask someone 10 trillion times what 2+2 is the answer is always 4. (That's until the folks in charge of education change the way we add.)

Well, you got me. All grading is subjective - especially now when MS can be applied to a coin from an AU-55 to an MS-70. Things were different before you were around. There was a standard for MS and "true technical grading" was done with a stereomicroscope to make 100% sure that the EASILY DETERMINED line between AU and MS was extremely adhered to so that a coin was not called MS one day and AU another or an AU became MS no matter how many times it was sent in, no matter how much its value increased, and no matter how many decades had passed.

 

Does any knowledgeable collector really buy a coin because of the TPG holder it is in? I keep checking eBay for 1878 VAM 44 coins. There are two currently, one PCGS 61 and one NGC 61. I wish I had those two coins to show and compare them with my ICG 61 graded and encapsulated VAM 44A. I wish I could take good pictures as comparison (hope ICG did) because the NGC 61 is horrible with much chatter in the fields in front of Liberty's face and flatness above the ear (looks worse than my SEGS encapsulated 44A AU-58 details cleaned). The PCGS 61 coin has some scratches in the field in front of Liberty's face and a deeper scratch above the ear and rub on the cheek. In my honest opinion, my ICG 61 has better eye appeal, much less chatter and much less marks than either PCGS or NGC graded coins. Also I looked at my May 8, 2015 CDN and noticed that the HIGH for PCGS was 91.25% and NGC was 90.68% and the ICG HIGH was 95.24%. Since I am a collector (65 years), I buy the coin and not the holder. So to me, ICG is not as bad as many people say.

 

Morgandude11, posted: "Yawn!!"

You may not understand fully the meaning of your yawn. I'll guarantee that some members of CT are losing respect for you because you have been called-out, backed into a corner, and cannot back up your opinions. A yawn impresses nobody.

 

ignore list time for Insider. Bye! Don’t forget not to write.

 

You were troubled enough to make the negative comments, you should either back them up or withdraw them, ignoring the response seems a bit childish.

 

I’m really surprised by this. @Morgandude11 is a very knowledgeable collector...I’m really surprised that your this irritated with Skip. Sure, he has his own style but he is a renowned numismatist. Just because he works for a TPG doesn’t mean his view of this field or the relative place of his employer makes him biased.

I agree, PCGS and NGC are the kings when it comes to resale value and market faith. But from what I have seen, ICG grades coins accurately. From an investment standpoint (meaning maximizing resale)...I wouldn’t use them but if I have no concerns purchasing a coin in one of their slabs and I have total faith in their authenticity. I would also have no concern letting them grade one of my coins if resale wasn’t my top priority.

We can all learn more. There is so much to know when it comes to numismatics. @Insider is an amazing resource. Do you have to look past some of his quirks...absolutely. But there is a ton to learn from him and I wouldn’t be so fast to hit ignore.

 

I have voiced my opinions. I do not choose to argue back and forth, with someone who resorts to insults, because he displays obvious bias. I am entitled to like or dislike whichever TPGs I wish, and endless debates back and forth are unproductive. There is a raging, horrific pandemic out in the real world, and we’re rehashing endless arguments in/re TPGs, in a personal preference debate, and it gets heated? That is pretty immature. Enough said.

 

That's a beautiful coin, in any case.