I get the general feeling from reading, that most folks who submit errors (for my purpouses.. I'm talking specifically errors, not just any coin) know that certain graders have certain stigmas attached to them. If no one's scared.. and without doing things like posting rant based on a single negative experience.. would anyone like to try a list of facts or well known generalizations made about specific grading outfeits? Example.. (none of these are actual.. only examples.. if no one QUOTES these, I'll eventually delete them from here so no one finds the sentences in a search) - ANACS seems to grade conservatively probably due to their guarantee.. thus when you see a NGC MS-66, it's worth a ANACS MS-65 - NCG is not the general first choice for ERROR research.. use {xyz grader} - SGS' plusses include the almost unbreakable sealed package, but the foam dust is a bit bothersome. What I think would be useful is a consolodated opinion guide to services.. for error entheusiests, by entheusiests.. Some boards have a "vendor feedback" section. Selfishly, I have a smooth edge Washington $ with so called "wild-whisker" die crack and I'm SURE no one will label it as such just yet.. (ANACS wouldn't label my edge-letter-shift Washington $ based on "no published report of it" {shrug} ) and I'm wondering which outfit will likely do it FIRST and which outfit is the BEST to have an error labeled with? Thanks
We've done similiar things in the past, quite a few times even. Certainly no harm in discussing them again though. I understand the points you're making with your examples, not taking them literally just the point of each. But say with your first example, there's really no way to make such a statement and have it be accurate because it changes with each and every coin. For example, there are some coins that NGC is tougher on when it comes to grading. And there are some coins where PCGS is tougher. And there even some coins where ICG is tougher than either NGC or PCGS. Most experienced collectors know this. Most also know that PCGS is far less consistent with their grading than any of the other top TPG's. So to try and make a statement such as the one in your first example just doesn't work because of the many variables. Now for your second example you probably could make such a statement. But first you have to make sure that you were talking specifically about errors and not varieties. All too often people mistakenly call a coins an error when they are not, they are instead varieties. You would also have to define specifically what you mean by "first choice". That kind of goes hand in hand with your later comment - "which outfit is the BEST to have an error labeled with?". The same thing applies - how would you define best ? And assuming that you did this, all you would end up with would still just be opinions. Now I realize that that is all you are really after - opinions. But the thing about opinions is that you must then consider the source of those opinions.
My grading technique isn't nearly as good as many people here, so their opinions should carry more weight than mine. But I've never been disappointed with a PGCS, NGC or ANACS [old holder] coin. I've had a couple of disappointments with ICG over-grading modern coins. I also have several coins I'm very satisfied with in PCI old green holders. Admittedly, I'm probably not as concerned with exactness in the grading process as others, and would not be upset for example if a coin was graded AU-58 when I thought it should be AU-55. I cannot help you with grading opinions of error coins.
GDJMSP...some people may never learn the difference between errors and varieties, especally when they are talking about varieties on this "Error Coin" forum. Being a monitor, can you do something about having the name of this forum changed to "Error and Variety Coins" or better yet "Variety and Error Coins"? Thank You, Larry Nienaber
A nice list to see is which companies will recognize which types of errors and varieties directly on the slab. For example, I have a new washington error with a missing edge inscription and a filled S (cud) on the reverse. I honestly don't know which grading service would note that on the slab. Obviously I need to start calling around, but having a quick lookup list would be a great help. So, I propose if you keep this thread, that people post their actual experiences with not only getting the coins graded and annotated, but also which annotations the grading services refused to include (please indicate if the refusal was verbal or if they actually graded the coin).
I can tell you now that I am fairly certain PCGS will not designate the filled S as it would more than likely be considered to minor an error, they will note the missing edge inscription though.
While I figured PCGS would not, I didn't know about NGC yet. I've also heard that one could send a coin to CONECA and they would "Certify" the error/variety, then send it on to ICGS(??) to be slabbed. I plan on keeping the coins for myself, so I'm in no hurry to send them off just yet.
Well, with varieties the PCGS rules are fairly simple - if it's listed in the Red Book, they'll designate it as such, if it isn't they won't. Errors however are another matter, I'm not even sure there is a set rule for errors.
Great information guys.. Thank you. I can understand that opinions will vary.. but so far it doesn't look like there is disagreement anywhere.. I was wondering if the topic of 'who's good or bad' would have heated opinions. Everyone's definition of "best".. yes.. that's a tough one. I might, as a novice, classify collectors' reason for using grading services into 1 of 3 categories: Who's best to package and label my goods if I... 1. Want to see the highest grade possible, or have the nest chance of having my suspected error or variety authenticated..probably because I want to sell it. 2. Want to simply inexpensively get my coin authenticated.. regardless of what extra service is included or not (such as grading and research).. I just want to know it's REAL. I may never sell it or in fact I may remove it from the packaging so I can enjoy it more thuroughly. 3. Want to have the name of the most trusted and respected error(and or variety)-grading company on this coin, as they have a reputation for NEVER having xyz be incorrect, falsly identified as genuine, marred during grading, or returning grossly over/under graded coins... probably because I want to sell it, or I'm really a perfectionist or a loyal brand-specific customer who will stick with one grader. That was a bit scattered.. it didn't gell well but any discussion that PART of it incites is welcome. I think the first few responces are answer enough.. that some generalizations exist.. Thanks again. pseudo-SIG-- Fulton/Hudson fans PM me.. I've got something you want to see
My experiences ANACS did not label my 2007 Washington edge-letters-shifted coin ("2007 P" shifted one character) and based on their verbal reason "no one has written a published report on the shifted letters" and their canned written explanation "note Doubling or other variety too minor to list" I am holding out hope that my EXTREME letter-shifted coin "2007 P E PLURIBUS" (where the P is dead next to the E) has a chance in the future with them. ANACS listed 2 of mine with the double error.. "G WASHINGTON DIE CHIP" and "MISSING EDGE LETTERING" for my twins I sent them (from the same dies.. totally idendical die chips. The top of the "S" in STATES was filled in with a pin-shaped lump. I have a smoothie with a die crack near the chin, and some liberty 'extra curl' units I want to send to {someone}.. will report back here when I do. It is interesting to note that with the number of characters available to them on their label (2 lines, maybe 24 characters each line, varying with typesetting results) , that they used "GEORGE WASHINGTON" as the first line on my single error coins, and "G WASHINGTON DIE CHIP" as the first line on my double error coins. "MISSING EDGE LETTERING" is the second line on each. They also omit the mint mark on the label, as it is indeed missing. THeir online POPULATION REPORT has 2 rows for the Washington Presidentials.. one row omits the mint mark. ANACS holder does not exhibit the edge lettering at all. I beleive they plan on a new holder.. A generalization could be made "for triple and quadruple error coins, ANACS may label with abbreviations" I dunno if that matters.. besides the washingtons, how many other coins come up with 4 errors ;P
I have a 1970-s Kennedy half error coin that needed to be graded but I was worried that NGC or PCGS would not grade it as an error or even grade it at all and I would have spent almost $67 for nothing so I went to the ICG office in Littleton, Co. and they only charged me $5 to grade the coin but they said they didn't think it would come back as an error coin, even though you can see it with the naked eye, but for $5, I was willing to take the chance. A week later I picked up the coin and it was graded Pr-64 mint error, struck through debris which at least proved the coin had not been tampered with.
Thanks Delmer, people never write about the little errors too much and the photos are always of the extreme examples. DIE CHIP was just the term I was looking for (sorry I previously referred to it as a filled S or cud). I have several with the same DIE CHIP and missing edge inscription. I also have a couple with the combined Die Clash, missing edge inscription, and ??Struckthrough Grease??? I say struckthrough grease, but the starburst pattern has such radial lines that it looks nothing like any struck through grease photo I can find. I personally think it's an interference in the antioxidant coating by grease that was spun off the coin that created the affect as I can see no impact on the coins detail, but then again if the grease was thin enough, the detail might still show up unaffected. I'm holding out on some sort of definitive evidence or publication that concludes the nature of the error before sending the coins out for grading.
