Featured My experience with one of the Top 4 TPG's

Hey! The state seal!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This criticism may apply even more directly to Registry guys. Me? As long as it's not a "WARNING" grade (one that causes me to see something I otherwise might miss) ALL I care about is how it looks to me. THAT MEANS I am buying more AU58's than you can probably imagine. I have "eyes" (sort of - not the original lenses) and "eye appeal" (NOT toning) is all that matters to me. A lot of MS64's look nicer than a lot of MS66's to me. I know WHY the 6's are 6's and the 4's are 4's. I just prefer the LOOK of some 4's.

And at the very same time, I own some 64's I can't believe aren't 58's. I SENT those in, I didn't buy them that way.

 

Not a fisherman, eh? No "net" grading?

 

I do not believe that, Doug. I don't care WHO these posters on CoinTalk are, they are a TINY SLIVER of this hobby and if all our "power and influence" were put together jointly and it were explosive, we couldn't even blow our nose.

We have two choices - live with it or go away.

 

Here goes. If the images do not show in this post, see them above. Not one of the coins below is original EXCEPT the Albany. That matched my show opinion and my personal opinion also:

He went through the coins I brought, and made his guesses and suggestions.
They were (essentially):

1. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#1) - Cleaned, don't bother getting it graded
2. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#2) - Cleaned, don't bother getting it graded, but it's a nice coin, too bad it was cleaned
3. 1921 Alabama 2x2 50¢ Silver Commem - Should go XF, and if I paid VF money, I did well
4. 1936 Albany 50¢ Silver Commem - nicest of the lot. Definitely a 64 with a chance at a 65
5. 1883 Liberty 5¢ Cleaned, don't bother getting it graded

The grades I assigned using my interpretation of the ICG grading standards, and prevailing commercial standards follow in red:

Beefer518, posted:

The coins that were submitted, with my guesses and comments:

1. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#1) (IMO, improperly cleaned, but AU)
2. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#2) (IMO, improperly cleaned, AU/MS slider)
3. 1921 Alabama 2x2 50¢ Silver Commem (Bought as VF, but thought it could go XF)
4. 1936 Albany 50¢ Silver Commem (Solid 65)
5. 1883 Liberty 5¢ (stumped... See my comments on the GTG of this coin here)

Fast forward to 4 days ago (Thursday), I get an email letting me know the coins are on their way back to me with the results. I was floored. How was I (and their rep) so far off? In hand I'm pretty good at telling a cleaned coin from a coin with original surfaces, I thought.

The Results:

1. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#1) - AU53
2. 1893 Isabella 25¢ (#2) - AU58 DTLS Scratched
3. 1921 Alabama 2x2 50¢ Silver Commem - AU53
4. 1936 Albany 50¢ Silver Commem - MS66
5. 1883 Liberty 5¢ - MS61

Coin #1, I could've sworn was hairlined and cleaned. It is. I graded this coin in the office as an AU-58, cleaned w/environmental damage. I appears the finalizer
"Net" graded your coin down to low AU. This practice is abhorrent to me as it teaches nothing. Your coin is a slider. IMO, most would sell it as an MS-60 "slider" due to continuous hairlines (from cleaning) throughout.

Coin #2 I was expecting Details, but 'Scratched'? What scratch? I know it was cleaned, which left hairlines, but I had to go look at my pre-submission images to look for this 'scratch'. I see scratches (note the multiple), but no single scratch that stands out more then the others, or more then the scratches on coin #1. But, Um.... ok

I graded this coin AU-58, TOOLED (fields), scratches and Altered Surface to cover it all up! Tip the coin in the light and there are furrows in the field.

Coins #3,and #4 These grades are fair to the buyer, seller, and coin: In the office, I graded the Alabama (which is not original) as an AU-53 and the Albany I graded 66 due to nice eye appeal. My personal grade is MS-65 as I'm an old timey grader.

Coin #5, I'm still confused on. I have another 1883 No Cents that looks almost identical to it, as far as the 'style' of scratches, and I'm currently having a conversation with another owner of an 1883 No Cents whose coin is similar to mine, so who knows, maybe it wasn't cleaned. I'm not a nickel guy, so I'll hide behind that cloak!

The coin has no wear. The image shows it has been buffed. I graded the coin MS-62, Not original. The finalizer graded it more correctly as an MS-61.

So what am I trying to get out with this thread? Not really sure. I do feel that each and every one of the 5 coins I submitted were over by at least one grade. I also feel I definitely got away with at least one coin getting a straight grade that should have gotten a details grade.

This test illustrates what I posted previously. You and I have PERSONAL GRADES much stricter than a typical TPGS (ICG) that must grade commercially to reflect value. The only grade I don't like is the "straight grade" given to coin #1.

Here are the coins:
View attachment 754212 View attachment 754213 View attachment 754214 View attachment 754215 View attachment 754216

I'll try to answer any questions on my comments. BTW, I have heard that there may be a similar test going on where a group of unidentified coins is being sent to all four major services. I HOPE IT IS TRUE! This was done decades ago by Coin World.

 

Thanks a ton @Insider! That explains the thought process(es), and that helps in understanding this batch, as well as helping in other assessments down the road.

I want to make it clear that I have/had no issues with ICG or @Insider , and that this thread was only to relay my experiences. I probably should have done a thread about my ANACS submission as well. In any case, ICG, like all of the TPG's grade with an opinion of each grader taken into account.

Like I said in the original post, I would use ICG again.

And to make it easier on Insider's above post, here are the images again -

 

PCGS and NGC literally makes $3000 a year off of me. Yes, I may be a part of the problem, but then again, I do my best to submit problem free coins. And over the years, especially the past 2 years in a down market, I got better at grading like they do, so I don't waste my money or flood the market with crap (mostly ).
Also, after losing my butt 2 years ago, I quit playing their resubmit games, trying to get higher grades, pluses, etc. (I have done this I think 3 times in 10-12 months I think, but only on coins I was confident about). Lesson learned. I wasted my money, and sometimes I still inadvertently do, but I don't consider myself part of the problem, honestly.

 

Not really.

You submit coins to them for the same reason you submitt to ANACS, because it isn't worth the PCGS or NGC fee. PCGS and NGC are expensive for classics for a reason, they don't necessarily want to be flooded with low grade low value ones all the time, so they make it hurt your wallet if that's what you wanted to do. They're also a bit more dealer oriented since that dealer is going to give them a lot more business.

Sometimes a submission can be as simple as PCGS is swamped right now and I don't want to wait 2 months to get it back, I'll send this to ICG instead. Or I need conservation on this coin and don't want to take forever so ICG can get this one first and maybe I'll send it elsewhere after if it does well.

There's a lot of reasons to strategically decide where to send what, it's no where near as easy as you tried to make it out to be to figure out whose the most likely to net something

 

Also agreed. Though a little less for unciruclated coins since ICG and ANACS just default to MS 60 on those every-time no matter what, but the circulation number grades is nice and I do wish PCGS and NGC would pick that up. At the very least at least for VF and AU since there is such a wide disparity between those from the start and the end of the grade

 

Calling PCGS "a bit" more dealer-oriented is like calling Canada or Russia "slightly biggish" countries.

 

True, same can be said for NGC. Both to some extent employee the auction house model of higher prices where we discount them for dealers to make them feel like they're getting a deal

 

But the NGC staff doesn't treat individual collectors like they have leprosy. In my experience, the PCGS staff does. They are SLOWLY getting better about that, but the operative word is still "slowly".

 

There was one maybe two that I used to just hang up if they answered when I called, not sure they're still there. They've gotten a lot better with all the nonsense both deal with, but sometimes you do just catch a bad day. Phil at PCGS though is probably the most helpful and nicest I've encountered at either and he should get credit for trying to help when issues are brought to his attention with pictures.

 

FWIW, I agree 110% with every nuance of what @Insider says here about the above coins. The fact that Coin #1 straight graded is an undeniable "black eye". I'm not wild about #5, but 61 is a special grade for special circumstances.

MS61 is almost like the Biblical concept of a "qualitative number". When I studied religions,I was taught that some numbers are "qualities", and not true quantities. Two chief examples are 3 and 7.

 

Aw, man, you caught my attention AND my wife's, and Google is being recalcitrant. Any pointers to references (besides the obvious one that you already mentioned)?

 

Great thread. Very informative. @Beefer518 , I'm glad you started it. I really like the look of your Alabama commem.

I have read @GDJMSP posts since I've been here (@Cointalk). I will say, you've been consistent in your opinion of the TPG's and their history. The TPG's were formed well before I started collecting, so it's been nice to get your opinion. Thanks!

 

Well if we are going to talk about the hypothetical clueless collector then we should also mention that if it wasn't in plastic they would likely pay even more for it as it got passed off on them as a righteous coin.