NGC Registry - important changes

ANACS has been bought and sold many many times. There is no way their core resembles their start. Actually I believe a poster on the CU forums is one of the old owners or graders at the early ANACS, I think you know who I am referring to.

Yes and know. As you know most grade the exact same. Some lower, some higher. The whole grading was so much harder so they're all upgrade thing you know isn't true and some things like PL and DCAM they are much harder on today.

I was happy to see you change your mind in a following post. Regardless of what any of us want to believe our grading has changed over the years, we may not believe it and maybe TPG graders don't either, but the idea that we grade the exact same decades later we are all fooling ourselves.

Sounds like a very smart man who ever said it lol. I had never seen that but that is just human nature. We all always say keep learning, why is grading somehow immune from learning? There is no point we know it all and never get more experience, I never understood why grading was supposed to be static like there was a point we learned it all and cannot learn more

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There are so many former TPG's that I cannot keep track of them. When PCGS started they were drawing from all over for part-time help. If you worked there for two weeks you could claim to be a former grader.

I disagree. A majority of early slabs WERE UNDERGRADED by "modern" standards. As they reached the market, they have been upgraded. Any over grades remain in the old holders or are cracked and corrected.

He is, and he has to be as his responsibilities are impossible for me to imagine.

 

It is all marketing hype anyway. I try not to get caught up in thinly veiled marketing efforts, especially when the claims seem a bit delusional. Either way, I do not see this as a positive thing for the NGC Registry.

 

The adjective "consistent" implies stability/unchanged in time.

 

My point is that consistency can be maintained through one era, but as standards change, the consistency with different standards can be maintained as well. I'm not implying that the standards have or should be the same at all times.

Chris

 

If anyone is interested in exploring the idea of an independent registry, please PM me your email address.

 

OK guys here's an update: "NGC is offering a CrossOver special for PCGS-certified coins that are currently registered to an NGC Registry set for a limited time."

Smart move

Link to the full article:
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5689/

 

It is a smart move, but I can't imagine too many people (as a percentage) will take them up on it. Any halfway cognizant coin collector knows that the same coin in the same slabbed grade is worth more in a PCGS slab than in an NGC slab. As a person who has always kept my coins on the NGC Registry as opposed to the PCGS Registry because of NGC's previous policy of inclusion, I have ZERO interest in crossing over my PCGS coins to NGC coins.

 

Good point. However I am not quite sure if your statement applies to all types of coins.

E.g. FS Jeffersons or other coins with a "full" designation - NGC seems to be stricter than PCGS. But no need to start a discussion, I can see exactly what you're saying... speaking of FS Jeffersons: I just bought a PCGS graded Jefferson which I've added to my NGC registry set. Let's see if they'll call it 5FS or 6FS, which are the only options in the tool. In the PCGS system there's just FS.

 

+1

 

I get what they're trying to do, but I completely agree and I think they have severely misjudged how many people will be willing to cross their PCGS over.

 

Yes. Same here. I need a better reason to change a holder.

 

That is a good point. A DMPL in an OGH is sometimes barely PL. In that regard, grading standards have tightened.

 

It depends. Some grading standards are all over the place. Some have loosened a bit, others in terms of certain varieties have tightened, and some are the same as they've alway been, despite the naysayers. I think this registry thing has been a long time coming, and am unsurprised. If someone only collects to complete a registry, they should probably stick with one TPG to begin with, as the NGC mixed registry was a courtesy for PCGS collectors, who had established collections. It isn't so much as a disparity between grades (I honestly see little difference between the grading standards of PCGS versus NGC, despite the hype that PCGS is tougher) than it is a business generating idea.

 

In case anybody is interested, my PCGS FS Jefferson #82196797 - 5C 1943 D was added as MS 66 5FS instead of 6FS as I specified (or should I say "tried"

 

For any coin series, you now have to choose PCGS or NGC if you want to be in a registry. A few years ago, my collection was a mix of PCGS and NGC. However, PCGS predominated except for one series. I suspected that NGC might eventually become exclusive, so started crossing-over or selling/replacing NGC coins for PCGS last year. I also did a bit of upgrading. This coming year, the process will be nearly complete. There are a couple of rarer coins that may take longer to replace. My proof walkers have always been entirely NGC and will remain so.

In my case, PCGS was the winner in NGC's decision. However, if a majority of my coins had been NGC, it might have gone the other way.

I don't blame NGC in the least. Already for many series in their registry, a lot of the top-rated sets are predominantly PCGS or in some cases, all PCGS. I think this is the main reason for making the registry exclusive, and it's not because grading standards at PCGS have changed more than at NGC.

Cal

 

I

Seemed to have missed some of the comments about an independent registry. I think it would be a great idea and not be exclusive to the big two. A few years ago I had a few modern sets on the NGC site but since sold them. I'd like to start a few different sets since I enjoyed building the others. I won't pay one of the big two to build exclusive sets.

 

You have, kudos.

I didn't know that NGC allowed PCGS coins but not vice-versa.

The rationale for NGC's change does sting a bit if you are PCGS.

Left unsaid: what role PCGS being publicly-traded has in this.

 

That depends on the extent to which NGC - being privately-held - is not also driven by the same craven "make money at all costs" dynamic which modern publicly-held companies hew to. Can't say I'm overly optimistic about the level of altruism in Sarasota....