Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
PCGS/NGC Reference Thread - Who's Stricter by Series
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Insider, post: 4515606, member: 24314"]CamaroDMD, posted: "It's not conflicted at all...because it's not about better or worse. <b>It's about different and who has stricter standards based on a given series.</b> I have made no mention of if I thought stricter standards for a given coin was better or worse. I do know that an FBL Franklin in a NGC slab should meet the PCGS standards but the reverse may not be true.</p><p><br /></p><p>I thought such information <b><span style="color: #b30000">in one location</span></b> of the relative quirks of each company per series in a single thread would be useful. That has nothing to do with "which company is better."</p><p><br /></p><p>I like this idea. Unfortunately, IMO. very often it goes back and forth. The real problem started when coin grading/authentication became a business that was dependent on customers. Originally, an authentication service was created by the ANA and funded by them independent of dealers and the coin market. Eventually it stopped losing money and became the main profit generator of the ANA! <span style="color: #b30000">Nevertheless, it was independent.</span></p><p><span style="color: #b30000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">All TGS of today are businesses. Make money or go under. That's what happened to dozens of services. Because of this, PCGS and NGC especially (because they have most of the market) have become slaves to their major submitters in spite of their best efforts to hold a line. A member has already mentioned what happened to the old FBL "standard!" </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Standards will continue to evolve until some entity with deep pockets sets up a "real" service that can exist for years even if no one sends in a coin. Then, AU's will no longer be called MS and FBLs will actually be full with no breaks on both sets of bands.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Hi [USER=24314]@Insider[/USER], good to hear from you. I was under the impression that the knock on ICG (and ANACS for that matter) was that the company mandated threshold for grades was looser than that of PCGS/NGC. Meaning, a coin graded MS65 by ICG may only be a MS64 in a PCGS slab due to the relative differences in each company's grading scales . You would know far better than I.</span></p><p><br /></p><p>I know that the grading talent at ICG is top notch...but I always assumed that the graders had to grade based on the standards that ICG management put down (which I was told was looser than the standards at other companies). That is in no way a criticism of the people who grade coins for them and if I am inaccurate please let me know.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p><p>I have worked at five services (not PCGS) where coins were graded. I have never seen any publication, etc where the company standards were posted and was never told to follow any certain standard. I have always graded coins the way I see them. Company "standards" are set by the finalizers. If they didn't like my grade, they changed it. If I was consistently too strict (always) it was suggested I try to loosen up. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think the major services grade very closely. Any slip-ups tend to make it look as if they don't.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Insider, post: 4515606, member: 24314"]CamaroDMD, posted: "It's not conflicted at all...because it's not about better or worse. [B]It's about different and who has stricter standards based on a given series.[/B] I have made no mention of if I thought stricter standards for a given coin was better or worse. I do know that an FBL Franklin in a NGC slab should meet the PCGS standards but the reverse may not be true. I thought such information [B][COLOR=#b30000]in one location[/COLOR][/B] of the relative quirks of each company per series in a single thread would be useful. That has nothing to do with "which company is better." I like this idea. Unfortunately, IMO. very often it goes back and forth. The real problem started when coin grading/authentication became a business that was dependent on customers. Originally, an authentication service was created by the ANA and funded by them independent of dealers and the coin market. Eventually it stopped losing money and became the main profit generator of the ANA! [COLOR=#b30000]Nevertheless, it was independent. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]All TGS of today are businesses. Make money or go under. That's what happened to dozens of services. Because of this, PCGS and NGC especially (because they have most of the market) have become slaves to their major submitters in spite of their best efforts to hold a line. A member has already mentioned what happened to the old FBL "standard!" [/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]Standards will continue to evolve until some entity with deep pockets sets up a "real" service that can exist for years even if no one sends in a coin. Then, AU's will no longer be called MS and FBLs will actually be full with no breaks on both sets of bands. Hi [USER=24314]@Insider[/USER], good to hear from you. I was under the impression that the knock on ICG (and ANACS for that matter) was that the company mandated threshold for grades was looser than that of PCGS/NGC. Meaning, a coin graded MS65 by ICG may only be a MS64 in a PCGS slab due to the relative differences in each company's grading scales . You would know far better than I.[/COLOR] I know that the grading talent at ICG is top notch...but I always assumed that the graders had to grade based on the standards that ICG management put down (which I was told was looser than the standards at other companies). That is in no way a criticism of the people who grade coins for them and if I am inaccurate please let me know.[/QUOTE] I have worked at five services (not PCGS) where coins were graded. I have never seen any publication, etc where the company standards were posted and was never told to follow any certain standard. I have always graded coins the way I see them. Company "standards" are set by the finalizers. If they didn't like my grade, they changed it. If I was consistently too strict (always) it was suggested I try to loosen up. I think the major services grade very closely. Any slip-ups tend to make it look as if they don't.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
PCGS/NGC Reference Thread - Who's Stricter by Series
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...