Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;robp, post: 5198105, member: 96746&quot;]It&#039;s a difficult if not impossible one to answer because of the huge numbers involved, making a comprehensive survey well nigh impossible. NGC errors are more numerous in my experience, but that is probably a result of the numbers slabbed by each company, NGC having slabbed considerably more coins. Approximately 20% of all my slabbed purchases were due to mis-attribution, but then I look for things that are wrong and by extension sometimes undervalued because of the tendency to price according to label grade rather than what&#039;s inside.</p><p><br /></p><p>Grades should probably be kept out of the equation because all are personal opinions, and so guaranteed to differ. The best exercise you can do is compile a library of nominally identical items and compare them for detail vs given grade. As for a ballpark number, then they must be in the right area much of the time, but IMO get progressively further adrift the earlier you go back in time. It really is important to learn the wear patterns for the coins you are looking to collect because you are the one who will be paying. </p><p><br /></p><p>Do they get the attribution right for denomination or type? Yes, most of the time, but sloppy work ensure there are a good number of wrongly labelled denominations. This works fine where there are sufficient numbers to be statistically significant as the mistakes are more readily identified. </p><p><br /></p><p>Are they ok attributing varieties to British coins? That&#039;s something where they are not so good. 7jags will concur when it comes to them identifiying 1860 TB/BB mule farthings for example, as by and large they fail miserably. Another example - NGC have a population of 1 for a Peck 1983 Victoria decimal pattern. This is the Freeman 689 because the oak leaves face the opposite direction, so a 100% failure rate in this instance. There are no P1983s slabbed and no Freeman 689s identified (it&#039;s not in a slab any more either which is a different matter). This is probably a function of NGC only using Peck for identification, so the P1983 was the closest, even if wrong. Both NGC and PCGS fall down on this one.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lack of consistency in the slabbing of Saxon is a problem. They bodybag a good number of coins for peckmarks, but then let others through. Generally hammered coins are more inconsistently assessed in my view.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t have any memorable instances of slabbed copies, so must assume they are generally ok on this. </p><p><br /></p><p>They often identify tooling as a problem, but unless a coin is high grade or the tooling blindingly obvious, the difference between deliberate and coincidental marks on a low grade coin can be moot. </p><p><br /></p><p>Repaired coins are something I know they have missed in the past, though the numbers are small. Generally speaking these will be relatively high value items because they are the only things that will pay back the cost of repair. For obvious reasons, it is better for the seller to have a good number than a details label. The most egregious example of this I am aware of here is a USD30k+ coin. That was in an NGC slab.</p><p><br /></p><p>The best safeguard you have is to know the coins you are interested in, because although they will work to their ability, no company is infallible and in the case of the more esoteric items, the knowledge may well not exist.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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