Reliability of authentication services

I have always used ANACS for all my authentication. Nothing more, as I don't want them grading or slabing any of the coins that I have submitted. I would have to agree with GDJMSP in his statements reguarding this issue, but can only rely on experience in this coin collection hobby.

Guess I don't understand your problem NOS?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Im not trying to prove that at all about mistakes. I am trying to convey that what you say is very different from what CWtokenman says so now it is clinched for me psychologically that grading services are bad.

 

Hehehe

 

NOS, now you have ME confused about your point. You have applied Aristotilian (deductive) logic to state that: (1) Third party grading companies are no good because over their almost 20-year history, they have made a handful of mistakes; and (2) GDJMSP is wrong and cwtokenman is right when they are stating essentially the same thing in different words and not even disagreeing with the details. Deductive logic is useful for detectives attempting to solve a case, but it has no place in generalities in which inductive logic must be applied.

The original post asked about the reliability of the grading services for detection of a fake coin. If one sticks to the top four companies (PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and ICG), the chances are pretty darned good that if they say a coin is authentic, it is authentic. Given a statement of probabilities based on a Chi-squared test, P < .00001 meaning the chances that the TPGs would pass a fake coin as genuine is infinitesimal (less than one chance in 10,000,000) based on a random sampling; based on a targeted sampling (vis a vis, a common American coin vs an oddball coin from, say, 15th century Mongolia), the chances decrease to perhaps one in 30 million. Your chances of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning are much greater.

To condemn the TPGs based on these probabilities is like condemning the entire population of Canada because one Canadian turned out to be an alien from outer space. To say what GDJMSP says is different from what cwtokenman say because they say the same thing in different words defies logic.

 

It seems that many of the things NOS says defy logic.

my 2¢
CJD

 

Yes you make some good points. It is just so hard to cope here due to different points of view but your points are well taken and absorbed.

 

I would like to emphasize that my comments about tpgs are derived from what I have seen of their work with exonumia, primarily Civil War tokens. Since the OP's main concern was with authenticity, I agree that the top tpgs do a commendable job here, and the OP should have full confidence that a slabbed item is authentic. I also stated that authentication is the only reason I would personally consider using their services, although I have not, and have no plans to do so.

Exonumia slabs are a relatively recent venture of the tpgs, and inexperience with this area may have been a factor in the mistakes that were made, although IMO that is no excuse. Since only a small number of cwts are slabbed, and populations are so low, any given cwt may conceivably have been the first of that specific ID they may have seen. Granted, not much to reference from. Of the maybe 100 or so cwt slabs I have viewed, 4 had significant identification errors on the label. I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider that to be an unacceptable error rate. There was a store card identified with a patriotic series id #, a totally incorrect store card id # (state, city and merchant designations), and (2) with the incorrect merchant's name on the label. There were a few additional ones with minor mistakes as well.

Minor mistakes would include the occasional errors of omission, such as the metal desigantion (especially important for off-metals) or merchant's name. When the tpgs have noticable trouble indicating exactly what something is, I find it hard to have any confidence in their telling me how nice it is (grade). Cwt collectors pretty much all use the same id numbering system, but the tpgs have come up with their own hybred id system, that only they use. Or maybe they are trying to use the standard system and have not yet taken the time to understand how it is to be used. I am not sure. But, it is not a complicated system, and many other types of tokens utilize a similar system format.

I will not get into any specifics as to my opinion of their cwt grading abilities, but I will say that even some of the most adament slab supporters have been apalled at some of the high grades received by some of the cwts I had brought to their attention. There are a few slabbed MS graded examples currently on ebay that I suspect of showing wear, although the pictures are not as large as I would like in order to arrive at a more definite conclusion.

 

GDJMSP, I understand what you are saying, but even those "low level employees" are a part of the complete service that the tpgs are providing for a fee. If those type of obvious errors (frequently) get out the door, who is to say they did not also make an error with the grade displayed on the label, which may not be so obvious? That could have serious consequences with how these companies are perceived.

Also, I had mentioned that some posters with whom I have debated the pros/cons of tpgs, who were staunch slab supporters, admitted they were apalled by some of the high grades assigned to rather pathetic and worn looking cwts. Some tokens, where no one disputed readily apparent signs of wear, had MS64 & MS-65 grades. Was that really the grade assigned by the graders or merely an error in making the label? If one is going to blame the label maker for such as this, when does one know if the label is correct or not? If that example, as others you claim are merely label errors, and are obvious, how about ones that may not be so obvious? Maybe that MS-67 Morgan was really only a 66, or maybe a 68. How is one to know? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so what good is it for a professional grader to do a good and accurate evaluation if the label does not convey the proper information? It is ultimately the fault of the tpg if the slab incorrectly conveys the information & opinions gathered about the coin that was inspected. A customer should expect an accurate evaluation and conveyance of that evaluation encapsulated in the slab.

I do not normally view regular coinage or their slabs. Are such label errors as common with them? If so, it can be derived that the label makers are consistently making errors across the board. If not (especially in relation to grade assignments), just perhaps, the graders do not have the necessary expertise in this area, and the label makers are doing just as good a job as they normally do. I see no real variables in the grader(s) passing along the assigned grade to the label maker, be it regular coinage or token. It boils down to if the slab does not reflect the proper information, I would not care who's fault it was (ultimately it is that of the tpg). What is wrong is wrong.

As far as the tpg not noting the variety or special attribution unless specially requested, as far as cwts (and most exonumia) are concerned, there are no standard issues. It is not like some basic series of coinage that one can collect by date/mm. They (cwts) are pretty much every one a special variety with a unique attribution (if listed). Precious few would have a parallel anything similar to variations in a VAM listing. If they do not provide the proper attribution, they may as well just put a generic "Civil War token" on the label (I have never seen that done, so either it must be standard or everyone is paying extra), and let everyone figure out which of the 14,000 varieties it may be for themselves.

It is getting late, and I realized I have rambled quite a bit. Hopefully this post will make some modicon of sense. I apologize if I have repeated lines of thought. If my intent has confused anyone, I will try to clarify when I am more coherent.

 

While I have no love for the tpgs, I do believe if more uniform and consistent standards were followed, that would greatly increase their value to the hobby. Their products could be especially useful for those learning to grade if uniform standards were utilized.

I also totally agree that the buyer should be knowledgable about what he his buying, especially if big $$$ are involved. Essentially, I feel a collector should be able to (or working towards being able to) perform the same evaluations as a professional grader. Such a collector IMO should in actuality have no need for tpgs, as what can they do for him that he can not do for himself? OK, not everyone has access to a sonic welder, but one can purchase some pretty nice holders for the cost of slabbing. I am talking only from the collecting viewpoint here, not a selling one. I would not argue that a slabbed coin will typically bring a considerably higher price than an identical raw coin. The flip side to that presents the opportunity for the knowledgable collector to pick up some bargains on raw coinage.

You mention their grading gaurantees. I have inquired on the ebay board several times without a response. Have you (or anyone else) tried to make a claim on any tpg's gaurantee and how did it go? The wording on their gaurantees often seems rather restrictive, so I was curious as to learning of anyone's actual experience(s). I have been trying to pick up some (IMO) overgraded tokens at a reasonable price to test things myself, but have not yet been successful.

NOS, if you would like to see a couple of examples of what some on the ebay board feel are overgraded top tier slabs, look at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3966721958

and

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11980&item=3966583351&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW