The Company Formerly Known As NGC

I remember thinking of this myself in response to a question about whether or not you could make fair dice for certain numbers. But I still think making accurate right angles is a lot easier than making accurate arbitrary angles -- I thought I remembered from geometry class that you can construct a regular polygon with any number of sides using just a compass and straightedge, but apparently not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Reminded me of this label I saw this morning.
Just more worthless, gimmicky crap.

 

OMG, they seriously do that?

I assume that I can get that same label for any state or ATB quarter, as long as I pay the extra fee...

 

Yes, it’s horrible and tacky.
The whole NGCx and vault box thing has slightly turned me off of NGC and now this horribly tacky label….

 

This honestly doesn’t bother me at all. It’s the first year the design was issued. What’s wrong with noting that. When it comes to type coins, I tend to like seeking out first year issues.

Sure it’s a little unnecessary. But who cares.

 

I feel like it's more than a little unnecessary.

There aren't any 1948 Franklins that are not "first year of issue", so it doesn't convey any information that you can't get from simply looking at the coin's date. That makes this different from all the "first strike"/"early release"/"from unopened cereal box" labels -- I don't like those either, but at least for those they can claim that it provides additional information about the specific coin.

I see that NGC offers both "First Year of Issue" and "Last Year of Issue" labels. They apparently treat State and Territorial and America the Beautiful as two separate single issues, instead of counting each year; I don't know why they left that money on the table, except that perhaps someone in their marketing department is still capable of feeling a tiny bit of shame. (But if you're a serious label completist, you'd better send in two 1793 half cents, one for each of the labels available for that issue.)

Who cares? Me, apparently. I don't know why I feel compelled to provide ridicule when a company invites it, but it is what it is.

 

I'm gonna grade your ridicule. B+. You get to choose which scale that is on.

 

Hey, an 11+ on a 0-10 scale? I'll take it.

 

The "first strike" label was at best inaccurate and at worst fraudulent. "Early release" is also meaningless.

But, to note on the slab that a 1948 Franklin is from the first year of issue...while unnecessary...is an undisputable fact. My guess is such labeling is more geared towards newer or part-time collectors...or those with more of a passing interest in coins.

I personally love it because I think my collection to be somewhat uniform in labeling...but outside of that it doesn't bother me at all.

 

All righty, I see you slipping in that hex conversion again.

 

Some of the ANACS certificates gave separate grades for the Obv and Rev as well.

The 70 point grading system does seem strange until you learn where it came from. And the group that were the ones that actively used it finally gave it up as unworkable just a few years before the ANA adopted it as the official grading scale.

 

Trademark infringement.

 

Stupid collectors. NGC must be exploring new markets. A recent study shows 69.2% of incoming error and variety collectors don't know what a Red Book is, but they do know what a microscope is. That's a lot of business these TPGs have been neglecting.

 

Maybe...but their money still spends just as well.

 

I honestly didn't know for sure if that was the reason but I knew that NGC had entered the trading card grading game a year or so ago (as CGC)...so I figured it kinda made sense. I didn't know they had said it outright.

As someone who passionately collect's sports memorabilia including cards...I have seen NGC's recent venture into that hobby (although I don't own any of their slabbed cards).

 

Perhaps not the best reason, but I like the 70-point Sheldon scale because it is unique to coin grading. I don't think we need the metric system for everything.

If it were to change, I think it either needs to be simplified or modified towards different aspects of coin quality, much like how NGC grades ancients.

But, this topic has been done to death...

 

Keep in mind, this isn't a 10 point scale. It's a 2 point scale -- 9.9 and 10. 3 points if you count "no" as a grade.

 

Good idea! I'd look for top pop coins, so I could have all F's like I did in high school!

 

All of this ^^^^. Couldn't have said it better. I wasn't worrying about wanting them to do this. Hadn't thought of it and never cared if they did, but they have now. Maybe, it's a good move? Maybe it's just going to add confusion?

As someone who has collected cards, sent cards in for grading and still has a fair amount, I must be one of the "gifted few" who was accepting, understanding and comfortable with the different grading scales between the hobbies.

I just have to wonder if the new grading scale brings new collectors in for the right reasons. It seems to me there's a lot of people who may as well just buy their state's local scratch off tickets as opposed to buying card boxes or vault boxes. Everybody's desparate to win a quick buck over enjoying the products or learning anything. Most are losing money on the products chasing the dream.

I have a difficult time believing I'll ever have an in depth discussion about coins with somebody who relies on a 10 point grading scale. But, over time, who knows...