To Resubmit or Not Resubmit

Brought my collection of Egyptian gold coins to the PCGS Members Only show here in Las Vegas the other day. Most of the coins are in very old NGC holders, a few in new NGC holders, and only a couple in PCGS holders. I left the PCGS holders at the bank, figuring those would for certain require a separate submission for reconsideration, and frankly the assigned grades are about what they should be.

What I was wanting to do, was submit the NGC coins with a minimum grade requirement of one point. I didn't want any plus grades which are nothing but a revenue generator for the grading services with no appreciable impact on the value of the coins. In the event a coin wouldn't cross at least single point higher, I wanted the coin back in its original very conservatively graded holder.

Anyone familiar with grade inflation can fully understand why. A coin in an older NGC holder with a 6 digit submission serial number in MS63 is going to worth more than the coin would be worth in a current generation PCGS MS63 holder.

And so I sat down with a gal at the PCGS table to inquire about resubmitting the coins and was told that I would need to first cross all of the coins in their current holder, then make a second resubmission for grade reconsideration. If I wanted to only make a single submission, I would need to crack-out the coins and submit raw.

Needless to say I didn't bother with a submission.

Now I'm thinking of resubmitting them to NGC for reconsideration. Haven't decided yet on if I would send all of the coins or just a few. At the end of the day, it's the same coin in the holder no matter what the grade says anyway.

I've noticed over the past several years that US coins at auction are not nearly as grade dependent as they once were in price realized apps. It still holds true for CAC certified coins, but often times a coin a full point lower will out-perform ALL the coins a grade point higher (without a CAC sticker) if the coin is in an older point-lower holder.

It's certainly not the rule yet on US coins, though there are plenty of examples. With the absence of CAC stickers for world coins, still have to think about the benefit of migrating up the inflated grade scale to realize full value once they are sold.

Here's an example or two. 1929 is a much better date and I would be surprised if it isn't finest known even if there are examples graded higher. The 1930 is finest at NGC, but qualifies for PL65-CAMEO in my opinion..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's another one in a modern NGC holder. Looks MS67 to me.

 

That's really not true at all. While it COULD be true on those + grades have time and time and time again shown higher prices

NO service lets you request a higher minimum grade on a cross over. The grade on the label if the highest you can request

Neither of these statements are really true. When it does happen it's from a coin having toning or being in a holder that has it's own premium. Simply being an older holder does not have a premium.

 

It's not the older holder that generates the premium bid, it's the much more conservative grading associated with the era it was graded in. Especially if the lower graded coin has a CAC sticker, --but even without one for world coins. The phenomenon is especially pronounced for 18th century copper coins. So many of them belong in details graded holders but aren't, and when comparing coins graded 30 years ago to what gets in a holder now days, there are often (certainly not always) coins even several grades lower that out-peform higher graded more recently graded examples at auction, and toning or color has nothing to do with it.

As for plus grades, you are probably right, especially amongst registry set enthusiasts who are more concerned with the grade than the coin contained within. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a gimmick from the very outset meant to generate additional grading fees. There wasn't any clamor for it from collectors before being introduced by the services. My favorite being lower graded coins with a + in grades like an AU53+ ,,,..as if such precision were a measurable thing at that level. Why don't they just call it an AU54? Would make about as much sense.

 

Sigh

 

In the past, yes, but it appears PCGS has changed their policy.

 

You can request the current grade as a minimum, or a lower grade as the minimum. You cannot request a higher grade as the minimum.

Minimum grades do not limit what it could grade, but it sets the floor for what it has to grade to be cracked out.

Call and ask if you don't believe me

 

That seems inconsistent with the policy stated on their website.

 

The gal at PCGS that I was working with seemed confused herself on the submission policy, then consulted a coworker who claimed I needed to cross them first prior to any up-grading reconsideration. Once crossed, I could then resubmit a second time for reconsideration, or at least that's what I was told. Which is really a dumb policy since the big fees are generated not by cross-overs, but by increased grades being assessed a stiff fee based upon the increase in value for those that are adjusted higher.

One of the dealers at the show said PCGS is so far behind that there was a reasonable chance the coins would end-up in probate before I ever saw them again. He was joking of course, but the point is still valid. The waste of money on redundancy all aside, why would I want to waste that much time sending them in twice?

 

Send in to NGC for Reconsideration would be a good move.

 

That's what I'm thinking too. The old slabs would get taken out of the census without me doing anything, another advantage of sending them to NGC. This one would be worth many thousands more a point higher, the cameo designation being the real attraction. NGC has never graded one 67-CAMEO, PCGS has a couple of times.

 

Maybe submit a couple Albanian pieces too. I was shocked when this came back AU58 about 25 years ago. Was part of a multi-coin submission, and it struck me as nothing more than a ploy to generate resubmissions. Everything else was graded about right at the time. I would call it an MS62 all day long. Check-out what was required for an MS64 back then. No PL designation, no CAMEO designation, just MS64. I'd put it up against any other example on the planet for finest known regardless of assigned grade.

 

For anyone interested in actual facts you cannot request a higher grade for a cross over, if they deem it grades higher it’ll get it on the cross over. The minimum grade doesn’t limit the grade it sets a floor.

 

So how do you explain the part in the red box? Also, your point that the minimum grade sets the floor is irrelevant. Requesting a minimum grade higher than currently stated on the label would only raise the floor, not limit the grade. That seems simple enough to understand, but I guess we are only interested in your "facts".

 

Having them cross over my coins to PCGS at the current grade without meeting my "old holder +1 grade" requirement would be acceptable provided the coins were then housed in 7 digit OGH holders (not one of the 30th anniversary holders either, must be one with a square reverse hologram). That would be PERFECT, but would require some sort of time travel machine to go back 30 years ago to slab them. But given the rate of innovation in the TPG industry, who knows, maybe soon they will be able to do that!

In any case, very much appreciate the other posts about the topic. Sounds like I should have been allowed to request minimum grades above where they are at based on the boolean logic diagram presented in this thread. That is, if I am interpreting it correctly.

 

Eh forget it. My fault for trying to help. Sure thing guys

 

.

 

I honestly think that slabbed coins look appropriate for their respective grade.
The 62 ND 64. Have no chance of ever being Gem. If the fields are any indication of the grade then they are porous ad show a hazy luster. I wouldn't waste the money.

 

As expected, you do not have an answer. The official website directly contradicts your “facts”.