Why are PCGS and NGC so lenient.

It took me a while, but I think I found the video. You're right that I didn't remember exactly what was said, but he still said something that strikes me as off. The coin has a cleaned obverse and an original reverse. They graded it AU Details. He also said that if it wasn't cleaned as bad that they might have net graded it. If it was actually an AU58 they would have graded it an AU53. At least that's how I'm understanding it. Here is the video if you want to watch for yourself and if I'm misunderstanding I'd love if someone could explain. The coin in question starts at 16:42.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

UNFORTUNATELY,

This appears to be a case where someone saw something, forgot what he saw, stated a question based on what he remembered which misrepresented what actually occurred. There is nothing to explain. The NGC owner "schooled" us on that coin.

It appears the OP still has some questions.

The obverse of coin is cleaned but not harshly! Therefore, the coin was detail graded. It was never straight graded 53, 55, or 58! IF the cleaning were not so noticeable, the option was to lower its grade (STUPID NET GRADING) so as to more approximate its commercial VALUE.

The reason net grading is STUPID is a person who is not a "numismatic genius" would look at the coin and wonder why a coin with so little friction (AU-58) was graded so low (AU-53).

 

I’m more irritated by misattributions than anything. A variety with no known examples ever graded by any TPG and they blow it. Top registry set guy buys it for $4K and in reality it’s a $10 dollar coin.

 

AFAIK, this post is just some fantasy w/o the actual case. How about a clue so all of us can look for one!

 

1957D FS 901 Reengraved Quarter, first graded and attributed or should say misattributed MS64 with Trueview....FAIL...not a fantasy

 

I’m a bit familiar as I actually submitted the first for grading which was gratuitously given a dollar figure in the “price guide”...no known sales history and IIRC it was $40. Fortunately I sold it for just a tad more. It graded AU55 also true viewed.

 

Casman, post: 4564436, member: 85295"]1957D FS 901 Reengraved Quarter, first graded and attributed or should say misattributed MS64 with Trueview....FAIL...not a fantasy."

In my experience, at least 2 of the top TPGS will very often not slab a new and "unknown" variety. They want to see a second example. This happened to me when I sold my "Discovery Coin" the 1877/6 50c in AU. When a certain TPGS could not "see" the obvious overdate and would not slab the coin, the dealer returned it to me and I still have it in an old PCI (they slabbed it as a "Discovery Coin") slab. ICG, and ANACS have numismatists working in their offices. I'll give a shout out to Jay at PCGS also. He is fantastic with varieties.

That said, there are many collectors who know their varieties and who could step right into a job at a TPGS. IMO, many of the graders working at the top two services work under "sweatshop" conditions. A variety as yours would not even be detected. If you told them what it was on the submission form there is only a 10% chance they would even care to research it. They would probably tell you they only do certain varieties and yours is not one of them! ICG and ANACS are different and love ALL varieties!

Here is the thing. Your coin is nothing special to a majority of folks until it is published. Over the years I've seen so many varieties as this that it boggles the mind. Anyone, who starts examining silver Washington 25c Proofs will find all sorts of reengraved lines on the eagles. I don't think any of this is published either. Therefore, while I think your coin is probably very special, if it came across my desk (without you giving me a heads-up) I would have graded it as a normal Proof also. Then you could blast me and ICG for being dummies too!

PS I've been looking for one for my collection.

 

I doubt you’d have graded a D mint business strike as a proof. Also, it wasn’t a new variety, just none had been found.

 

"Harshly" is an adverb used to indicate the degree of cleaning. Improper cleaning can take several forms and MANY of them NO ONE would classify as harsh! Furthermore, the PCGS definition of cleaning is extremely simplistic. However, it does allow them to straight grade many coins with unacceptable cleaning under the guise of "market acceptable!"

BTW, in the video, the grader uses the words "lightly cleaned." THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Casman, posted: "I doubt you’d have graded a D mint business strike as a proof. Also, it wasn’t a new variety, just none had been found [making it a new variety]."

You are correct. Proof or Business Strike changes nothing in my post as far as MISSING something "new" and unpublished or INSIGNIFICANT to the grading service.

 

Nobody missed anything, rather they labeled it the variety when it was a normal coin. I’d hope that’s not something you’d do as a grader? Especially for the first known example. Think of it this way, imagine you took a photo of a Ford Pinto, then posted it on your auto website and titled it Porsche 911

 

Sorry! I must have misread your post:

I’m more irritated by misattributions than anything. A variety with no known examples ever graded by any TPG and they blow it. Top registry set guy buys it for $4K and in reality it’s a $10 dollar coin.

This reads like they missed a real variety and the last sentence made no sense except you disagreed with the TPGS and someone overpaid.

 

A little thought on grading Canadian coins. I had a Canadian 1955 Arnprior dollar that I submitted to PCGS. Before doing so, I circulated it among our coin club members and got a consensus of AU 55. I have collected for 64 years and I concurred with the group. It came back MS-62! I then sent all my future Canadian to ICCS.

 

Most KNOWLEDGEABLE collectors are more strict with their grading than the TPGS's. Since MS-62 has been the "new" AU for over a decade, it sounds like PCGS got the grade of your coin correct.