Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2570346, member: 112&quot;]What is being discussed here is at the very least an extremely complicated issue. To begin with it involves 4 different grading companies, each of which have and always have had their own unique set of grading standards <u>and</u> unique criteria for each of the special designations. And each one of those 4 have changed their grading standards and special designation criteria over the years to be less strict than they were previously, and more than once. And yes, it is well known that each of these 4 companies were more strict, or less strict, than the others. And not just in general but in regard to different and specific series of coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>On top of that you also have the mint itself changing its own standards regarding the minting of Proof coins. Prior to 1973 Proofs that would meet the cameo or deep cameo designation are a scarcity. From 1973 on they are the norm. </p><p><br /></p><p>So when one is discussing this you not only have to designate which specific companies you are talking about, you also have to specify which specific series, which special designation, which specific grade, and during which specific period of time.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, have I ever seen an ANACS or ICG coin graded XX and designated cameo or deep cameo cross over to an NGC or PCGS coin graded XX and cameo or deep cameo ? Yes, I have. And not only have I seen them cross on the designation and grade, I have even seen them keep the designation and get an upgrade. </p><p><br /></p><p>I have also seen it turn out the other way, where the ANACS or ICG coin did not cross and did not get the designation or grade. </p><p><br /></p><p>And I have also seen NGC and PCGS coins that when reslabbed by ANACS or ICG kept the same grade and designation; were upgraded by ANACS or ICG, and had the designation upgrade as well, or were downgraded in grade and designation by ANACS and ICG.</p><p><br /></p><p>And I have seen all of these things happen when the two companies involved were NGC and PCGS - between each other.</p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, there is no rule. I have seen it go any way and every way. Even when you are talking the same specific series and the same specific time period, and the same date ranges. </p><p><br /></p><p>But even with all of that said, yes it is the market&#039;s opinion that ANACS and ICG are not the equals of NGC and PCGS - in a general sense.[/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