Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charlottedude, post: 4050651, member: 26010&quot;]I&#039;ve had it go both ways... submitting NGC-graded gold that crossed at the same grade, while others (I would say the @ equal numbers) have not.&nbsp; Two examples which come to mind - I purchased the 1799 HE in an NGC XF40 holder, tried to cross at grade, and succeeded.&nbsp; I agree with the grade, due to its level of wear, and have left it at that:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1061779[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Now take this 1808 HE.&nbsp; I purchased it in an NGC AU-55 holder and tried unsuccessfully to cross it to PCGS - DNC. I retried to cross at any grade, and PCGS graded it AU-53.&nbsp; I agree more with the PCGS AU-53 grade as it has a little too much wear for a full AU-55 grade.&nbsp; CAC seems to agree also.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1061780[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I will add that from personal experiences, and the many, many coins I&#039;ve examined at shows and auctions, that NGC consistently grades classic gold more loosely than PCGS.&nbsp; Not that PCGS isn&#039;t guilty of it also, but I&#039;ve walked large bourse floors, observing tables upon tables of NGC-slabbed gold that is either over-graded or over &quot;processed&quot; (i.e., shouldn&#039;t have been straight-graded to begin with) or both, with the number of said gold in PCGS-graded coins being much smaller.&nbsp; I&#039;m not a kool-aid drinker of either company, but my 30 years of experience in the early &amp; branch mint gold areas have taught me that I&#039;m more likely to agree with PCGS&#039;s grade, than NGC&#039;s.[/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