Slab Rant!!

[bsshog40]

Out of curiosity, and some financial reasons, I decide to email Heritage Auctions to get some info on market history for my 1965 Busines Strike NGCMS67 Jefferson Nickel. Well they actually called me back personally to give me the info I requested. They showed that PCGS had ONE coin graded in this grade, and NGC had 36 graded in this grade. The PCGS coin sold thru them at $6200. Now that was a nice price. Then they look up the sales for the NGC coin. $800. Now my rant is, yea, there's a nic on it I don't like, so did the coin get over-graded by NGC? Is there some leeway for the business strikes of this era? Do people prefer NGC for grading for this type of over-grading procedure, or is it that NGC is just becoming the preferred grader and the market still does not accept them as much as they accept the PCGS slabs. 36-1 are some pretty big odds when looking at Top Pop coins. I've not seen the one and only MS67 from PCGS, so how does one compare the grade? Also, does a person keep this in it's tomb in hopes that NGC slabs will eventually sell better than PCGS one day? I like the thought of having a valued Top Pop coin, but not the thought that it's value doesn't even compare to a PCGS coin of the same grade. Oh well, just ranting and wondering WHY!!!!

[conqueror]

When looking at price guides, one can clearly see the difference in price between the two grading companys. In the lower mint grade they are about the same but once getting into Gem grade, pcgs has the upper hand. I buy NGC coins, because I know I'm getting a better discount all around on the coin.

 

John

[TomB]

I believe there is a fundamental mistake in your analysis and that mistake is believing that there is any definitive grading standard for either MS67 or other lofty grades. The ANA has not embraced a detailed, series-by-series breakdown to thoroughly define what these grades should be. However, the TPGs (notably PCGS and NGC) are allowed to define the standards for these grades. Therefore, PCGS does not undergrade at this level while NGC does not overgrade at this level; they simply both grade to their internal standards. The greater market recognizes that there are multiple grading scales in effect at any moment and for any grade and Greysheet prices, Bluesheet prices and auction prices reflect this fact.

[MarkFeld]

When looking at price guides, one can clearly see the difference in price between the two grading companys. In the lower mint grade they are about the same but once getting into Gem grade, pcgs has the upper hand. I buy NGC coins, because I know I'm getting a better discount all around on the coin.

 

John

John, you might or might not be getting "a better discount all around on the coin". That depends upon the difference in price AND the quality of the COINS in question.

 

 

Out of curiosity, and some financial reasons, I decide to email Heritage Auctions to get some info on market history for my 1965 Busines Strike NGCMS67 Jefferson Nickel. Well they actually called me back personally to give me the info I requested. They showed that PCGS had ONE coin graded in this grade, and NGC had 36 graded in this grade. The PCGS coin sold thru them at $6200. Now that was a nice price. Then they look up the sales for the NGC coin. $800. Now my rant is, yea, there's a nic on it I don't like, so did the coin get over-graded by NGC? Is there some leeway for the business strikes of this era? Do people prefer NGC for grading for this type of over-grading procedure, or is it that NGC is just becoming the preferred grader and the market still does not accept them as much as they accept the PCGS slabs. 36-1 are some pretty big odds when looking at Top Pop coins. I've not seen the one and only MS67 from PCGS, so how does one compare the grade? Also, does a person keep this in it's tomb in hopes that NGC slabs will eventually sell better than PCGS one day? I like the thought of having a valued Top Pop coin, but not the thought that it's value doesn't even compare to a PCGS coin of the same grade. Oh well, just ranting and wondering WHY!!!!

Based upon the populations and general perceptions among market participants (which might or might not be correct), it would appear that PCGS grades those coins more strictly than NGC does. Accordingly they trade at much higher prices in PCGS holders and it's unlikely that things will change in that regard.

 

[bsshog40]

First of all, thanks for your comments Tom & mark. One mentions the TPG's using there own internal standards for grading and the other mentions stricter grading practices. How can the ANA guidelines be used properly if one can lessen thier grading restrictions while another strengthens thiers. It would be hard for unifomity in grading to ever be achieved under these circumstances.

[MarkFeld]

First of all, thanks for your comments Tom & mark. One mentions the TPG's using there own internal standards for grading and the other mentions stricter grading practices. How can the ANA guidelines be used properly if one can lessen thier grading restrictions while another strengthens thiers. It would be hard for unifomity in grading to ever be achieved under these circumstances.

You have answered your own question - the ANA guidelines can't be/aren't used "properly", even if the grading companies cared to and I doubt that they do. And that is at least in part because for uncirculated and Proof coins, the guidelines aren't specific enough to be utilized on a consistent and/or practical basis.

[TomB]

Mark has given you a very good answer in that the ANA guidelines are not well defined at these grade levels and there is nothing that compels any TPG to grade along the ANA guidelines as they interpret them.

[bsshog40]

I understand but it still doesn't explain why people think that a coin in a PCGS slab is better than a coin in an NGC slab.

[MarkFeld]

I understand but it still doesn't explain why people think that a coin in a PCGS slab is better than a coin in an NGC slab.

Sometimes they are correct in that thinking, as in the case where PCGS grading is more conservative. Other times they are incorrect, for example, when they are swayed by marketing and/or blind faith rather than by the coin itself. Use the latter to your advantage.

[bsshog40]

I'm not sure if this is a question that can be answered, but has there ever been a time when NGC ruled the TPG market? Or is there a specific reason why PCGS seems to prevail in this market? Both have been in the industry approx. the same amount of years with PCGS maybe having one year seniority.

[rbrown4]

Good discussion here. Thanks.

 

Rey

[TomB]

In the series where I have greater experience or knowledge of the super-gem grades (MS67+) I can tell you that on average PCGS is more conservative than NGC. Therefore, based upon my experience, an NGC MS67 coin might not be as nice as a PCGS MS67 coin of the same issue. Obviously, inter-coin variance will occur, but my experience in this niche is consistent with how the greater market values these pieces.

 

Early in the history of PCGS and NGC there was a time when NGC coins routinely outperformed PCGS coins. This might have had something to do with the then current grading standards that each firm used, might have been because of the trading networks that were in place or simply may have been due to the turnaround times of each company. However, since at least 1994 I have noticed a preference among more folks for PCGS than for NGC.

[bsshog40]

Thanks Tom. I guess my jefferson will stay in it's tomb in hopes that one day it will be considered of equal quality to PCGS. I would like to have seen the PCGS jefferson to compare apples to apples at the time that it was graded. I like my jefferson, but as I stated in the first post, it has one nic on the obv. that I think would prevent it from crossing, especially if grading standards have even gotten more strict than since the time frame of when it was graded. I know that MS67 does have some slight leniency in contact marks, but these are very few. Oh well. thanks for the responses. They were surely appreciated.

[just-john]

I don't get it when you can still buy unc rolls of 1965 jeff nickel for $6.96 why spend $25.00

getting one graded .The reason one sold for $6200.00 from PCGS and the one from NGC went for $800.00 Simple while people who pay to grade 1965 nickels need help---the people who spend $800.00 for nickel are good for the need help badly the one who paidED

$6200.00 IS NUTS

FACT 131 Million minted NGC graded 134 total if their worth anywhere near $800.00 to $6200 I think more people would be looking for the grade

[James_OldeTowne]

This is an issue that's been discussed many times before, of course. In general, when a coin is in a lofty grade like that - where it's a "political" grade rather than a "numismatic" grade - then there is no direct comparison to be made between NGC and PCGS. Neither is the "better" service. Neither coin is the "better" coin. Those kinds of grades have artificially low "populations" at PCGS for political reasons, not because there is some magical grading "standard" being adhered to.

 

Let's just continue with the assumption that I have 36 raw coins that I certify at NGC and get MS-67s, and you have a single raw coin that you certify at PCGS and get an MS-67 for.

 

Who has the better coins? Hands down, I do, with 36 NGC coins times $800 each, that blows away your single PCGS MS-67 even at $10,000.

 

So that would make NGC sound a lot better than PCGS, wouldn't it?

 

For me, I would hands down MUCH rather buy one NGC MS-67 at $800 for my set than one PCGS MS-67 at $3500, and I really wouldn't care what the coins actually "look like" in such a scenario (where I'm buying the plastic).

[bsshog40]

As I appreciate your response James, the comparison/assumption that you gave really isn't the focal point of what I was referring to. I agree that the person with 36 NGC coins is better off than the one with 1 PCGS. But would you rather have 36 PCGS than 36 NGC's? This is my point. The PCGS is preferred over the NGC coin. Not that it is a better TPG, merely because the market, for some reason, prefers thier slabs over the NGC slabs. I could make the assumption that the coins are of the same quality, but that regardless of the coin, the PCGS slab would sell for more. You are right, as to this topic being mulled over a few times, but you have to agree, there has never been a legitimate answer as to why NGC slabs do not hold value to PCGS. I have more NGC slabs than PCGS and have some very nice coins in them as I'm sure others do. But, how many people here, looking at re-sale value, would rather have those coins in a PCGS slab than an NGC?

[MarkFeld]

...but you have to agree, there has never been a legitimate answer as to why NGC slabs do not hold value to PCGS

I believe that the following is a "legitimate answer": In many cases PCGS grades more strictly than NGC does. If you have a PCGS 67 and an NGC 67 in front of you and the PCGS coin looks like it is a point better than the NGC coin, the PCGS coin should sell for more.

 

In other instances, due to a widespread perception (which is incorrect) that NGC almost always grades more liberally than PCGS, NGC coins frequently bring less than PCGS coins, even if they are on par, quality-wise.

 

How many times have you seen a "guess the grade" coin posted where respondents guess one grade for PCGS and a higher grade for NGC? I don't recall ever having seen people predict that the NGC grade would be lower than the PCGS grade. That speaks volumes about perception. And though that perception is often wrong, it is so widespread that it can account for large price/value distortions in the marketplace.

[jackson64]

I agree, it is all about perception --except for cameo designation-which there is an obvious different standard held by the two companies. I personally love when I get a nicer coin at a lower price because of the holder. Case in point, I often find ANACS coins for about half of PCGS price and 70% of NGC for classic coins. I'm letting one of my secrets out but I have cracked out 12 ANACS coins this year..all 12 crossed at equal or above and six--50% !!!! --came back in higher grades {one MS62 I bought for $900 had a $1500 trends and now as a 64 is trends at $7500}...it's been said a million times, buy the coin and not the holder..and in the end it will work itself out...

[Zoins]

I checked to see if PCGS used the ANA grading standards a while back. I could not find a reference on their website that said they did. I'm not sure NGC says they use the ANA standards either.

 

Does anyone know if PCGS and/or NGC say they use the ANA standards on their websites, magazine articles or any other published documentation?

[bsshog40]

Even if the either of the TPG's use ANA grading Standards for grading, ANA states that it standards can be interpreted in many ways. This is what gives the TPG's the leeway to be able to interpret thier own grading standards from another's. No consistency will always leave graded coins to the potentials buyers preference of slabs. Unless you are a professional grader, you have to leave your trust to a legitimate TPG in hopes that you will get a coin in the grade that it is slabbed. In alot of cases, buying the coin and not the holder can be a difficult situation if you place more of your trust on the TPG than the coin.

[Zoins]

Even if the either of the TPG's use ANA grading Standards for grading, ANA states that it standards can be interpreted in many ways. This is what gives the TPG's the leeway to be able to interpret thier own grading standards from another's. No consistency will always leave graded coins to the potentials buyers preference of slabs.

Why do you think the TPGs need ambiguity in the ANA grading standards to use their own interpretation if they don't even claim to use the ANA grading standards to begin with?

 

One example is with market grading of AU58s as MS62s.

 

Why assume the TPGs use the ANA grading standards if they don't say so themselves?

[bsshog40]

I would presume that is why the ANA grading standards is exactly what it states. A "STANDARD", not a qualification or requirement for grading. It's no different than a company following "guidelines" which can be changed to fit each situation. I have an ANA book, and it gives it's recommendations of what to look for when grading a coin. Of course, the ANA standards mention nothing about toning, rim dings, etc... This is where the standards can be changed from TPG to TPG. There are too many extenuating circumstances that give the TPG's the authority to grade differently from one to another. Even contact marks can be looked at in different perspectives. One can a see a contact mark as a bag mark, and another can see it as a circulation mark. The bag mark might not be reason enough to drop a grade on a coin but the circulation mark would be. If you see these as different marks. Interpretation will always be left up to the individual grader. I would seriously doubt that if any quality control is done, that the person inspecting the coin would take it back to the grader to question the coins grade. If this happened, then they would have to question thier own graders ability to grade. A company does not want to question thier own employees integrity and abilities, as this would negatively reflect against the company itself in the eyes of the public.

[Zoins]

You haven't answered my question: why talk about ANA grading standards ambiguity if the TPGs don't say they use the standards to begin with?

There are too many extenuating circumstances that give the TPG's the authority to grade differently from one to another.

You are ascribing too much to the ANA. The ANA has no authority over the TPGs.

 

The thing that gives the TPGs the "authority" to grade differently from one another could be that they are using their own standards and have not said they are following anybody else's.

[bsshog40]

That is why they do not have to mention the ANA as part of thier grading standards. Why mention something that is not in use!!

[Zoins]

That is why they do not have to mention the ANA as part of thier grading standards. Why mention something that is not in use!!

Exactly. Take that one step further to the grading standards ambiguity issue. Only if the TPGs claim to use ANA grading standards, may a discussion on ANA grading standard ambiguity make sense relative to TPG grading.

 

IMO, your argument shouldn't be that the TPGs have leeway because ANA standards are ambiguous. It should be they have leeway because they don't claim to use anyone else's standards, regardless of ambiguity in the possibly unused standards.

[bsshog40]

Well actually my post did not ever direct itself to ANA stanadards for grading. It was directed at individual TPG standards for grading causing the market to prefer one over the other. ANA wasn't brought into the discussion until it was questioned whether the TPG's used them or not. I honestly believe that the ANA standards are only used by private individuals and businesses to help them value thier own coins. I think the TPG's have thier own standards and grading practices.

[jesbroken]

In my humble opinion, the ANA has never set standards for MS coins that could be followed by anyone and I don't think that a true problem exists between PCGS and NGC in the circulated grades(at least not one that as important). If the ANA doesn't care to espouse a set of measureable standards that TPG's can be held accountable to then what difference should it matter.Buy the best coin in your opinion and whichever holder it is in is happenstance. If it is raw and you want it slabbed and feel that PCGS has a greater return on investment then have them slab it. From what I see and hear, even if they are a grade lower than NGC the value is roughly the same. Worrying about after the fact purchases is a waste of time as it is too late. JMO.

[MarkFeld]

If the ANA doesn't care to espouse a set of measureable standards that TPG's can be held accountable to then what difference should it matter

In the case of uncirculated and Proof, as opposed to circulated coins, it is impossible to have written standards which are precise enough to distinguish 1 grade from the next one up (or down) on the grading scale. The exception could/would be MS/PR70.

 

For example what specific objective written standards would distinguish an MS63 from an MS64 Barber Quarter? I defy anyone to come up with an answer which would address the large majority of examples that most of us would grade either MS63 or MS64.

[MikeKing]

...but you have to agree, there has never been a legitimate answer as to why NGC slabs do not hold value to PCGS

I believe that the following is a "legitimate answer": In many cases PCGS grades more strictly than NGC does. If you have a PCGS 67 and an NGC 67 in front of you and the PCGS coin looks like it is a point better than the NGC coin, the PCGS coin should sell for more.

 

In other instances, due to a widespread perception (which is incorrect) that NGC almost always grades more liberally than PCGS, NGC coins frequently bring less than PCGS coins, even if they are on par, quality-wise.

 

How many times have you seen a "guess the grade" coin posted where respondents guess one grade for PCGS and a higher grade for NGC? I don't recall ever having seen people predict that the NGC grade would be lower than the PCGS grade. That speaks volumes about perception. And though that perception is often wrong, it is so widespread that it can account for large price/value distortions in the marketplace.

 

and PCGS will boot anyone off their board who doesn't agree with it

[MikeKing]

If the ANA doesn't care to espouse a set of measureable standards that TPG's can be held accountable to then what difference should it matter

In the case of uncirculated and Proof, as opposed to circulated coins, it is impossible to have written standards which are precise enough to distinguish 1 grade from the next one up (or down) on the grading scale. The exception could/would be MS/PR70.

 

For example what specific objective written standards would distinguish an MS63 from an MS64 Barber Quarter? I defy anyone to come up with an answer which would address the large majority of examples that most of us would grade either MS63 or MS64.

 

hey...let's get even more liberal with this...how about AU58 and MS 63,64???