From NGC 64 to NGC 67*

[MikeInFL]

Here's a coin that was sold by Anaconda in 2005 as a NGC 64:

 

 

Now shows up at Heritage in NGC 67* plastic:

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=452&Lot_No=351&src=pr

 

Is this evidence of gradeflation and/or different grading standards and/or mistakes in grading?

 

Comments?...Mike

 

p.s. This post is courtesy of Anaconda here: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=617893

 

[corrected typo -- thx Greg!]

 

[gmarguli]

NGC MS64 to NGC MS67*, not PCGS.

[MikeInFL]

D'oh! Fixed. Thx.

[gmarguli]

Perhaps downgraded due to the..um..rapid look to the toning...when it was first graded and now that color is more acceptable?

[realone]

Perhaps downgraded due to the..um..rapid look to the toning...when it was first graded and now that color is more acceptable?

 

This is what TDN wrote:"Notice that the coin originally resided in an OLD holder from NGC - graded early 1990's. I have found some exceptional coins in those holders." So the above wouldn't fly because it was slabbed sometime ago, and the toning hasn't changed and due to their conservatism back then I would think it would have been bbed if they thought it was AT. I think the opposite that this is the new NGC standard and or getting a double bump for toning i.e. a star and a point plus bad grading. Remember big jump in value here, it is definitely worth it for someone to get this kind of grade jump maybe it is even a case of who you know or something even worse. Also if one was going to make a purposeful mistake you can get away with it on this one if you didn't know about the first slabbing. It is a nice looking toned coin, overgrading happens too frequently for anyone to really to be shocked any more if you know what I mean. But personally this makes me sick!

 

Edited to add: btw Gmarguli as I reread your post it dawns on me how possibly onesided you might possibly be on the subject of toning, AT vs NT and all that stuff, so just out of curiosity do you feel that AT should be slabbed by the TPG's, if you can answer that then I can get a better feel of where you were going with your comment.

 

[gmarguli]

Edited to add: btw Gmarguli as I reread your post it dawns on me how possibly onesided you might possibly be on the subject of toning, AT vs NT and all that stuff, so just out of curiosity do you feel that AT should be slabbed by the TPG's, if you can answer that then I can get a better feel of where you were going with your comment.

 

Of course they should slab AT coins. There is no difference between AT & NT in my opinion. But, lets not let this thread go down that road.

[realone]

Gmarguli, I agree lets not go down that road, but I just have to tell you as I study my 1875-cc 20c ms64 PCGS all original with real nice natural toning, heck if I had a pair of tweasers I could scrap off the that 130 years has accumulated on the coin and stick it in a csi show to test and love the outcome, 130 year old s&^e. BTW the piece is a bit dark , no where near as dramatic as the 1835 H10c that was the subject of the thread, but you got to love the real thing, darkly colorful, dirty, probably a little smelly (its in plastic so who knows) kind of like the experience of digging up King Tut just less dramatic and out of Africa. I love looking at all the layers thick and thin ie the toning layers that I find and the imperfections in it. I love taking my 22x loupe and sitting down with this little lassy and taking my time admiring all its curves and imperfections. Can't do that with AT just like breast implants noticeably don't move much. But I think you can get a taste of why I am into original surfaces with dark natural toning, true it isn't as sensational as the 1835, nowhere as clean and bright and shiny and colorful but then I can visit Beverly Hills for all that if you know what I mean and I think you do. Well guess what Dr 90210 is on and I just love watching how Dr Ray alters nature, funny they only show his successes and they never show his results after 20 years, I wonder why, but this is what the public wants and the good Dr has to support himself in the manner in which he has grow accustomed.

[James_OldeTowne]

At MS-64, it looks ridiculously undergraded to me. Of course that's without an "in hand" examination.

 

Without question, there used to be many vastly undergraded coins in those holders, though of course, most have been cracked out and upgraded.

[kryptonitecomics]

If this thread is an attempt to highlight the treasures that can be found in old NGC holders.......I would like to say....please cease and desist any further action in this matter or I will be forced to pay more for said treasures when I am buying my Morgans

 

 

lol lol

 

It looks like a solid if not PQ 66 to me.....MS64 money would have been a steal on that baby

[bsshog40]

I agree here. This was undergraded by my standards. Things may have been alot more conservative in the early 90's compared to the standards being used today. The more coins I've seen in slabs have shown that regardless if it's PCGS or NGC, grading looks as though there is more focus towards originality of the coins condition and circulation. When I express originality, this does not include toning. I feel this is just a bonus for the coin and it's grade if the color shows to be more original and MA. JMO

[MarkFeld]

I viewed the coin in hand recently and am of the opinion that it is an OK MS66, but clearly not worthy of an MS67 grade. Of course that means that I am also of the opinion that it was under-graded as an MS64.

 

It sold in a Heritage auction for $9200 in February of last year and that seemed like strong money to me. I'm surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that someone reserved it at a considerably higher number in the recent auction it failed to sell in.

 

I believe that the NGC star designation leads to problems, in that it frequently appears to be assigned to coins which have already been given an extra grading point (or two) for color. In this particular case, and this is simply my own imperfect/subjective opinion, I feel that we have an MS65+ coin which received an extra point or two for its color/eye-appeal and then a star on top of that for the same reason. I avoid such coins even if I like the looks of them.

[bsshog40]

I agree Mark. The grade should be for the coins condition wholly on it's own merits. Then a star if the color is worthy of it.

[SkyMan]

I agree Mark. The grade should be for the coins condition wholly on it's own merits. Then a star if the color is worthy of it.

 

I agree. As a toner collector it thoroughly bugs me to see a coin technically overgraded due to it's attractive toning... and I've BENEFITED from this sort of grading via some of the raw coins I've sent in. Grade the coin properly technically, and then if it's got good toning (or cameo appeal, or...) then add a star. At the end of the day a nice looking coin is going to sell above graysheet anyhow, sometimes by MANY multiples, and the end result will be what the buyer and seller agree upon.

[coinman1794]

Skyman, as I came to the end I discovered that you said exacly what I was going to add! NGC now has the Star designation to distinguish special coins, and if they would technically grade the coins and then add the stars where necessary, that would be a big help to everyone. I think sometimes they do this, but with all grading services, the #1 problem continues to be inconsistency.

 

Regarding this coin: I have a hard time calling any early US coin a 67. I often disagree with those grades when I see them in hand. 66 is about as nice as Ive seen, and that's infrequent. I'm guessing this coin is a 66, but I've never seen it in hand.

 

 

[realone]

This grading of the 1835 H10c really really disturbs me, it is obvious from the photo that there are hits on the obverse to prevent it from going 67, and Mark affirms this after seeing it in hand. It has a star designation I believe rightly so for its really nice toning and hopefully it is AT and not what they consider market acceptable. But mistakes like this are huge, because if something as blatant like this gets out of NGC's grading room what about all the other so called subjective calls that they are making that isn't this obvious. This example here is practically a crime in my mind and maybe I am the only one who believes this strongly but I hate to see this and I hate to see what this does to the credibility of NGC. And to think it was in a old 64 holder and the graders popped it out and placed it in the current one. As far as I am concerned NGC is falling by the wayside they need to change where they are heading imo!

 

P. S. I happen to own a 1835 H10c MS65 ogh PCGS LM-8.2 and this one isn't any better grade wise, now color wise is a different story, the color of the subject coin is infinitely better but that is what the star designation is for.

 

Edited to add: Thanks Mark for your personal post, but where I disagree is that Brandon from Anaconda thought it was a 65, he sent it in and it failed to upgrade, Brandon sells it in '05 and the next owner presumably sends it in and it jumps to MS67*, to me there were 2 injustices here, Brandon getting screwed and the hobby getting screwed by where the coin is now top pop if it were attributed, I am sorry I enjoy when you are the voice of reason but in this case we all should get angry, very angry, this is what destroys the credibilty of the hobby and it isn't the first time, it is too many times, and too many big mistakes. And this was committed by NGC, where they were once a conservative grading company.

[MarkFeld]

This grading of the 1835 H10c really really disturbs me, it is obvious from the photo that there are hits on the obverse to prevent it from going 67, and Mark affirms this after seeing it in hand. It has a star designation I believe rightly so for its really nice toning and hopefully it is AT and not what they consider market acceptable. But mistakes like this are huge, because if something as blatant like this gets out of NGC's grading room what about all the other so called subjective calls that they are making that isn't this obvious. This example here is practically a crime in my mind and maybe I am the only one who believes this stringly but I hate to see this and I hate to see what this does to the credibility of NGC. And to think it was in a old 64 holder and the graders popped it out and placed it in the current one. As far as I am concerned NGC is falling by the wayside they need to change where they are heading imo!

 

P. S. I happen to own a 1835 H10c MS65 ogh PCGS LM-8.2 and this one isn't any better grade wise, now color wise is a different story, the color of the subject coin is infinitely better but that is what the star designation is for.

If you can, forget for a moment that the coin was previously (under-graded as) an MS 64. Viewing the coin objectively, I think that most people would grade it MS65 or MS66. If so, it is over-graded by a point or two. Do I hate that? I sure do. Is NGC the only highly regarded grading company that has done that? I don't think so. You're taking one extreme example that you happen to be aware of and making what appear to be unfair generalizations.

 

You like to study and do research - do some checking on the previous grading history of the AU58 1804 Silver dollar, as well as the King of Siam 1804 Proof set and report back to us.

[123cents]

The coin is definitely over graded at MS-67 and is fugly to me.

[IrishMike]

To suggest that grading is almost a criminal activity is either a bad choice of words or overly dramatic. To state that here in their forum is um ballsy but not too wise. They'd boot you for that comment across the street. I don't know what stringly means though.

[mommam17]

I have never seen the coin. Mark puts it in the 65-66 range. Graders had a range of 64-67*. What SHOCKS me is people don`t like the look of the coin. To me, looking at the picture, it has an awesome look!

[gmarguli]

It looks like someone poured chemicals on it. There are also way too many ugly spots.

[Doogy]

This grading of the 1835 H10c really really disturbs me, it is obvious from the photo that there are hits on the obverse to prevent it from going 67, and Mark affirms this after seeing it in hand. It has a star designation I believe rightly so for its really nice toning and hopefully it is AT and not what they consider market acceptable. But mistakes like this are huge, because if something as blatant like this gets out of NGC's grading room what about all the other so called subjective calls that they are making that isn't this obvious. This example here is practically a crime in my mind and maybe I am the only one who believes this stringly but I hate to see this and I hate to see what this does to the credibility of NGC. And to think it was in a old 64 holder and the graders popped it out and placed it in the current one. As far as I am concerned NGC is falling by the wayside they need to change where they are heading imo!

 

P. S. I happen to own a 1835 H10c MS65 ogh PCGS LM-8.2 and this one isn't any better grade wise, now color wise is a different story, the color of the subject coin is infinitely better but that is what the star designation is for.

If you can, forget for a moment that the coin was previously (under-graded as) an MS 64. Viewing the coin objectively, I think that most people would grade it MS65 or MS66. If so, it is over-graded by a point or two. Do I hate that? I sure do. Is NGC the only highly regarded grading company that has done that? I don't think so. You're taking one extreme example that you happen to be aware of and making what appear to be unfair generalizations.

 

You like to study and do research - do some checking on the previous grading history of the AU58 1804 Silver dollar, as well as the King of Siam 1804 Proof set and report back to us.

 

 

Mark- don't go bursting his PCGS bubble. His rants on NGC across-the-street were sad at worst, funny at best. If we were to point out all of the major infamous grading goofs that PCGS has made over the years, it would make his head swim. It is easy to have an unqualified bias for one TPG when one doesn't know their history.

[MAULEMALL]

This grading of the 1835 H10c really really disturbs me, it is obvious from the photo that there are hits on the obverse to prevent it from going 67, and Mark affirms this after seeing it in hand. It has a star designation I believe rightly so for its really nice toning and hopefully it is AT and not what they consider market acceptable. But mistakes like this are huge, because if something as blatant like this gets out of NGC's grading room what about all the other so called subjective calls that they are making that isn't this obvious. This example here is practically a crime in my mind and maybe I am the only one who believes this stringly but I hate to see this and I hate to see what this does to the credibility of NGC. And to think it was in a old 64 holder and the graders popped it out and placed it in the current one. As far as I am concerned NGC is falling by the wayside they need to change where they are heading imo!

 

P. S. I happen to own a 1835 H10c MS65 ogh PCGS LM-8.2 and this one isn't any better grade wise, now color wise is a different story, the color of the subject coin is infinitely better but that is what the star designation is for.

If you can, forget for a moment that the coin was previously (under-graded as) an MS 64. Viewing the coin objectively, I think that most people would grade it MS65 or MS66. If so, it is over-graded by a point or two. Do I hate that? I sure do. Is NGC the only highly regarded grading company that has done that? I don't think so. You're taking one extreme example that you happen to be aware of and making what appear to be unfair generalizations.

 

You like to study and do research - do some checking on the previous grading history of the AU58 1804 Silver dollar, as well as the King of Siam 1804 Proof set and report back to us.

 

 

Mark- don't go bursting his PCGS bubble. His rants on NGC across-the-street were sad at worst, funny at best. If we were to point out all of the major infamous grading goofs that PCGS has made over the years, it would make his head swim. It is easy to have an unqualified bias for one TPG when one doesn't know their history.

Well said Doogy.. (thumbs u

[realone]

Case in point every time whether it be NGC or PCGS makes one of these major blunders I say the same exact thing hoping to c all attemtion to it. I do beleive that NGC makes these mistakes more often than PCGS and I have been very clear about, so when Doogy starts making personal attackes when defending NGC I see he is just gradping at straws. Why can't collectors work together and make the TPG's, all of them, take responsibilty for their actions and prevent these giant mistakes from occurring rather than attacking each other with personal insults which accomplish nothing. Doogy if you believe I am an hole that is your perogative but wouldn't it be nice to hold NGC and PCGS to task and improve our hobby, because that is what I would like to see, I just direct my anger to the TPG's, this time to NGC, in order to effectuate change, someday they will listen, especailly when all collectors band together.

[MarkFeld]

This grading of the 1835 H10c really really disturbs me, it is obvious from the photo that there are hits on the obverse to prevent it from going 67, and Mark affirms this after seeing it in hand. It has a star designation I believe rightly so for its really nice toning and hopefully it is AT and not what they consider market acceptable. But mistakes like this are huge, because if something as blatant like this gets out of NGC's grading room what about all the other so called subjective calls that they are making that isn't this obvious. This example here is practically a crime in my mind and maybe I am the only one who believes this stringly but I hate to see this and I hate to see what this does to the credibility of NGC. And to think it was in a old 64 holder and the graders popped it out and placed it in the current one. As far as I am concerned NGC is falling by the wayside they need to change where they are heading imo!

 

P. S. I happen to own a 1835 H10c MS65 ogh PCGS LM-8.2 and this one isn't any better grade wise, now color wise is a different story, the color of the subject coin is infinitely better but that is what the star designation is for.

If you can, forget for a moment that the coin was previously (under-graded as) an MS 64. Viewing the coin objectively, I think that most people would grade it MS65 or MS66. If so, it is over-graded by a point or two. Do I hate that? I sure do. Is NGC the only highly regarded grading company that has done that? I don't think so. You're taking one extreme example that you happen to be aware of and making what appear to be unfair generalizations.

 

You like to study and do research - do some checking on the previous grading history of the AU58 1804 Silver dollar, as well as the King of Siam 1804 Proof set and report back to us.

 

 

Mark- don't go bursting his PCGS bubble. His rants on NGC across-the-street were sad at worst, funny at best. If we were to point out all of the major infamous grading goofs that PCGS has made over the years, it would make his head swim. It is easy to have an unqualified bias for one TPG when one doesn't know their history.

Well said Doogy.. (thumbs u

I think that Alan went a bit overboard in some of his comments, but let's not lose sight of these important facts:

 

1) at one point the coin graded MS64

2) it was resubmitted and/but did not upgrade

3) it subsequently upgraded to MS67*

 

I believe that deep disappointment, loss of confidence in third party grading and outrage are reasonable/appropriate responses. NGC does not have a monopoly on significant upgrades on coins, however.

[gmarguli]

I think that Alan went a bit overboard in some of his comments, but let's not lose sight of these important facts:

 

1) at one point the coin graded MS64

2) it was resubmitted and/but did not upgrade

3) it subsequently upgraded to MS67*

 

I believe that deep disappointment, loss of confidence in third party grading and outrage are reasonable/appropriate responses. NGC does not have a monopoly on significant upgrades on coins, however.

 

Can someone please clarify the following for me:

 

Poorguy states: I came across this lot that resembled a coin that we had sold back in 2005. When I got back to the office and checked our archives, I confirmed it was the same coin. Now when I originally sold it, I felt it definitely had a strong chance for a higher grade and sent it in a couple of times but had a client that knew about it and after the second upgrade attempt didn't fly, I just sold it to the client knowing it was much nicer than what it was graded at the time.

 

A few posts later, TDN states: "Notice that the coin originally resided in an OLD holder from NGC - graded early 1990's. I have found some exceptional coins in those holders.

 

So if both are correct, poorguy owned the coin around 2005 and at that time resubmitted it at least twice before he sold it. Yet the slab that the coin was in when sold on their website was used around the early 1990's.

[MarkFeld]

I think that Alan went a bit overboard in some of his comments, but let's not lose sight of these important facts:

 

1) at one point the coin graded MS64

2) it was resubmitted and/but did not upgrade

3) it subsequently upgraded to MS67*

 

I believe that deep disappointment, loss of confidence in third party grading and outrage are reasonable/appropriate responses. NGC does not have a monopoly on significant upgrades on coins, however.

 

Can someone please clarify the following for me:

 

Poorguy states: I came across this lot that resembled a coin that we had sold back in 2005. When I got back to the office and checked our archives, I confirmed it was the same coin. Now when I originally sold it, I felt it definitely had a strong chance for a higher grade and sent it in a couple of times but had a client that knew about it and after the second upgrade attempt didn't fly, I just sold it to the client knowing it was much nicer than what it was graded at the time.

 

A few posts later, TDN states: "Notice that the coin originally resided in an OLD holder from NGC - graded early 1990's. I have found some exceptional coins in those holders.

 

So if both are correct, poorguy owned the coin around 2005 and at that time resubmitted it at least twice before he sold it. Yet the slab that the coin was in when sold on their website was used around the early 1990's.

Greg, here are the possibilities that occur to me:

 

A) One of them is mistaken?

2) They are both right - the coin was in the old slab when it appeared on Anaconda's website, but resubmitted later, before it was sold?

3) They are both right - the coin was resubmitted at the time it appeared on Anaconda's website, but left in its original holder by NGC?

4) Other?

[mommam17]

People are trying to judge a coin from a picture. Good luck! You should listen to NGC and Mark Feld who had the coin in their hands.

[bsshog40]

People are trying to judge a coin from a picture. Good luck! You should listen to NGC and Mark Feld who had the coin in their hands.

 

I agree, how many times have we seen pics of coins that just do not do the coin justice?

[gmarguli]

People are trying to judge a coin from a picture. Good luck! You should listen to NGC and Mark Feld who had the coin in their hands.

 

But Mark Feld & NGC disagree, so which one should we listen to?

[MarkFeld]

People are trying to judge a coin from a picture. Good luck! You should listen to NGC and Mark Feld who had the coin in their hands.

 

But Mark Feld & NGC disagree, so which one should we listen to?

Actually, I agree with NGC's average grade for the coin - 65.5