FIRST SPOUSE NGC VS PCGS

[kenbcpa-migration]

Hello everyone, I have only posted once but I really do not understand why the PCGS First Spouse graded coins especially the MS 70 and PF 70 are selling for so much more than NGC.

 

If someone can please explain why that is I would appreciate it.

 

Also, if someone can answer if that will eventually level out and things will become more =?

 

Are the PCGS grading of the 70's better than that of NGC?

 

I hope I am even allowed to ask these questions without getting booted off --- really not sure?

 

Is is better to buy PCGS over NGC?

 

Sorry, I just am not totally following and want to make the correct investments. I am good with taxes and accounting more than willing to trade information.

 

Thanks for all the help anyone can provide.

 

Ken.

[gmarguli]

A few reasons:

 

1) On a percentage basis, PCGS gives out less 70s than NGC. Not saying that a PCGS 70 is better than an NGC 70, but just that PCGS likes to control the population of coins while NGC likes to grade coins.

 

2) NGC grades more moderns than PCGS, so there is going to be more of them on the market.

 

3) Some people like to play the PCGS registry which requires only PCGS coins.

 

These coins aren't going to be rare in either holder, so buy what you feel is the best value.

 

[MikeInFL]

IMO, there is no such thing as a "correct investment" when it comes to (non-bullion) coins. The buy/sell spreads and transaction costs are simply too large. Would you buy a mutual fund with a 10% or larger load? That's exactly what you're getting with coins, and 10% is an underestimate. Word to the wise -- invest elsewhere unless your investment goal is losing money. Respectfully submitted...Mike

 

p.s. Greg's answers above are accurate, IMO.

[DC Dawg]

1) On a percentage basis, PCGS gives out less 70s than NGC. Not saying that a PCGS 70 is better than an NGC 70, but just that PCGS likes to control the population of coins while NGC likes to grade coins.

This is an interesting comment. When I did my Masters, one of the classes I had to take was one that discussed business strategy. Strategy was how to gain market advantages and understand what the difference was between ethical and legal, especially in context of the creating competitive advantages.

 

Of the case studies used for the class was the case against AT&T that broke up the original Bell System and IBM. One of the market manipulators that AT&T used to use was the tactic of "not allowing" customers to buy their own equipment or their network would not work. This turned out to be untrue and was one of the arguments used to open the network. IBM, on the other hand, did not dominate with "threats of not working." They used their knowledge of competitive advantages to keep market shares. The case against IBM was dropped in the 1990s because the government could not prove that IBM abused their position in the industry as a competitive disadvantage.

 

Think of PCGS in the light of AT&T. Rather than grade a coin on its merit, they control the grades to give a perception that PCGS coins are "better" and have "the value" than others do. Just like AT&T used to manipulate the market to keep customers locked and others out, PCGS is manipulating the market to their own competitive advantages.

 

Competition is legal and something I believe in. What I question is manipulating the populations to create a perception of a competitive advantage. If Greg's statement can be proven, a public company like Collectors' Universe can be sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission under various provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act which speaks to market manipulation and closes certain loopholes that allows the government to step in before violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

 

OOPS: I just looked it up... congress let Clayton lapse in 2002 and never renewed its provisions. Some say it is one of the reasons we have the current credit crisis. Oh well... so much for preventing predatory business practices!

 

Of course the manipulation has to be proven and not a matter of insinuation. innuendo, or rumor. Until then, I would be careful about accusing PCGS of market manipulation.

 

Scott

[James_OldeTowne]

Hello everyone, I have only posted once but I really do not understand why the PCGS First Spouse graded coins especially the MS 70 and PF 70 are selling for so much more than NGC.

 

If someone can please explain why that is I would appreciate it.

 

The simplest and most sensible explanation is this: the PCGS 70 coins cost more. This really and truly is the only reason they must be priced higher than NGC 70 coins!

 

In other words, a dealer has to send in (say) twenty times as many coins to PCGS, meaning twenty times the overhead, for PCGS to grade a 70 correctly - mostly because they are so inconsistent. PCGS MUST keep the populations artificially low to perpetuate the perception that they are somehow "tighter" graders. This in turn plays into marketing of "registry sets".

 

Don't be fooled by purely artificial numbers. Here's the rule: Given a choice between PCGS 70 and NGC 70, ALWAYS buy the NGC coin because of the far more reasonable and sensible cost.

 

Ken, think about it this way. A coin is priced higher than identical other coins only when it costs more than the others.

 

Edited to add:

 

By the way, NGC won't boot you for asking a perfectly meaningful and sensible question. That's the PCGS strategy. You'll get straight answers here because there isn't a "Hall" monitor censoring out comments he doesn't agree with. You did the right thing posing your question over here, and you got good and honest responses.

[CHABSENTIA]

Perhaps a better analogy would be Microsoft. I was around during those days and at the time Apple had the better operating system.

 

Bill Gates made a deal with IBM . Actually a Canadian company around this time called Commodore Computers was probably more responsible for the advent of the personal home computers.

 

IBM did control 70% of the Market when Bill gates made the deal with them to feature his Operating system on all their Computers. It was a Moarketing ploy that established Microsoft even though it was not the better operating system.

 

Another would be Intel and their "Intel inside " logo. It was actually proven later that Intel when they controlled a large percentage of the Market would refuse to sell to Dealers who would purchase Computers with AMD processors. which made it a problem as the Marketing pf "intel insdie: was so successful that many buyers would request and only buy the Intel.

 

A case could probably be made that many buy PCGS solely for the low population and not that the quality of the coin is any better. This would also realte to the De beers consortium that onlt allowed a certain amount of diamonds on the Market so as to keep up the price.

[cpm9ball]

Bill Gates made a deal with IBM . Actually a Canadian company around this time called Commodore Computers was probably more responsible for the advent of the personal home computers.

 

IBM did control 70% of the Market when Bill gates made the deal with them to feature his Operating system on all their Computers. It was a Moarketing ploy that established Microsoft even though it was not the better operating system.

 

...........and it was a deal that IBM could hardly turn down because Gates asked for just $1 for each copy of the OS.

 

Chris

[ant]

comadore 64 was kool! you could play other games on it! i forget if it was colico vission or what but the cartrage games fit. i didnt know all that info! thanks for sharring.

[CHABSENTIA]

I don't remember how much Gates asked but I knew it was low. $1.00 posted by CPM sounds right. I became aware of the Commodore 64 because at te time I was in the Navy and worked for NATO in Italy.

 

 

There was an Electronics tech in the Navy who had one and as far as I know he was among the first to get one.This guy was somebody who liked all new things. I looked into it and purcahsed Stock in the Company and made some good Money.Sold it before it went away.

 

I mentioned earlier that I was from San Bernardino Calif and my Great Aunt personally knew the MacDonald Brothers before Ray Kroc discovered and expanded it. The Brothers ended up selling there Interest for one million dollars. in MacDonald Stock.Dont remember if this was for both or each. $ 1,0000,000 was worth a great deal more in the 50s and early 60s but they did not participate directly in the expansion.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't remember how much Gates asked but I knew it was low. $1.00 posted by CPM sounds right.

 

I'm old enough to remember CPM, the precursor to DOS !

[CHABSENTIA]

I can remember 3.2 Dos. Before that my memory is a little hazy. Before I went on to get my College degrees I was an Electronic Tech in the Navy. They didn't have a rate for Computers. They has people that did things such as Data entry people and they called them Machine accountants. At that time it took a whole building to house a Computer.

 

Later when Computers started to come of age they created a rate called Data Systems and they were concerned with Programming which later came into also repairing them as the reducing of size progressed.

 

I wanted to switch but at the time you could not switch from a more critical field to a less critical field and Electronics was more Critical as Data Systems was just being formed and most did not know the implications to come.

[James_OldeTowne]

I can remember 3.2 Dos. Before that my memory is a little hazy. Before I went on to get my College degrees I was an Electronic Tech in the Navy. They didn't have a rate for Computers. They has people that did things such as Data entry people and they called them Machine accountants. At that time it took a whole building to house a Computer.

 

Later when Computers started to come of age they created a rate called Data Systems and they were concerned with Programming which later came into also repairing them as the reducing of size progressed.

 

I wanted to switch but at the time you could not switch from a more critical field to a less critical field and Electronics was more Critical as Data Systems was just being formed and most did not know the implications to come.

 

I cut my teeth on the Apple ][e, and later the Apple ][c - which at the time was a fantastic computer, complete with a 14" color monitor. Later, I added the original IBM PC 4.77 megahertz to my repertoire. I remember DOS 2.1! If memory serves correct, the DOS 3.XX series was brought into play around the time hard drives (10Mb double-height form factor, if you can believe that) became "affordable" and required additional O/S capabilities. I also remember the disastrous DOS 4.XX series.

 

Wow, those were the days!

[coinman1794]

I'm not a bulk submitter of high-grade moderns, but it's been my experience on those I have submitted that NGC is more willing to assign MS70 to flawless coins that have mint-made imperfections in non-grade sensitive areas (strike-through marks, clashes, and the tiny flecks you see on silver eagles are examples of mint made imperfections), while PCGS seems to treat those as abrasions when assigning grades. Consequently, you have more NGC 70s while PCGS is giving more 69s. If my experiences bare any resemblance to the larger picture, this is the most likely cause of the population discrepancy. Then again, PCGS is so inconsistant on other coins that its hard to say!

 

I'm not a fan of the MS70 grade. Very few 70s are truly flawless. I think there needs to be a grade between 69 and 70 for virtually flawless coins that have a tiny strike-through, a couple mint-made flecks, or etc, because as I eluded to above, the services are in disagreement about what to do with those coins, which are technically flawless. Inconsistency isn't limited to the difference between companies either, it's present within each service. You never know if a mint-made flaw will cause a 69 or not. So, even MS70 is subjective.