Who grades what more consistently?

[rons]

PCGS and NGC both have their supporters. In your experience which TPG grades Walking Liberty Half Dollars more accurately and consistently? It would be interesting to do this for each type but lets start with Walkers. Anyone have an opinion and rationale for their opinion? Thanks

[okbustchaser]

Define accurately...Both companies grade to their own standards. As such, both can be considered either accurate (if you agree with their standards) or inaccurate(again, depending on how you feel about their standards).

 

As for consistancy (in other words, would the same coin receive the same grade if resubmitted raw) I grade both companies as merely fair.

[MikeInFL]

The series I follow most closely, braided hair large cents (1840-57): I don't see a great deal of difference in consistency between the two. They both grade pretty consistently, but they just grade differently.

 

However, we should be careful not to rely on TPG grading tendencies too much as it pushes us further away from judging the coin for what it is.

 

Respectfully submitted as my observation and opinon only...Mike

 

[michael]

neither...........................

 

they are all inconsistantly market graded to the current market that is always in a state of flux

 

add to that the subjectivety of coin grading by a for profit private concern with no regulated standards and you got quite a mix

 

 

just make sure if you buy a slab the coin inside meets your standards for

grade

eye appeal

and then price.......... and sometimes these three items align just right and you buy the coin in the slab sometimes it is ngc and sometimes pcgs

[BillJones]

When it comes to Walking Liberty half dollars, I would not recommend one company over the other. This is especially true if you are looking for these coins in MS-65.

 

For the past couple of years I’ve been working a set of Walking Liberty half dollars for a customer. I looked at Mint State graded coins in MS-63, 64 and 65 for his set. I was quite disappointed with the general quality of the MS-65 graded coins relative to those in MS-64 holders. Despite the fact that the “bids” for the MS-65 coins were often as much as three times those for the 64 coins, the quality was not superior. In fact at times the MS-65 coins on a case by case basis were not as good as some select MS-64 coins. For that reason I sold him MS-64 graded pieces with a couple of exceptions.

 

One exception was, I believe, the 1938-P half dollar. I had a hard time finding that piece in an MS-64 holder. Most of the examples offered were in MS-65, with the usual high asking prices. Finally I found a really nice coin that easily graded MS-64 in an NGC holder. Oddly enough the coin was graded MS-63! The dealer from whom I purchased it told me that she had paid MS-64 money for it without looking at the assigned grade because she had assumed from the look that it carried the MS-64 grade. I had to agree and purchased the coin for the MS-64 price. I sold it to my customer for a nominal (below 10%) mark-up to fill that slot in his set.

 

Bottom line: Buy the coin NOT the holder. Neither of the two leading firms get it right all the time, and at least when it comes to Walking Liberty haves, both firms have holder many coins correctly, and both firms have also over and under graded some pieces.

 

[Treeman]

"The series I follow most closely, braided hair large cents (1840-57): I don't see a great deal of difference in consistency between the two. They both grade pretty consistently, but they just grade differently."

Large Cents are my favorites too. I find that BOTH services put AU coins into MS63 holders a lot of the time! As for MS65 and 66 coins, it's a wash. However, when you get down to the coins graded XF40 and XF45, the NGC coins are USUALLY much nicer than the PCGS coins.

 

[rons]

Thanks to all for their input. In retrospect, I see I should have been clearer in my question. I try to use photograde when I grade coins and I wondered if either company gets close to that standard. The responses seem to indicate that is a negative. I welcome all input as I am trying to complete a short set and have been happy with most of the graded coins I have but wondered if either company had a leg up in this series.

[coinman1794]

PCGS and NGC both have their supporters. In your experience which TPG grades Walking Liberty Half Dollars more accurately and consistently? It would be interesting to do this for each type but lets start with Walkers. Anyone have an opinion and rationale for their opinion? Thanks

 

There are many series in which the grading services maintain different standards than one another - Lincoln cents, Washington quarters, Early US and more. However, they are pretty much the same on Walking Liberty halves. Both NGC and PCGS seem to grade the 64s at 64, and a 65s at 65 most of the time. I've seen very few undergraded Walkers. I have seen many overrgaded pieces from both services, however.

[jackson64]

I actually collect Walkers as my primary focus and I can say without doubt that there is absolutely no consistency in regards to Walkers by any grading service....

 

I have 63's that look as nice if not better than some 66's.....they vary their grades from date to date....for example, the 1941-S and 1943-S coins you often see with mushy strikes and several contact marks are graded 65 at times and would not grade 63 without the mintmarks....

 

They make considerations for weakly struck years ( I have all 5 1917's and the quality is wide ranging but they all are 63 or 64)...but they are not consistent in these concessions......

 

Sometimes a point will be given for exceptional strike details...at other times the point is for luster.......and I've seen 66's that have toning, but without the toning it would be debateable whether they were even BU....

 

I generally try not to even look at the slab grade when I am formulating a value/offer...for the price difference ANACS often has some very nice coins that would easily crossover or upgrade on crackouts..

 

PS: I must add that I see alot of NGC dipped Walkers in 65 slabs that PCGS would never give a gem grade to...

[stev32k]

I collect Trade Dollars in AU or proof and find that all three services can vary quite a bit. NGC will normally grade about one grade higher than PCGS. The older small ANACS slabs will grade like a PCGS coin, but I won't buy a coin in one of the new ANACS holders unless I see it in hand. The coin below is one of several I've seen that leads me to that conclusion. It is in a new ANACS holder graded as AU58 with no designation for cleaning.

 

It has been dipped out until there is no luster at all. I would have returned it but was out of town when it arrived and I didn't get to look at it for several weeks.

 

[John Maben]

NGC is by far, in my opinion, the most consistent of the two. I don't even bother to include the others. Why would you?

[jgrinz]

NGC is by far, in my opinion, the most consistent of the two. I don't even bother to include the others. Why would you?

 

From a person who idividually/CO sends in 1000's of coins per month to TPG's - I would believe what John has to say (thumbs u

[GDJMSP]

Define accurately...Both companies grade to their own standards.

 

 

You, like many others, myself included, have made this or a similar comment many times. But I would ask another question regarding this - why do we make such comments and upon what do we base it ? Do we do it because we have always been told that each company has its own set of standards or do we just make that assumption ? We do after all know that PCGS has a set of standards and what those standards are - they are published. But has anyone ever actually seen a written set of standards that is used by NGC ? I have not. And every person I have ever asked has not seen one either. But yet we still make such comments. I for one would like very much to know exactly what those standards are.

 

That being said, the original question of consistentcy is a bit harder to answer for all we have to go by is the end product - the graded coins. All we can do with coins graded by NGC is to compare them to one another in order to judge consistency. And based on that I would have to say that NGC is indeed more consistent than PCGS. Yes both companies make mistakes in regard to over-grading and under-grading, but in my opinion NGC makes fewer of them.

 

Now that does not speak to accuracy, for as stated by okbustchaser - how do we define it ? Or perhaps a better question would be, upon which standards do we judge it ? I think that the two things - accuracy and consistentcy are separate and distinct questions that can only be answered based upon on our own individual opinons for we truly have nothing else to go by. And that begs the question - which set of standards do you use upon which to base that opinion ?

[John Maben]

"We do after all know that PCGS has a set of standards and what those standards are - they are published. But has anyone ever actually seen a written set of standards that is used by NGC ? I have not. And every person I have ever asked has not seen one either. But yet we still make such comments. I for one would like very much to know exactly what those standards are."

 

Published standards mean nothing as they are not always followed due to various factors. Some will say standards are "fluid", but at a minimum they are always subject to interpretation that varies from expert to expert. I applaud NGC for never coming forward with a "grading set" or standards that are written in stone as it implies there is a science to this and there isn't, it is an art. I have been told that over the years coins are always being added, deleted, grades changed etc to grading sets, so what the %&^$ does it really mean? Nothing, in my opinion.

 

Perhaps if solely for educational purposes, yes, but not to say, "this is how we grade".

 

John

 

 

 

[realone]

Damn I hate to have to ruin the party but I just returned a number of NGC ms65 capped bust H10c's and 10C's because they were all overgraded. In fact there is one for sale on RAre Coin Wholesalers it is a NGC H10c MS65 1830 that was previously in a pcgs MS64 slab and this happens all the time. So I don't know what you guys are smoking but imho NGC does a heck of a lot of overgrading especially with toned capped busts coins. Sorry for causing trouble again but it is the new year.

 

 

Edited to correct h10c was in a pcgs ms64 slab.

[GDJMSP]

 

Published standards mean nothing as they are not always followed due to various factors.

 

 

What factors ?

 

 

Some will say standards are "fluid", but at a minimum they are always subject to interpretation that varies from expert to expert.

 

By fluid I can only assume that you mean that standards are constantly changing. But by definition, if that were the case then there really aren't any standards are there ? I think perhaps too many people use this explanation as an excuse for their own failings when to comes to grading coins. They are either reluctant to admit to themselves that they could be the ones who made a mistake or perhaps they are unwilling to admit that their favorite grading company made one.

 

As for the standards being open to interpretation, I would be inclined to agree in the case of MS grades. But I rather think that in circulated grades it is a bit more cut and dried.

 

 

I applaud NGC for never coming forward with a "grading set" or standards that are written in stone as it implies there is a science to this and there isn't, it is an art. I have been told that over the years coins are always being added, deleted, grades changed etc to grading sets, so what the %&^$ does it really mean? Nothing, in my opinion.

 

Perhaps if solely for educational purposes, yes, but not to say, "this is how we grade".

 

John

 

 

 

Again I would agree that grading coins is an art and not an exact science. But even an art has certain rules & guidelines (standards) that are followed. And you say that you have been told - may I ask, told by whom ? And did they really know what they were talking about or were they perhaps just pontificating ?

[Conder101]

But has anyone ever actually seen a written set of standards that is used by NGC ? I have not. And every person I have ever asked has not seen one either.

Actually yes they did publish their grading standards several years before PCGS did. They never pushed or promoted it though and it attracted very little attention at the time. And of course there was also the NGC grading guide for modern coins published in 2004.

[RGT]

I collect Trade Dollars in AU or proof and find that all three services can vary quite a bit. NGC will normally grade about one grade higher than PCGS. The older small ANACS slabs will grade like a PCGS coin, but I won't buy a coin in one of the new ANACS holders unless I see it in hand. The coin below is one of several I've seen that leads me to that conclusion. It is in a new ANACS holder graded as AU58 with no designation for cleaning.

 

I don't have as much experience with these as you appear to have, but I can add one data point in opposition. I purchased an ANACS AU58 Trade Dollar a few years back on ebay, in the old small holder. The coin appeared to be lightly cleaned to me. It had no hairlines but did have some "smears" that made it look like a window that was poorly cleaned.

 

I sent the coin to be reholdered back when JT was at ANACS. The coin came back in an AU55 CLEANED holder. ANACS paid me for the downgrade more than my original purchase price. After JT left I sent a few other coins in that I thought were cleaned. This time they simply placed the cleaned coins in the new no-problem holders.

 

I think that when the new day at ANACS started they were indeed trying to improve standards and get the problem coins out of their no-problem holders. After JT left they seem to have decided that it was costing them too much to make all their old mistakes right. You really have to look at any of them in hand, old or new holders, before you buy or at least have a good return priveledge. That's true of NGC and PCGS too as I've seen some really nasty looking cleaned/dipped out coins in those holders too.

 

Not to take the thread too far off course, but I am cautiously optimistic about ANACS with JT back. I don't know if he will resume trying to clean up the mess or if he has deep enough pockets, but I am interested in seeing. Their "standards" did improve while he was there (with the exception of moderns which they used to grade more conservatively than PCGS) but they went back to their old ways (or worse) this past year.

 

I guess all this means that I think there is little consistency in the new ANACS holders due partially to who was at the helm over the last couple of years.

[dgreene56-migration]

Just look at the prices realized for a given coin in a given grade when you have a contemporaneous sale in competing TPG slabs. This sheds light on the marketplace perception of who is most consistent for a given grade.

[GDJMSP]

But has anyone ever actually seen a written set of standards that is used by NGC ? I have not. And every person I have ever asked has not seen one either.

Actually yes they did publish their grading standards several years before PCGS did. They never pushed or promoted it though and it attracted very little attention at the time.

 

 

Can you tell me the title of that book Conder - I'd love to have one.

[RGT]

Just look at the prices realized for a given coin in a given grade when you have a contemporaneous sale in competing TPG slabs. This sheds light on the marketplace perception of who is most consistent for a given grade.

 

I think this indicates the markets perception of who is more conservative rather than who is more consistent. The majority perception is often not reality. I tend to think of NGC as the most consistent though I'm not happy with the consistency of any of the first tier TPGs.

 

SGS is likely the most consistent of all since the consistently grade everything MS70.

[John Maben]

"By fluid I can only assume that you mean that standards are constantly changing. But by definition, if that were the case then there really aren't any standards are there ? I think perhaps too many people use this explanation as an excuse for their own failings when to comes to grading coins. They are either reluctant to admit to themselves that they could be the ones who made a mistake or perhaps they are unwilling to admit that their favorite grading company made one.

 

As for the standards being open to interpretation, I would be inclined to agree in the case of MS grades. But I rather think that in circulated grades it is a bit more cut and dried."

 

 

Constantly changing? No, I would not agree with that at all. I think the word is slowly "evolving" which indicates change though not random. Are there standards? Yes, so long as you realize they are not, and can not be written in stone. Circulated coins are not exempt from interpretation. I think there is a big difference between a grading "guide" intended to educate, and a grading set of coins that is touted as representing a standard as though that standard is concrete. Every coin is different, and every persons interpretation of the grade is not the same.

 

 

[Conder101]

Do you remember the test that Coin World did several years ago sending the same group of coins to each of the services? For every coin there was a range of grades with some grading higher and some lower. But one person took those ranges and found the "average" grade for each and surprise one of the grading services had hit that "averaged" grade on I believe every coin. That sounds like one measure of consistency to me. Which service was it?

 

 

 

 

 

Accugrade.

[BillJones]

Sadly I have never viewed the circulated coin grading standards to be “cut and dried” at all unless you believe that consistent over grading is an established standard. Single handedly the two grading services lowered the standards for grading almost every key date coin you can name.

 

Before slabbing among legitimate dealers a VF 1916-D Mercury dime had to have all of the vertical lines in the ax complete. In fact they were supposed to be there for a Fine coin although they could weak. Now what used to be VG is now VF, and the grading services did that.

 

Similarly an 1877 Indian always had to have a complete “LIBERTY” to be a VF. Even a Fine had to have all the letters there, although they could be a tiny bit blurred. Today, you guessed it, VG is now VF.

 

I could go on with more examples, but you get the picture. Although the grading services did tighten things up for the Mint State coins, they got fast and lose with the circulated grades, which means that the small collectors, who can’t afford the Mint State stuff, got hosed.

 

I’ve seen some improvement out there in the grading of circulated coins by the TPGs, but the over graded stuff will be out there forever.

 

[Conder101]

Amen Bill, Amen

 

I've got a PCGS 1916-D dime on my watch list PCGS called it a G-6. It has no rims on either side and on the reverse the rim is worn halfway down into the lettering. When I learned grading back in the early 70's that was a Fair to About Good. If you want numbers call it a 2+. PCGS says it's borderline VG.

[GDJMSP]

I understand what you are saying Bill, and can't say that I disagree with it. However you are comparing two different sets of standards. The ANA standards, even in the 1st edition, say that Liberty has to be complete for an F12 grade. They say the same thing in the 6th edition. I think you'll find the same thing even going back to Brown & Dunn though I don't have my copy at my fingertips. And that is exactly what I meant when I said "somewhat more cut & dried". Don't leave out the somewhat, it's an important word in that sentence.

 

And the PCGS standards say that Liberty does not need to be complete even in the VF grades. But the TPG standards have always been that way, they are much more lax than the ANA standards. So if that is what you mean by consistent overgrading, then yeah I agree.

 

But if the TPG's have their own set of standards and they adhere to them, it is by that and that alone that we must judge the consistency of their grading. Again, as I mentioned earlier, consistency and accuracy are two different things. It is all too easy to to say that they are or are not consistent because you question the accuracy. I agree completely and wholeheartedly that the TPG's over-grade just about any coin if you make that judgement based upon the ANA standards. But if you make the judgement based upon the TPG's standards, then they are pretty close. Even if they do still make some mistakes.

 

That being said, and following my own guidelines for making a judgement, I would still have to say that NGC follows their standards (or what I perceive them to be) more closely and consistently than PCGS does.

 

And Conder, I'd still like to know the name of that book so I can try to find a copy.

[BillJones]

Well let's see ...

 

Before the TPGs came along the big complaint was that dealers over graded and over charged for their coins as a result. The idea behind the TPG was to put a big dint in that.

 

The TPGs fixed a lot of the problems when it came to Mint State and Proof coins, but they dropped the ball when it came to the circulated grades. The reason for that was the big dealers who wanted the TPGs for fix things did not care about the circulated coins nearly as much.

 

This line that the serivces have their own grading standards is a slippery slope and really a load of bull. Crooked coin dealers, like Riverside Coin Company, which was in business in the 1970s, had "our unique grading system that allows us to sell to you at lower prices." Their unique grading system was so good that they got convicted of mail fraud. And their "low prices" were based on cleaned and whizzed coins and flat out over grading. In the end you paid twice, three times or more what the coin was worth.

 

The TPGs lowered the circulated coin grading stadards to a level was that lower than the old ANACS papers. It was their invention, and it has nothing going for it that should be admired.

[MikeInFL]

Bill,

 

To equate TPGs to Riverside because they both grade do a different standard than the ANA is disingenuous.

 

GDJMSP's observations, IMHO, are 100% correct. It is consistency that matters, not the particular standard (i.e. accuracy).

 

Just like I have no problem buying coins graded by EAC or a TPG (or anyone else for that matter), we shouldn't get caugh up in the grading standard. It is the individual coin (and the price!) that matters.

 

Respecfully...Mike

[GDJMSP]

 

This line that the serivces have their own grading standards is a slippery slope and really a load of bull.

 

No, it's not a load of bull - they do have their own standards. Just like you have your own standards, or at least a different set of standards that you follow. The same goes for me, and most others I know. You and I rather obviously don't agree with the standards that the TPG's use, but that doesn't mean they don't have any.

 

The TPGs lowered the circulated coin grading stadards to a level was that lower than the old ANACS papers. It was their invention, and it has nothing going for it that should be admired.

 

On that we agree.

[BillJones]

Bill,

 

To equate TPGs to Riverside because they both grade do a different standard than the ANA is disingenuous.

 

GDJMSP's observations, IMHO, are 100% correct. It is consistency that matters, not the particular standard (i.e. accuracy).

 

Just like I have no problem buying coins graded by EAC or a TPG (or anyone else for that matter), we shouldn't get caugh up in the grading standard. It is the individual coin (and the price!) that matters.

 

Respecfully...Mike

 

But the whole point is they have NOT applied their standards consistently. There are 1877 Indian cents out there in PCGS EF and AU holders that meet the ANA standards. And there are many 1877 Indian cents in EF and AU that are no better than Choice VF by ANA standards. When you see ads in Coin World for '77 Indians, which one do you want to buy? There are some dealers, like JJ Teaparty, who make an effort to market the correctly graded pieces. That's part of the reason why their prices are "high." Most are more than happy to sell the overgraded product.

 

The troublt is when you get ready to sell the properly graded coin, you are going have a hard time getting a fair price for it. You can play the crack and regrade game, but that's dicey and expensive.

 

Both grading services went though a very lax period when it came to grading key date circulated coins. Then they tightened up. I don't see any consistency there.