NGC vs PCGS grading question

[jesbroken]

ATS on BST the following two coins are being offered, an 1846 Liberty Seated Dollar and an 1848 Liberty Seated Dollar. The issue I offer for your opinion is that they both are graded AU55. PCGS graded the 1846 and NGC graded the 1848 coin. Now I would like for someone to explain to me the reasoning that PCGS could possibly have had for this grade. I would agree the reverse is an AU55 specimen, but the obverse--no way-not even close. Maybe I'm wrong and my EF45 LS$ is actually an AU58 instead-Oh to have sent my dollar to them the day they graded this one. Let me know your opinions please.

Jim

 

PCGS

 

 

 

NGC

 

 

[MarkFeld]

If I didn't know the assigned grades, I would probably guess XF45 on the first coin and AU50 or AU53 on the second one. However, it's possible that one or both look very different in-hand, especially in terms of luster.

[bsshog40]

The way I'm seeing it is maybe that the PCGS has less contact marks than the NGC. Thus maybe allowing for the extra bump in grade. The NGC has more detail but also has more contact marks. Seems maybe both averaged the grades?

[dean1345]

If I were to grade them by the photos. The PCGS 1846 would be EF-40 and the NGC 1848 would be a AU-53. Like Mark stated previously, in hand one might have more luster than the other.

 

Dean

[jesbroken]

Mark,

Then how would you think that ANACS would have graded this LS$?

Jim

 

ANACS

 

[MarkFeld]

Mark,

Then how would you think that ANACS would have graded this LS$?

Jim

Jim, I probably would have guessed AU50 on that one.

[jesbroken]

ANACS graded this coin at EF45. Again, it confuses me that PCGS could in anyway have graded the obverse on the above coin AU anything. But that's me and I'm no grading genius, but on this neither was PCGS. JMHO

Jim

[James_OldeTowne]

The PCGS coin seems a little overgraded. However, the NGC coin appears from the images to be less original, and perhaps warrants a silent net grade (down).

[michael]

sight seen might be different

 

but.................................

 

 

mistakes happen

 

 

 

[BillJones]

Both grading services have gone through periods when they over graded circulated coins. This was especially true of key date items, like the 1916-D Mercury dime, where the services watered down the standards.

 

As for the two coins, in a way I like the first coin more despite the fact that it is in lower grade. Yes, I agree with Mark that that coin is an EF-45, not an AU. The second coin as AU sharpness, but it looks like it has been dipped and not properly rinsed. The coin has AU sharpness, but because of the dipping it has eye appeal issues for me.

[WoodenJefferson]

That’s a real road map of high point wear there on the obverse of that 1846, that image alone could become the poster child for XF-45 details.

 

Now, the question is, how did the reverse survive that amount of light abrasion? Stored “tails up” in a cabinet? Different lighting in the image masking a unseen wear pattern? I don’t know…but what I do know, who ever buys that coin with that assigned grade, better never ever, under any circumstances crack that coin out of that holder.

 

Not the answer you were looking for, but reassurance that your eyes alone were not playing tricks.

 

Yet another reason to buy the coin, not the plastic.

 

[Raybo55]

The PCGS coin seems a little overgraded. However, the NGC coin appears from the images to be less original, and perhaps warrants a silent net grade (down).

 

 

I agree.

 

 

Ray