Two new yellow label ANACS graded coins

[RGT]

James is pushing the negative side of ANACS and I see a lot of joining in, but no one cares to take the other side. Well, I'm not going to take the other side because I haven't seen enough of their newly graded coins, but I just received my first two coins in the yellow holder. I have two coins in the same new holder but with the blue label already and they seem accurately graded.

 

I do like their new holders much better than the flimsy ones. The seem quite sturdy and I can't really tell where the seam is where it is put together. I haven't tried to crack one yet so I'm not really sure how well made they are. The yellow label is different but I don't think it's ugly. For some reason it reminds me more of baseball cards than coins, and it does look a bit cheap.

 

So, tell me what you think they should have graded these two coins and I will tell you what they did grade them. It's not much, but two date points are better than none.

 

 

 

 

 

[bartlesvilleok]

ok I am going to be lazy and just ask the question instead of looking it up.

 

What is the difference in the blue and yellow label?

[James_OldeTowne]

I'll stick my neck out first - why not, it's Thanksgiving! I'll go with AU-58 on both coins.

 

I should point out that as an auction co., the good folks that I am cataloging for may be receiving dreck from sellers. It's possible that I am getting the worst of the worst coins because of some dumping going on, but I don't think it's the case.

 

There are plenty of correctly graded coins in ANACS yellow holders. It's the inconsistency and the strange policies regarding problem coins that I find puzzling.

[RGT]

Thanks for sticking your neck out James. Hopefully someone won't mistake your for a turkey and chop your head off.

 

I probably made this post at a bad time since everyone is traveling or just thinking about food and football. I'll give it some more time before I reveal the grade on the holders.

 

ANACS has always been inconsistent in my opinion, much like a couple of other grading companies. I have had the most problems with AU classics in the old small holders. Many of them were obviously cleaned and ugly. Of course I've seen the same in the other plastic too, but not quite as much.

 

These two are only somewhat random coins since I did have average ebay pictures before I bought them and they looked good from what I could see. I thought the stike was good on the nickel, but I'm not real familiar with how this date is normally struck up, so it could be average.

 

ok I am going to be lazy and just ask the question instead of looking it up.

 

What is the difference in the blue and yellow label?

 

I think the main difference is the color.

 

ANACS recently changed the color of the label from blue to yellow but I don't see any other difference in the holders. I did notice that they now say that coins sent in for reholder will get placed in the old blue label holders if the coin was graded before the change of ownership and will be placed in the gold label holder if graded after. To me that implies that they want you to think that the grading standard has gotten more strict and they don't want to identify the older, more poorly graded coins with the new ownership. What it probably really means is that they are trying to market from a different angle.

[Conder101]

What is the difference in the blue and yellow label?

Warning brief slab history coming.

 

In March of 2007 fake small size slabs for problem coins started coming out of China.

 

In August ANACS discontinued the use of the small sized slabs and began putting both problem and problem free coins in their larger blue holders.

 

In September in response to the counterfeiting and the complaints about the strength of the holder ANACS introduced a new holder of a rectangular shape with squared off corners and flat bottom edge.

 

In December 2007 ANACS was sold to James Taylor and a great reshuffling of personnel took place between ANACS and ICG.

 

In September 2008 ANACS introduced a new yellow label for their slab. Apparently no other changes were made to the holder itself. (I'm surprised they didn't do so earlier. New owner, new look.)

 

I think their new policy of reholdering blue label cons slabbed by the current ownership and not those by the previous is simply another way of distancing themselves and disclaiming responsibility for the grading of the previous owners. I would not be surprised to see in the future a two tier guarantee with the coins slabbed by the previous owners not being as fully protected. A kind of "How can we be responsible for these coins and grades when w had nothing to do with them?" approach

[RI AL]

Oh what the heck...I'll give it a shot. I'd guess MS 62 on the Shield nickel. I'm hesitant to guess on the Standing Lib 25 cent as I have a hard time with these. But...I'm going to go with MS 63. The bit of flatness on the right leg and the the missing details in the shield could be indicative of light striking. The reverse looks much sharper to me. I think she would qualify as a "near full head".

 

Off to meet the new "in laws". This could be interesting.

 

Happy Thanksgiving, guys.

 

RI AL

[1946hamm-migration]

The comparison of old and new ANACS holders and grades is somewhat not fair since the company changed hands as did all the graders. If you remember that all or most of the graders were from IGC that make up the new ANACS then the comparisons should be to IGC old standards and not ANACS old standards.

 

Since IGC has relocated to Florida from Colorado recently and Randy Campbell is the only grader that remains, as far as I know, we should not be making comparisons of new ANACS to old ANACS nor old IGC to new IGC.

 

If any thing we should be comparing the new ANACS to the old IGC and the new IGC to the old ANACS since the graders are closer to the same.

 

I stopped making comparisons between old and new when the companys swapped graders and names.

 

Just my two cents worth,

Gary

[RGT]

I almost didn't start this topic because I wasn't sure that there would be any interest. It seems that I was right. but for completeness I will finish it.

 

The 1873 nickel was graded AU53. There are some ticks that you can see in the images and the luster on the reverse isn't quite as nice as the obverse, but I really don't see AU53 wear.

 

The 1917-D quarter was graded AU55. There is some weakness in the strike but it's probably average. The luster is strong. I see some light rub down Liberties leg and on the eagles breast. For me, this one could go AU55 or AU58.

 

Both coins have been cracked out and are now in my Dansco 7070. To test the strenght of the new holder I tried to crack one bare handed. I was successful but it was difficult and I ended up putting on a pair of gloves to protect my hands in case the shell shattered. I'm not a big guy and I have more of a "track-ball grip" than a "Kung-Foo grip" so I'm sure it could be done easily by others. I'm not sure what this proves since I have never tried to crack any other brand of slab with my hands.

[Houston Investor]

If I agree with the grade of a TPG coin I will have it in my case at a show. I price the coin and where it falls in the grade range. Consequently whether its the new ANACS holder or not is irrelavant to me. I inventory coins from the 4 major grading services.

[chinook]

Thanks for starting the thread. I found it informative and will say IMHO that I think both grades are in the ballpark.

 

As an aside I recently bought a seated dime in a new ANACS holder noted as cleaned. I've seen much worse in other TPG holders and would say ANACS was a bit harsh on this coin.

[jesbroken]

I like the old small white holder ANACS graded coins. I have owned many with very little problems with the grades(quite often low by 2 points). I do not like the quality since the coins went to the new blue holders and will not purchase any unless I can buy them 2 grades below their stated grades(which is not likely).

I have not had the opportunity to compare the new yellow holders as to grading ability.

I had an 1873 Shield much like the one shown(color and condition) here that was in an NGC holder grading MS62 which I had submitted thinking MS63 at worst-anh anh wrong.

From only the photo, I think their is enough lustre left in the 1917 D SLQ to agree with James as to it being an AU58. The shield doesn't bother me as much as the flat knee. JMO

Jim