Some thoughts and questions on the 10-year limitation of NGC's guarantee.

[IGWT]

Here's the limitation that we're talking about:

 

The NGC Guarantee does not apply to copper, bronze or copper nickel coins graded by NGC prior to April 1, 2000.

 

To the extent that the NGC Guarantee applies to copper, bronze, or copper nickel coins, the NGC Guarantee expires with respect to such coin(s) on the ten year anniversary of the date of encapsulation by NGC.

At the FUN show luncheon, Mark Salzberg and Scott Schechter kindly fielded questions from attendees, and one collector asked whether or not it is possible to determine the date of encapsulation by the serial number on the slab tag. The answer is "currently, no," but Scott acknowledged -- even though this subject wasn't the purpose of the question -- that NGC soon must find a way to let collectors know whether or not the 10-year guarantee period has expired for any particular copper, bronze, or copper-nickel coin. I was aware of the limitation before Scott mentioned it, but I hadn't really focused on it, and maybe I should at this point.

 

All of the coins in my collection are either copper-nickel or copper, and most are housed in either NGC or PCGS holders. I haven't developed an overriding preference for one service or the other (although I certainly appreciate and favor NGC for the way it treats the collecting community). The coins that are now in NGC slabs would stay in NGC slabs if the guarantee period weren't limited. But, as the 10-year periods for these coins come to an end, I will have to decide -- assuming that I don't want any guarantees to expire -- whether to resubmit the coins to NGC or to cross them to PCGS.

 

The expiration of the NGC guarantee is pushing me toward PCGS. The PCGS guarantee is not limited on copper-nickel or copper coins (or, at least the guarantee is limited only by PCGS's financial stability, which is another issue). The market as a whole, whether it's right or wrong, generally assigns a higher value to U.S. coins slabbed by PCGS. PCGS holders display smaller coins more attractively than NGC holders, in my opinion, even taking the new scratch-resistant NGC slab into account. So, if the guarantee for my coins is about to expire, why should I send them back to NGC instead of to PCGS?

 

Here's just a small sampling of coins that I would likely keep in NGC holders but for expiration of the NGC guarantee:

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that NGC might lose more than it gains by the 10-year limitation on its grade guarantee. There are already more than enough reasons to send coins to PCGS instead of to NGC . . . why add another? Also, while I understand that the limitation is meant to reduce the NGC's risk of liability on the grade guarantee, I'm not sure that the risk is reduced an appreciable amount. A coin that has been stable in a holder for 10 years is highly unlikely to turn . . . certaiinly a lot less likely than one that has just been slabbed. The 10-year period seems arbitrary to me.

 

 

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

, I didn't know the exclusion applied to copper nickel as well. Those are some killer coins! Especially the 1878. Wowser. The limitation doesn't really apply to me as I pretty much exclusively collect silver (slabbed, anyways).

 

PCGS doesn't have any sort of time limitations? I mean, I can understand why the companies would want to try and limit their liability, but to say that you have to have it reslabbed every ten years seems like a rip-off.

[Revenant]

Maybe I'm wrong here but I always thought the intent of that rule was just to keep people from coming back and asking to be compensated for their RD or RB cent that has subsequently gone to BN. I'm sure that if the issue was that the coin was graded 65 when it was really a 63 then NGC could give you some kind of satisfaction, even if that isn't how it's worded.

[michael]

from the standpoint of the holder i would send them all to pcgs for crossover

 

as i absolutely do not like the tab ngc holders and especially so with the tabs usually extending past the rims even past the dentils into the field of the coin

 

also with regards to the tabs i have seen a coin out of the tab ngc holder that had imprints where the four tabs had touched past the rims into the field of the coin

 

this is greatly dislike i want the coin insert to just hold the edges of the coinand not to intrude into the rims or dentals of the coin

 

i think ngc made a huge mistake by having the tab holder

 

if ngc would have a tapered clear insert to put in the ngc slab then it might be a different story

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

also with regards to the tabs i have seen a coin out of the tab ngc holder that had imprints where the four tabs had touched past the rims into the field of the coin

 

 

If anyone anywhere has any pictures of any coin doing this at any time, please post a new thread in all caps and the pictures boldly displayed. I strongly dislike the tab holders and won't buy them, but this would seal the deal 110%.

[MikeKing]

I agree that photos of this would be important to everyone concerned here

[coinman1794]

Here's the limitation that we're talking about:

 

The NGC Guarantee does not apply to copper, bronze or copper nickel coins graded by NGC prior to April 1, 2000.

 

To the extent that the NGC Guarantee applies to copper, bronze, or copper nickel coins, the NGC Guarantee expires with respect to such coin(s) on the ten year anniversary of the date of encapsulation by NGC.

At the FUN show luncheon, Mark Salzberg and Scott Schechter kindly fielded questions from attendees, and one collector asked whether or not it is possible to determine the date of encapsulation by the serial number on the slab tag. The answer is "currently, no," but Scott acknowledged -- even though this subject wasn't the purpose of the question -- that NGC soon must find a way to let collectors know whether or not the 10-year guarantee period has expired for any particular copper, bronze, or copper-nickel coin. I was aware of the limitation before Scott mentioned it, but I hadn't really focused on it, and maybe I should at this point.

 

All of the coins in my collection are either copper-nickel or copper, and most are housed in either NGC or PCGS holders. I haven't developed an overriding preference for one service or the other (although I certainly appreciate and favor NGC for the way it treats the collecting community). The coins that are now in NGC slabs would stay in NGC slabs if the guarantee period weren't limited. But, as the 10-year periods for these coins come to an end, I will have to decide -- assuming that I don't want any guarantees to expire -- whether to resubmit the coins to NGC or to cross them to PCGS.

 

The expiration of the NGC guarantee is pushing me toward PCGS. The PCGS guarantee is not limited on copper-nickel or copper coins (or, at least the guarantee is limited only by PCGS's financial stability, which is another issue). The market as a whole, whether it's right or wrong, generally assigns a higher value to U.S. coins slabbed by PCGS. PCGS holders display smaller coins more attractively than NGC holders, in my opinion, even taking the new scratch-resistant NGC slab into account. So, if the guarantee for my coins is about to expire, why should I send them back to NGC instead of to PCGS?

 

Here's just a small sampling of coins that I would likely keep in NGC holders but for expiration of the NGC guarantee:

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that NGC might lose more than it gains by the 10-year limitation on its grade guarantee. There are already more than enough reasons to send coins to PCGS instead of to NGC . . . why add another? Also, while I understand that the limitation is meant to reduce the NGC's risk of liability on the grade guarantee, I'm not sure that the risk is reduced an appreciable amount. A coin that has been stable in a holder for 10 years is highly unlikely to turn . . . certaiinly a lot less likely than one that has just been slabbed. The 10-year period seems arbitrary to me.

 

 

When the limited guarantee was announced in 2000, I thought they said that coins could be submitted for a review to determine whether or not they were still acceptable for the grade, and then re-encapsulated for a new 10 year cycle. This only makes sense. Did they address this option?

 

 

[leeg]

Here's the limitation that we're talking about:

 

The NGC Guarantee does not apply to copper, bronze or copper nickel coins graded by NGC prior to April 1, 2000.

 

To the extent that the NGC Guarantee applies to copper, bronze, or copper nickel coins, the NGC Guarantee expires with respect to such coin(s) on the ten year anniversary of the date of encapsulation by NGC.

At the FUN show luncheon, Mark Salzberg and Scott Schechter kindly fielded questions from attendees, and one collector asked whether or not it is possible to determine the date of encapsulation by the serial number on the slab tag. The answer is "currently, no," but Scott acknowledged -- even though this subject wasn't the purpose of the question -- that NGC soon must find a way to let collectors know whether or not the 10-year guarantee period has expired for any particular copper, bronze, or copper-nickel coin. I was aware of the limitation before Scott mentioned it, but I hadn't really focused on it, and maybe I should at this point.

 

All of the coins in my collection are either copper-nickel or copper, and most are housed in either NGC or PCGS holders. I haven't developed an overriding preference for one service or the other (although I certainly appreciate and favor NGC for the way it treats the collecting community). The coins that are now in NGC slabs would stay in NGC slabs if the guarantee period weren't limited. But, as the 10-year periods for these coins come to an end, I will have to decide -- assuming that I don't want any guarantees to expire -- whether to resubmit the coins to NGC or to cross them to PCGS.

 

The expiration of the NGC guarantee is pushing me toward PCGS. The PCGS guarantee is not limited on copper-nickel or copper coins (or, at least the guarantee is limited only by PCGS's financial stability, which is another issue). The market as a whole, whether it's right or wrong, generally assigns a higher value to U.S. coins slabbed by PCGS. PCGS holders display smaller coins more attractively than NGC holders, in my opinion, even taking the new scratch-resistant NGC slab into account. So, if the guarantee for my coins is about to expire, why should I send them back to NGC instead of to PCGS?

 

Hi Lou,

What are your thoughts now that PCGS is changing their guarantee?

[IGWT]

Hi Lou, What are your thoughts now that PCGS is changing their guarantee?

 

Hi Lee --

 

The PCGS guarantee is not limited on copper-nickel or copper coins (or, at least the guarantee is limited only by PCGS's financial stability, which is another issue).

 

Makes me look prescient, doesn't it. As far as I know, PCGS reneged on its guarantee for copper coins only, not for copper-nickel. So, the change doesn't affect me much, and most of my comments in the OP still pertain. That said, I have not crossed any coins because of the difference between guarantees at the two services.

[leeg]

Makes me look prescient, doesn't it.

 

A very wise man you are!

 

As far as I know, PCGS reneged on its guarantee for copper coins only, not for copper-nickel.

It may be worth a phone call or email to confirm this for piece of mind purposes.