Submission results - long post w/ detailed analysis included. Reactions please!

[James_OldeTowne]

I'll preface this discussion by first stating that in no way is this intended to slam NGC grading in any fashion. My comments here are purely subjective, and disagreements in grades are not only expected, but welcome to my way of thinking. Dennis thought I shouldn't even bring up the issues which I am going to present, but for a several days now, a few things have been bugging me about this recent submission to NGC grading. Again, I am not unhappy with the results, nor am I making accusations of any sort - I'm just interested in your reaction. As I begin submitting more and more coins to NGC, I'd like to fine-tune my grading estimates so as to avoid wasting submissions on coins that won't make the grade.

 

I submitted one half-cent and nine large-cents, all uncertified, through the early-bird level. Here's a detailed analysis of each submission:

 

(1) 1825 half-cent, purchased from a Scotsman/NTL auction last year, and I graded it AU-58. NGC GRADE: MS-62! This was the first big surprise, albeit a welcome one, as the jump in value is significant, and well worth the cost of certification. I simply do not believe the coin is mint state. I'd be interested in your experiences grading early copper that's on the borderline of AU-58 - MS-62.

 

(2) 1812 cent, purchased three years ago as ANACS-35 (non-net). NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. Objectively speaking, this coin has a superb planchet for a classic head, and considerable luster at the edges. The only negative in my mind is an unfortunate hit smack-dab on Liberty's cheek. I thought the hit might warrant a no-grade, but the reason give for the no-grade was "cleaning"! This surprised me, as the coin appears quite original, with accurate color.

 

(3) 1817 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), but I know for an absolute fact the coin has been dipped and recolored with Deller's darkener. Imagine my surprise when the coin came back in an MS-63 RB holder! This is a home-run as far I'm concerned, as there's a big jump in value. The only question is: must I reveal the fact that the coin's been doctored when I resell it? It is definitely an attractive specimen, so maybe the grade is warranted.

 

(4) 1820/19 cent, cracked out of an ANACS-50 slab (non-net), though the coin was borderline in my opinion. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. The coin was no-graded for a "scratch". I can't disagree, though the scratch is very old and virtually invisible through the original toning. This coin has amazing cartwheel luster, and were it not for the scratch, it would be an extremely attractive coin for the grade.

 

(5) 1837 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), I grade it a no-brainer MS-65. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. It was no-graded for "artiifical toning". This was another borderline call, and I can definitely see NGC's stance on this one. The coin's color is a combination of brilliant blue and original red, and it is an absolutely stunning coin in every respect - except it just doesn't match the "standard" for red copper. However, it's a coin that will sell with or without a holder. I have seen quite a bit of verifiably original copper with similar blue highlights, and know that such coins sell for a strong premium. This submission was really just an "experiment" for me, as I did expect the no-grade.

 

(6) 1838 cent, cracked out of an NGC MS-62 holder, I graded it MS-60 cleaned, while the EAC grade was MS-60. NGC GRADE: MS-61. Not much of a surprise here. The cleaning is extremely faint, and the coin has retoned naturally, with surprising remnants of red in the recesses. Curious that it downgraded by a point, but there's really not much to quibble about for this coin in MS-61-62.

 

(7) 1850 cent, cracked out of a PCGS MS-64 BN holder, attributed as N-4, it is #6 in the condition census. NGC GRADE: MS-64 BN. Completely as expected, this was just another experiment to verify parity between NGC and PCGS at this grade level. The coin will be cracked back out and submitted to the next EAC auction.

 

(8) 1850 cent, cracked out of a PCGS MS-64 RB holder, where it originally had an old, dark fingerprint on the obverse. This is another coin which I know for an incontrovertible fact was carefully cleaned to remove the fingerprint. The print is only slightly visible now, and the original golden-orange color somehow restored to the coin's obverse. NGC GRADE: MS-63 RB. I think this is a very intriguing result. The coin actually looks better in my opinion, as the print is not nearly so obtrusive. It's curious that uncleaned, but less attractive, it graded PCGS-64 RB, yet slightly cleaned but more attractive yielded an NGC-63 RB result - a one-point downgrade.

 

(9) 1851/81 cent, cracked out of an NGC MS-62 BN holder where it was misattributed as a regular 1851 date. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. The coin was body-bagged for "altered surfaces". This was the biggest surprise of all for me, as I just cracked the coin out of the original NGC holder, put it immediately into the poly bag, and it was sent off for certification (I though a one-point upgrade was possible). I'd appreciate discussion of this one, as the coin simply shows no signs that I can see of alteration. Interestingly, the insert supplied with the bodybag did indicate the correct attribution this time (1851/81).

 

(10) 1856 cent, purchased uncertified from Scotsman/NTL auction last year, and I graded it MS-63 RB. NGC GRADE: MS-63 RB. When I purchased this coin, I thought it might have been lightened just a bit, but evidently, NGC did not think there was a problem, so it got into the expected holder.

 

Conclusion: I'm quite happy with 9 out of 10 results, as they were about what I expected or better, and will be profitable. All in all, I believe NGC handled this submission with excellent professionalism and expertise, and I was impressed with the customer service. The only argument I have is for entry (9) which I would have thought should have simply gone into at least the same grade holder with the correct attribution. I'm thinking of just resubmitting that coin again, along with the original misattributed insert. What would you do?

 

James

 

PS: Dennis argued against my posting the results on the public forum, but as I have already explained, this is not an attempt to stir up any sort of controversy. I'm just interested in learning, and I think the best way to do that is to ask questions. Thank you in advance for your comments.

[chinook]

James,

 

Actually it is posts such as this from which we all learn.

 

As for you results I wouldnt even want to discuss grades since I have NO expertise in this area and personally feel early copper is very difficult to grade especially AU-58 to MS-63.

 

As far as #9. I think the bodybag you got in return with the correct attribution is simply clerical. I believe NGC just enters the information from your submission form into their computers. If the coin is graded then corrections are made by the graders. I think this is why there are so many with incorrect inserts.

 

In the future I would send coins for regrade or attributions in their original holders. That way if NGC finds a mistake they will accept responsibility.

[Bruceswar]

can we get a pic of coin #9? That way we can get a good disscussion going...

[gmarguli]

(1) 1825 half-cent, purchased from a Scotsman/NTL auction last year, and I graded it AU-58. NGC GRADE: MS-62! This was the first big surprise, albeit a welcome one, as the jump in value is significant, and well worth the cost of certification. I simply do not believe the coin is mint state. I'd be interested in your experiences grading early copper that's on the borderline of AU-58 - MS-62.

 

Stuff like this shouldn't be too much of a surprise. The 58/62 line is blurred for all the services. The coin very well might not be mint state. Many of the early coins in the marketplace in MS60-62 slabs aren't mint state. This is just a fact of life with early coins.

 

 

(3) 1817 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), but I know for an absolute fact the coin has been dipped and recolored with Deller's darkener. Imagine my surprise when the coin came back in an MS-63 RB holder! This is a home-run as far I'm concerned, as there's a big jump in value. The only question is: must I reveal the fact that the coin's been doctored when I resell it? It is definitely an attractive specimen, so maybe the grade is warranted.

 

How many coins in slabs haven't been given a helping hand once in a while. I can only assume that the dip was light and the darkener helped the coin attain a natural look. If it looks natural, then it should be fine.

 

 

(5) 1837 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), I grade it a no-brainer MS-65. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. It was no-graded for "artiifical toning". This was another borderline call, and I can definitely see NGC's stance on this one. The coin's color is a combination of brilliant blue and original red, and it is an absolutely stunning coin in every respect - except it just doesn't match the "standard" for red copper. However, it's a coin that will sell with or without a holder. I have seen quite a bit of verifiably original copper with similar blue highlights, and know that such coins sell for a strong premium. This submission was really just an "experiment" for me, as I did expect the no-grade.

 

Blue is a lovely color on copper. It sure can increase the value and it's also somewhat easy to put on the coin. For the services to allow a blue copper into a slab it has to have a certain look. Otherwise it's a bodybag since it is too easy to put on copper.

 

 

 

(8) 1850 cent, cracked out of a PCGS MS-64 RB holder, where it originally had an old, dark fingerprint on the obverse. This is another coin which I know for an incontrovertible fact was carefully cleaned to remove the fingerprint. The print is only slightly visible now, and the original golden-orange color somehow restored to the coin's obverse. NGC GRADE: MS-63 RB. I think this is a very intriguing result. The coin actually looks better in my opinion, as the print is not nearly so obtrusive. It's curious that uncleaned, but less attractive, it graded PCGS-64 RB, yet slightly cleaned but more attractive yielded an NGC-63 RB result - a one-point downgrade.

 

Removing the fingerprint is a good thing. Perhaps PCGS overgraded the coin the first time. Perhaps NGC undergraded it the second time. Perhaps the removal of the fingerprint revealed more flaws or reduced the eye appeal? Maybe it is just a "liner"?

 

[TomB]

This is an interesting selection of coins you chose to send in.

 

(1) 1825 half-cent, purchased from a Scotsman/NTL auction last year, and I graded it AU-58. NGC GRADE: MS-62! This was the first big surprise, albeit a welcome one, as the jump in value is significant, and well worth the cost of certification. I simply do not believe the coin is mint state. I'd be interested in your experiences grading early copper that's on the borderline of AU-58 - MS-62.

 

I'd have to say that all early US coinage has a volatile grading curve in the AU58-MS62 range. This is likely because so many coins were poorly struck, and others were slightly better struck but lightly worn, that it can be tough to decide whether the piece is AU or MS. This can probably be extended to the advent of the close collar. Copper and gold coinage is slightly more prone to this effect than silver since silver is so much harder than the other metals. I would surmise that if this coin were submitted 100 times that you would start to get an inverse bell curve for the grading distribution from AU58-MS62. Why is that? Well, the coin obviously looks nice, so it can only be an AU58 or MS62. If its surfaces had looked nasty it would have graded AU53-AU55 or MS60-MS61.

 

(2) 1812 cent, purchased three years ago as ANACS-35 (non-net). NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. Objectively speaking, this coin has a superb planchet for a classic head, and considerable luster at the edges. The only negative in my mind is an unfortunate hit smack-dab on Liberty's cheek. I thought the hit might warrant a no-grade, but the reason give for the no-grade was "cleaning"! This surprised me, as the coin appears quite original, with accurate color.

 

If this helps you at all, I had submitted a half-cent to NGC about five years ago and expected an MS64 on the piece. It came back bagged for cleaning and I asked NGC to review their decision. Upon arrival at NGC, a grader called me to tell me that they had been too hard on the coin the first time around and that they were going to grade it MS63. The MS63 grade might be looked on as a compromise grade since they, too, thought the coin looked MS64, but were afraid that it was lightly cleaned at one point.

 

(3) 1817 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), but I know for an absolute fact the coin has been dipped and recolored with Deller's darkener. Imagine my surprise when the coin came back in an MS-63 RB holder! This is a home-run as far I'm concerned, as there's a big jump in value. The only question is: must I reveal the fact that the coin's been doctored when I resell it? It is definitely an attractive specimen, so maybe the grade is warranted.

 

I hate to ask this but I have to; when did you find out the coin was altered? Before you bought it? After you bought it? The answer to that question might lead you to the answer for the question that follows it for this coin.

 

(5) 1837 cent, purchased from last year's EAC convention as MS-60 (EAC grade), I grade it a no-brainer MS-65. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. It was no-graded for "artiifical toning". This was another borderline call, and I can definitely see NGC's stance on this one. The coin's color is a combination of brilliant blue and original red, and it is an absolutely stunning coin in every respect - except it just doesn't match the "standard" for red copper. However, it's a coin that will sell with or without a holder. I have seen quite a bit of verifiably original copper with similar blue highlights, and know that such coins sell for a strong premium. This submission was really just an "experiment" for me, as I did expect the no-grade.

 

Are you certain the color is brilliant blue? If so, then I would strongly lean toward AT even though I have never seen the piece. Copper often takes on a muted, iridescent or flat blue, however, aside from proof copper, the brillian blue is usually put there by someone. I wouldn't worry about copper matching a "standard" color for a designation, especially when the copper is that old. The color designation for copper is virtually worthless and should be done away with entirely.

 

(6) 1838 cent, cracked out of an NGC MS-62 holder, I graded it MS-60 cleaned, while the EAC grade was MS-60. NGC GRADE: MS-61. Not much of a surprise here. The cleaning is extremely faint, and the coin has retoned naturally, with surprising remnants of red in the recesses. Curious that it downgraded by a point, but there's really not much to quibble about for this coin in MS-61-62.

 

This is a case of consistent grading as MS61 and MS62 are quite similar.

 

(7) 1850 cent, cracked out of a PCGS MS-64 BN holder, attributed as N-4, it is #6 in the condition census. NGC GRADE: MS-64 BN. Completely as expected, this was just another experiment to verify parity between NGC and PCGS at this grade level. The coin will be cracked back out and submitted to the next EAC auction.

 

The sample size is mighty small to make any conclusion as to equivalence in standards, don't you think?

 

(8) 1850 cent, cracked out of a PCGS MS-64 RB holder, where it originally had an old, dark fingerprint on the obverse. This is another coin which I know for an incontrovertible fact was carefully cleaned to remove the fingerprint. The print is only slightly visible now, and the original golden-orange color somehow restored to the coin's obverse. NGC GRADE: MS-63 RB. I think this is a very intriguing result. The coin actually looks better in my opinion, as the print is not nearly so obtrusive. It's curious that uncleaned, but less attractive, it graded PCGS-64 RB, yet slightly cleaned but more attractive yielded an NGC-63 RB result - a one-point downgrade.

 

A very tough piece to tell what is going on here without seeing the coin in-hand.

 

(9) 1851/81 cent, cracked out of an NGC MS-62 BN holder where it was misattributed as a regular 1851 date. NGC GRADE: BODY-BAG. The coin was body-bagged for "altered surfaces". This was the biggest surprise of all for me, as I just cracked the coin out of the original NGC holder, put it immediately into the poly bag, and it was sent off for certification (I though a one-point upgrade was possible). I'd appreciate discussion of this one, as the coin simply shows no signs that I can see of alteration. Interestingly, the insert supplied with the bodybag did indicate the correct attribution this time (1851/81).

 

If all you need is the correct attribution, you may think about keeping the coin in the slab and sending it in. It won't get re-graded, however, it also won't get bagged.

[DirtyGoldMan]

I am an inexperienced submitter. Of a total of 7 coins that I have submitted to NGC, four have been returned DNC or bodybag. One DNC and one bodybag each were coins from old green PCGS holders. Both were nice, original No Motto gold coins with no evidence of altered surface, as suggested by NGC. Of the three coins that NGC certified, one was an overdipped AU Dahlonega half eagle that upgraded from PCGS AU-55 to AU-58.

 

Overall, I was not impressed with NGC's assessment of my coins. It is a small sample, but I am an infrequent submitter. Interestingly, at least half of the rare date gold coins that I have purchased in the last year have been NGC-certified.

 

Robert

[roadrunner-migration]

Submit those same coins again to NGC and I will bet you that will get different grades on at least 30% of the coins. This is the variability in the current grading game. The first submission grade these days means little. If you get the same grade 3 out of 4 times, then you know what it is. But that gets expensive!

I've had 1 out of 6 coins come back the same grade on a repeat submission. The first set of grades means less and less as time goes on.

 

roadrunner

[Elcontador]

James,

 

Thanks for sharing your results. I agree re open collar coins which are tough to grade. The MS 58 - 63 range is fluid, and with only looking at a brown copper coin (or a RB copper where the red is very mellowed in color) for a few seconds, a grader may have difficulty determining what is due to a weak strike versus wear.

 

When I got my Classic 1/2 Cent, I got an 1835 (closed collar) coin so its strike would not be an issue.

 

Agree w Tom B re the blue on copper. My 1835 1/2 Cent has some dull blue on its obverse; this sort of thing is not rare on old copper. Bright blue means that someone messed with the coin.

 

Another one of your coins may have been bagged for a purple color, which the TPG do not like to see, as it often means the coin has been AT'd.

 

A downgrade from a 4 to a 3 could be that other problems were uncovered when the fingerprint was lightened. As someone else pointed out, the 4 could have been a 'liner.'

 

FYI, changes in color designations may occur on crack out resubmissions, as the services have tightened up re what is the minimum amount of RD that is acceptable in a RB copper. Many RB coins in old holders would be considered BN today.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Thanks for the fantastic discussion so far. I'll see if these images inspire any more comments. For those who asked, here are links to the four body-bagged coins:

 

1812 Cent

 

1820/19 Cent

 

1837 "blue" Cent

 

1851/81 Cent

 

I do plan another submission soon, so I may send these four right back in just for the heck of it, except for the 1812. That hit on the cheek is so unfortunate!

 

Thanks again.

 

James

[Bruceswar]

On the coin that got BB cuase of the scratch would that be the one running through the 1820 or the one under cent on the reserve??