ICG historical question

[JIM F.]

If I correctly recall, when ICG first started grading coins, they were considered more conservative than PCGS and NGC (at least the price-guides were listing premiums higher than PCGS and NGC). Was this a short-lived event, and what changed such that ICG holdered coins are no longer particularly well regarded?

 

[TomB]

It is my recollection that ICG was also cosidered at least as conservative as PCGS and NGC in the very early era of the company. However, I would guess that in order to drive up submissions, ICG relaxed their grading standards and that this might have started their initially slow death spiral.

[JIM F.]

If true, then the early ID numbers on the holders may be worth pursuing (?). Is there a database regarding the ICG numbers?

 

[James_OldeTowne]

what changed such that ICG holdered coins are no longer particularly well regarded?

That one's easy. They started putting MS-67 coins into MS-70 holders. And I'm not kidding. As soon as a lot of people started thinking they could make a fortune crossing ICG MS-70s and universally failed, that put a huge damper on the demand for ICG grading.

[BillJones]

Yes, ICG started out with strict rules about blind submissions and at first their grading was conservative and accurate. My perception at the shows was that the big firms didn’t want to see the company succeed, and they started bad mouthing it from the beginning. I can remember a somewhat heated conversation between a medium sized dealer who argued that ICG coins were properly graded, and fellow who worked for the “big boys” saying that all their stuff was over graded.

 

At any rate market forces worked to make the “big boys” generalizations come true as ICG let their standards drop, and they went the way of a other “third world” grading services.

 

It also didn’t help when I saw some serious variety attribution mistakes in ICG holders. I can’t remember the exact variety, but it was a low grade Bust half dollar that ICG had attributed as a rare variety. It changed hands between dealers at over $1,000, but when the buyer got down to confirming the variety he found that it was a common piece that was worth maybe $25 on good day. Such labeling errors don’t help a certification service’s reputation.

 

[Walkerfan]

Bill, that was interesting. Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience. I enjoyed reading it.

[Conder101]

Such labeling errors don’t help a certification service’s reputation.

Never seemed to hurt PCGS or NGC. But of course until relatively recently they were never willing to stick their necks out and attribute many coins. ANACS, ICG, and SEGS were willing to attribute a lot more coins and specific varieties. Even today it is a good idea to confirm all attributions made by the big two.

[JIM F.]

Anyone have a clue about around what ICG "serial number" the mood on ICG turned negative? I'm thinking early ICG graded coins might be cherry picked for value.

 

[Conder101]

I don't know how ICG runs their serial numbers but if they are like the big two you can't tell from the number when it was slabbed. Your best shot for older ICG slabs is to look for the first generation slabs. Bad problem is you have to see the back of the holder to identify the generation. First Generation ICG slabs (ICG 1) have a full height hologram on the left side of the back label. The rest of the label is blank and green. Later they had a half height hologram with the rest of the label blank (ICG 1.5). Then the bottom fourth of the back label is white with a repeat of the barcode from the front label. (ICG 2)

 

ICG has had very few changes to their slab since they began in 1998.

[BillJones]

Such labeling errors don’t help a certification service’s reputation.

Never seemed to hurt PCGS or NGC. But of course until relatively recently they were never willing to stick their necks out and attribute many coins. ANACS, ICG, and SEGS were willing to attribute a lot more coins and specific varieties. Even today it is a good idea to confirm all attributions made by the big two.

 

I'll agree with you when it comes to PCGS and variety attributions. I've seen them blow Red Book varieties, that really quite easy to spot, that had a significant affect upon the value of the pieces.

 

I've seen some labeling errors on NGC coins, but not as many as I've seen on PCGS. It also should be noted that NGC started putting Overton, Sheldon and other varieties note on their slabs well PCGS did. And from what I could see they were quite accurate.

 

And yes, such errors appear to have not had a negative affect upon the leading companies, but they had already established their reputations because those errors would have become an issue. But when you are the new kid on the block who is trying to make it in the big leagues, errors like that can do a lot of harm.

 

[mtnstyne]

If I am reading the grey sheets correctly ICG gets more respect in pricing than ANACS. According to the one I have in front of me NGC and PCGS get about 78% of bid where ICG gets 63% and ANACS only 58% on average.

 

Correct me if I am reading this wrong.

[JIM F.]

I think there's a HUGE difference between the "old ANACS" (small white holders) and the "new ANACS". The former being, in general of course, more conservative.