PCGS vs. NGC posted by TD Henson

[CSJournals-migration]

I'm tired of everyone exalting PCGS...

 

This journal will be two posts and then a follow up. I hope this will be interesting or perhaps even fun. One of the two coins is a PCGS 1973 Roosevelt dime and the other an NGC 1973 Roosevelt dime. My concentration is on two components of the dimes - the forehead and hair and the cheek and ear.

 

I'll tell you all that the dimes are graded between MS 65 and MS 67. What grade do you think this dime was assigned? Hopefully these ultra close ups make sense and are fairly easy to discern contact marks and problems...

 

Let me know what you think...

 

Todd

 

See more journals by TD Henson

[Mokiechan]

Well this looks like it should be a 65 but, given your premise, is probably graded by PCGS

as a 67.

[GSA_Gem_Quest]

This one should be lower graded than your other coin, based on the pictures.

[Tradedollarnut]

Micro grading is for fools and modern proofs.

[James_OldeTowne]

It is absolutely impossible to guess at a grade from such extreme closeup images of one tiny area of a coin. So far, though you state the grade range is 65 to 67, depending on how the remaining 95% of the coin(s) look, they could grade anywhere from AU to MS-68.

 

Do you have images of the whole coin, such that these marks are put into proper perspective?

[Thane]

a blemish like the thin long scratch next to the ear would automatically disqualify the dime from anything better than MS67, at least with PCGS.

 

Some of the "chatter" appears to be from late die stage, and not from bag marks ... I don't know how that affects TPG's opinions of the coins.

[Thane]

Count me in as a "fool" - With online photo imagery these days, a coin is bigger than the coin it is. I, and many other collectors, enjoy these close-ups, and things like the grain of a plain field give great pleasure.

 

Perhaps, in a few years, there will be artists making micro-artwork out of carbon chains, visible only by microscope (or photo rendering) ... seems ridiculous to us, the coin collectors, but believe be, there's a market and a following for almost anything.

 

I'd love a good trade dollar, too, but they're out of my price range at the moment ...

[Tradedollarnut]

Collect what you like - but don't expect the TPG's to use a microscope [or even a loupe] when grading pocket change.

 

To denigrate a top scale TPG using extreme magnification is silly. I'd say the same if it was NGC being shot at.

[Thunaer]

"[or even a loupe]" - o rly?

 

To quote fom NGC's Site:

 

"What is a 70? NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification."

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

a blemish like the thin long scratch next to the ear would automatically disqualify the dime from anything better than MS67, at least with PCGS.

I absolutely do not agree. If that thin mark were the ONLY mark on the dime, PCGS most likely would call it 68 (and NGC too). That is why it is important to view marks on a coin within proper context - and humongous zooms remove the necessary context required to make an educated opinion. I have looked long and hard at a ton of dimes in 68, and you would be shocked at how horrible they look under severe magnification.

 

Some of the "chatter" appears to be from late die stage, and not from bag marks ... I don't know how that affects TPG's opinions of the coins.

I think you mean "die state", and I believe you are thinking of pre-striking planchet defects. "Die state" has no direct bearing on bagmarks, other than the lack of ability for terminal dies to eradicate bagmarks, and for sure, neither of these dies is even remotely close to a terminal die-state.

 

At grades of 70 (for sure), 69 (for sure), 68 (almost certainly), and 67 (probably), pre-striking planchet anomalies do affect the grade, but only if fairly prominent. At lower mint-state grades, defects due to manufacture become much less important than post-mint handling defects (bagmarks, discoloration, etc.).