OLD older NGC...just picked up on Heritage

[JIM F.]

Is the NGG old holder really green? I just picked this one up.

[brg5658]

Yep, it sure is! Beautiful H10 by the way!

[123cents]

Looks like some sweet toning!

[PerryHall]

The problem with these slabs is that dealers would put stickers on the back and when you peeled them off, the hologram would come off with the sticker.

[rrantique]

Nice one!! (thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

Yep, it sure is! Beautiful H10 by the way!

Curiously, what do you find beautiful about it?

[Walkerfan]

WOW! That sure is an OLD NGC slab. I wish the images were brighter so I could see the coin a bit better....image looks dark and a little grainy.

[jom]

No offense but I'm wondering why the OP bought this coin. Was it for the slab or the coin? The coin seems a bit dark. Then again, with the white slab sometimes photos make the coin look very dark.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

No offense but I'm wondering why the OP bought this coin. Was it for the slab or the coin? The coin seems a bit dark. Then again, with the white slab sometimes photos make the coin look very dark.

 

jom

I was wondering (and thinking) the same thing. And based on the initial post, it appears to have been a sight-unseen purchase.

[brg5658]

Yep, it sure is! Beautiful H10 by the way!

Curiously, what do you find beautiful about it?

 

It looks to have some beautiful blue toning and possibly some magentas also. I don't think it's as dark as the pics make it look. But, hopefully some truer pics will be posted once it's in hand.

 

Edit: The larger photos from the auction on Heritage look attractive to me. Of course, Heritage is notorious for horrible pictures.

[physics-fan3.14]

That is the NGC 4 holder, used from 1989-1992. It is fairly common, so I hope you didn't buy it just for the slab.

 

The coin itself looks rather dark, but lets hope in hand there is plenty of luster.

[Conder101]

WOW! That sure is an OLD NGC slab.

There are at least four generations of holder before that one.

[Walkerfan]

WOW! That sure is an OLD NGC slab.

There are at least four generations of holder before that one.

 

Yes, I know. I read your article, which was very good, BTW. I refer to it often.

 

I just don't see these around very often, even though they are available from time to time.

 

I know that the black ones are the REALLY super rare ones.

[MarkFeld]

Yep, it sure is! Beautiful H10 by the way!

Curiously, what do you find beautiful about it?

 

It looks to have some beautiful blue toning and possibly some magentas also. I don't think it's as dark as the pics make it look. But, hopefully some truer pics will be posted once it's in hand.

 

Edit: The larger photos from the auction on Heritage look attractive to me. Of course, Heritage is notorious for horrible pictures.

Thanks.

 

It sounds as if your comment was based partly on how you think the coin will look in person, as opposed to how it looks in the images. And you might be right (or not).

[JIM F.]

For clarification, I did NOT purchase the holder. I liked the look of the coin, and the auction was about to close and I put in what I thought was a reasonable cut-bid at last minute, and won. I saw that it was a fatty holder -- that may have caused some psychological bias, but didn't realize the green NGC until the auction ended so that contributed nothing towards my purchase motivation.

 

First time I've come across a holder like this, and I've been collecting coins since the ANAC photo certificate grading was the only TPG around (and my first TPG submission for that matter)!

 

Having said that, what is the board's opinion of how conservative (or lack thereof) NGC was back at the time this coin was graded?

 

Thanks for all opinions.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

For clarification, I did NOT purchase the holder. I liked the look of the coin, and the auction was about to close and I put in what I thought was a reasonable cut-bid at last minute, and won. I saw that it was a fatty holder -- that may have caused some psychological bias, but didn't realize the green NGC until the auction ended so that contributed nothing towards my purchase motivation.

 

First time I've come across a holder like this, and I've been collecting coins since the ANAC photo certificate grading was the only TPG around (and my first TPG submission for that matter)!

 

Having said that, what is the board's opinion of how conservative (or lack thereof) NGC was back at the time this coin was graded?

 

Thanks for all opinions.

 

Seriously, what difference does it make how conservative (or not) NGC's grading was, overall, at the time the coin was graded? Isn't what really counts, how their grading was on that specific coin?

 

And I'm not picking on you, as I have seen many posters ask similar questions regarding the overall standards of grading companies at various times, and how that related to specific coins.

 

Regardless of what the standards were at any time, there are guaranteed to be many coins which were over-graded, and many others which were under-graded. That is based simply on the fact that many thousands of coins are graded each month and grading is partly subjective and imperfect

 

If someone owns a coin which is a dog, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been conservative during the time period in which it was graded. It's still a dog. And if someone owns a coin which looks to be obviously under-graded, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been liberal when it received its grade. It still looks under-graded.

 

What counts is the coin in question, not overall standards. Yes?

[comicdonna]

Looking at the larger images posted, I think the coin was given a fair grade.

[JIM F.]

For clarification, I did NOT purchase the holder. I liked the look of the coin, and the auction was about to close and I put in what I thought was a reasonable cut-bid at last minute, and won. I saw that it was a fatty holder -- that may have caused some psychological bias, but didn't realize the green NGC until the auction ended so that contributed nothing towards my purchase motivation.

 

First time I've come across a holder like this, and I've been collecting coins since the ANAC photo certificate grading was the only TPG around (and my first TPG submission for that matter)!

 

Having said that, what is the board's opinion of how conservative (or lack thereof) NGC was back at the time this coin was graded?

 

Thanks for all opinions.

 

Seriously, what difference does it make how conservative (or not) NGC's grading was, overall, at the time the coin was graded? Isn't what really counts, how their grading was on that specific coin?

 

And I'm not picking on you, as I have seen many posters ask similar questions regarding the overall standards of grading companies at various times, and how that related to specific coins.

 

Regardless of what the standards were at any time, there are guaranteed to be many coins which were over-graded, and many others which were under-graded. That is based simply on the fact that many thousands of coins are graded each month and grading is partly subjective and imperfect

 

If someone owns a coin which is a dog, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been conservative during the time period in which it was graded. It's still a dog. And if someone owns a coin which looks to be obviously under-graded, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been liberal when it received its grade. It still looks under-graded.

 

What counts is the coin in question, not overall standards. Yes?

 

Your point is well taken, however it does not address my question. I thought it was a pretty simple question, referring to how NGC's grading standards at the time were in general. I did not and am not referring to any specific coin.

 

[MarkFeld]

For clarification, I did NOT purchase the holder. I liked the look of the coin, and the auction was about to close and I put in what I thought was a reasonable cut-bid at last minute, and won. I saw that it was a fatty holder -- that may have caused some psychological bias, but didn't realize the green NGC until the auction ended so that contributed nothing towards my purchase motivation.

 

First time I've come across a holder like this, and I've been collecting coins since the ANAC photo certificate grading was the only TPG around (and my first TPG submission for that matter)!

 

Having said that, what is the board's opinion of how conservative (or lack thereof) NGC was back at the time this coin was graded?

 

Thanks for all opinions.

 

Seriously, what difference does it make how conservative (or not) NGC's grading was, overall, at the time the coin was graded? Isn't what really counts, how their grading was on that specific coin?

 

And I'm not picking on you, as I have seen many posters ask similar questions regarding the overall standards of grading companies at various times, and how that related to specific coins.

 

Regardless of what the standards were at any time, there are guaranteed to be many coins which were over-graded, and many others which were under-graded. That is based simply on the fact that many thousands of coins are graded each month and grading is partly subjective and imperfect

 

If someone owns a coin which is a dog, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been conservative during the time period in which it was graded. It's still a dog. And if someone owns a coin which looks to be obviously under-graded, it makes little difference if grading is said to have been liberal when it received its grade. It still looks under-graded.

 

What counts is the coin in question, not overall standards. Yes?

 

Your point is well taken, however it does not address my question. I thought it was a pretty simple question, referring to how NGC's grading standards at the time were in general. I did not and am not referring to any specific coin.

In that case, I think it is fair to say that generally speaking, the standards tended to be more conservative than they were in subsequent decades. I say "decades" because I don't know anyone who can pinpoint specific years with any accuracy.

 

Seeing as how your question followed a post about a coin you had purchased in a certain type of holder, hopefully you can understand why I thought the question related to the coin, itself, as well.

 

Edited to add:

 

One general exception to the (generally) more stringent standards at that time was for dark coins. For a time, NGC awarded some high grades to dark coins, and over time, became stricter in grading them. When I say "dark", I mean darker and less lustrous than your new purchase appears to be.

[coinman_23885]

Edited to add:

 

One general exception to the (generally) more stringent standards at that time was for dark coins. For a time, NGC awarded some high grades to dark coins, and over time, became stricter in grading them. When I say "dark", I mean darker and less lustrous than your new purchase appears to be.

 

Weren't they also a bit less stringent on certain toned coins including those that were not dark? I'm asking because I have seen many that are, in my opinion, 0.5-1.0 point overgraded (again toned coins only). While the toning is nice, it doesn't seem like the sort that would warrant a bump in grade. Also, while I thought that the deviation could be from my grading, other (more experienced) graders seem to concur. What is your take on this and are you aware of such a trend or are my observations based on, among other possibilities, sampling bias?

[MarkFeld]

Edited to add:

 

One general exception to the (generally) more stringent standards at that time was for dark coins. For a time, NGC awarded some high grades to dark coins, and over time, became stricter in grading them. When I say "dark", I mean darker and less lustrous than your new purchase appears to be.

 

Weren't they also a bit less stringent on certain toned coins including those that were not dark? I'm asking because I have seen many that are, in my opinion, 0.5-1.0 point overgraded (again toned coins only). While the toning is nice, it doesn't seem like the sort that would warrant a bump in grade. Also, while I thought that the deviation could be from my grading, other (more experienced) graders seem to concur. What is your take on this and are you aware of such a trend or are my observations based on, among other possibilities, sampling bias?

That sounds like you might be speaking of their standards, in general. In the opinion of some, coins might be graded somewhat liberally, whether toned or color-free.

[Buffalo Head]

One general exception to the (generally) more stringent standards at that time was for dark coins. For a time, NGC awarded some high grades to dark coins, and over time, became stricter in grading them. When I say "dark", I mean darker and less lustrous than your new purchase appears to be.

 

Mark, I agree with this statement and is my take on the older grading marks back then.

I have seen many high marks awarded to coins that have no luster at all to speak of and I still wonder how in the world they arrived at the grade assigned. This seems to be the heavily toned ones for some reason that would receive these grades. I, at one time, have bought a couple of these because they were high graded coins, and later sold them. I don't do that anymore, I buy the coin.

I also have some Buffs in the same slab your showing here, the green fatties, and they are just beautiful and I feel a tad under graded. They are also very lustrous coins. So it kinda goes both ways. I still feel that luster rules the roost when grading coins.

Edited to say that looking at the larger image of this coin I think it's pretty and well cared for over the years. I would love to see this coin in hand, or at least a better image. Congrats on a nice pick up.....Joe

[jom]

One general exception to the (generally) more stringent standards at that time was for dark coins. For a time, NGC awarded some high grades to dark coins, and over time, became stricter in grading them. When I say "dark", I mean darker and less lustrous than your new purchase appears to be.

 

YES...this one I had also noticed years ago. There were a lot of higher grade dark (and ugly) MS65s and whatnot. That helped perpetuate (unfairly IMO) the idea that somehow NGC wasn't "as good" as PCGS....this was probably a mid-to-late 90s thing.

 

Subsequently however it seemed to me that overall NGC actually graded more consistently whereas PCGS was more strict (but still more variable). Based on that opinion (my own of course) I felt NGC was the better service. Contrary to popular opinion it's far more important to be consistent and knowing what you are going to get than being conservative but yet inconsistent.

 

jom

 

 

[Buffalo Head]

That helped perpetuate (unfairly IMO) the idea that somehow NGC wasn't "as good" as PCGS....this was probably a mid-to-late 90s thing.

 

I also remember this and this opinion seems to be still lurking in the shadows somehow. I also feel NGC is just as consistent considering the conditions they grade, all series, all coins, and at a fast pace from the video I've seen. It amazes me how fast they grade a coin, I can't. I take more time when sizing up a raw coin. Honestly, it's amazing there's any consistency at all. I wonder if they graded coins as fast back then?