Should NGC crossover?

[benjmurts]

NGC crosses over PCGS

Should they cross over ANACS?

[skippy]

I don't understand the logic of any TPG restricting crossovers from another TPG. You send your coin in and take your chances. If it doesn't cross, the TPG gets to keep the fees.

 

Disclaimers about the likelihood of certain TPGs crossing near the same grade could be made.

[mkman123]

I agree skippy, doesn't ngc want more business?

 

 

[copper toning]

Afraid if too many coins cross it may help another grading company??

[coinman_23885]

Afraid if too many coins cross it may help another grading company??

 

No this isn't the case at all. If you want to read NGC's official rational, I made a post in the "Ask NGC" thread about a year ago or so (whenever they announced the new policy to only accept PCGS coins for the crossover service and to require all other third party graded coins to be cracked out of their slabs prior to grading).

 

Also, regardless of the reason, I think NGC can articulate very good reasons for restricting its crossover service. Some services won't note rim damage or other problems that might not be visible until the coin is cracked, and this could expose NGC to potential liability or even if it had submitters sign a waiver, it would anger many. At least with NGC's new policy, there is no surprise: The coins must be submitted raw or the submitter must allow the coins to be freed from their holders prior to grading, and it is possible that a coin will not grade.

 

Edited to add: There are many who disagree with the restriction to PCGS coins. I personally would prefer that they open their cross over service to other companies as well, but I do understand their reasoning, and I very much respect them for it.

[shish-migration]

All the other major grading services accept coins graded by the other major grading services for crossover, why shouldn't NGC? The fact is that they did for many years. This is one more reason why NGC is perceived as non-user friendly by many numismatists.

[BillJones]

To me a "crossover" is an attempt to get a coin in another holder without taking the chance of cracking the coin out of its present holder. My perception, which might be wrong, is that you have two strikes against you when send an NGC coin to PCGS for a crossover. I don't know what approach NGC takes, but it seems to me that PCGS gets its back up when it sees an NGC that is submitted to go into to one of their holders.

 

Since I don't play the croosover game, I only know this second hand, but as a dealer I had a couple dealer customers try to crossover some NGC coins at a show. All they got for their $100 fee was a two second glance and the word, "No."

[cpm9ball]

All the other major grading services accept coins graded by the other major grading services for crossover, why shouldn't NGC? The fact is that they did for many years. This is one more reason why NGC is perceived as non-user friendly by many numismatists.

 

ALL the major grading services? Let's see....there is PCGS.........................and ANACS & ICG trailing by 8 furlongs in a 10-furlong race.

 

Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, and my opinion is that your last sentence is nothing more than.......

Horsehockey!

 

Chris

[shish-migration]

Mr Horsehockey! I do not disagree with your analogy of the grading service leaders. Unfortunately you gave your opinion and avoided answering my question. So I'll repeat my question for you.

 

Why shouldn't NGC provide this service?

[shish-migration]

Bill, I've seen this happen far to many times for it to be an anomaly. The proof is when the coin that was rejected is removed from the NGC holder and resubmitted raw, magically it grades the same or higher. Of course one could blame it on the holder.

[Keigwin]

When a coin is considered for a cross, but only two sides can be seen due to the holder, doesn't the TPG assume a little risk? And might that explain why the same coin, submitted raw, succeeds after a failed cross?

 

I know that PCGS is careful about this, and has stated that if they agree to cross a coin, crack it and rim ding is discovered that prevents it, PCGS will make a payout.

Lance.

[Mozin]

I don't understand the logic of any TPG restricting crossovers from another TPG. You send your coin in and take your chances. If it doesn't cross, the TPG gets to keep the fees.

 

Disclaimers about the likelihood of certain TPGs crossing near the same grade could be made.

 

Makes sense to me.

[TheCoinGeezer]

They should cross ANACS and ICCS, in my opinion but it's their ball and their ballgame.

[CoinPulsive PCM]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

Did you see the 1oz gold eagle in hand that you referenced in your post? Are you sure that those marks are on the coin and not the holder? With regards to your argument about bulk submissions, you make bold conclusory statements without any evidence to back it up. I don't suspect any preferential grading and any claim made should be backed up with evidence.

 

With regards to your other points, all TPGs make errors and trust me, I have seen my fair share of dogs in ANACS holders (and NGC, PCGS, and ICG for that matter). No service is going to get it right 100% of the time, and when you are grading millions of coins, even a 99.9+% accuracy rating can produce a relatively large quantity of errors on the market. This is why collectors must work to protect themselves by becoming knowledgeable.

 

With regards to varieties, NGC publishes which varieties they recognize and which ones they will not. I am not sure why you are upset with them about this; you could have left the coins in their ANACS holders. And no offense, I don't see either variety as being major.

[Keigwin]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous.

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

[cpm9ball]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

Did you see the 1oz gold eagle in hand that you referenced in your post? Are you sure that those marks are on the coin and not the holder? With regards to your argument about bulk submissions, you make bold conclusory statements without any evidence to back it up. I don't suspect any preferential grading and any claim made should be backed up with evidence.

 

With regards to your other points, all TPGs make errors and trust me, I have seen my fair share of dogs in ANACS holders (and NGC, PCGS, and ICG for that matter). No service is going to get it right 100% of the time, and when you are grading millions of coins, even a 99.9+% accuracy rating can produce a relatively large quantity of errors on the market. This is why collectors must work to protect themselves by becoming knowledgeable.

 

With regards to varieties, NGC publishes which varieties they recognize and which ones they will not. I am not sure why you are upset with them about this; you could have left the coins in their ANACS holders. And no offense, I don't see either variety as being major.

 

Edited to add: Again, no offense made, but the fact that you referred to a Mercury Dime variety as a "VAM" indicates to me that you are not well versed in coin varieties. VAM designations apply to Morgan and Peace Dollars.

 

There is a 1921 Micro S Morgan. I'm assuming that he is referring to VAM-2, but if he had done his homework, he would have known that it is not one that either NGC or PCGS will attribute.

 

As for the rest of his rant, all I can say is that I don't particularly care for whiners who make up a bunch of cr@p just because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

Did you see the 1oz gold eagle in hand that you referenced in your post? Are you sure that those marks are on the coin and not the holder? With regards to your argument about bulk submissions, you make bold conclusory statements without any evidence to back it up. I don't suspect any preferential grading and any claim made should be backed up with evidence.

 

With regards to your other points, all TPGs make errors and trust me, I have seen my fair share of dogs in ANACS holders (and NGC, PCGS, and ICG for that matter). No service is going to get it right 100% of the time, and when you are grading millions of coins, even a 99.9+% accuracy rating can produce a relatively large quantity of errors on the market. This is why collectors must work to protect themselves by becoming knowledgeable.

 

With regards to varieties, NGC publishes which varieties they recognize and which ones they will not. I am not sure why you are upset with them about this; you could have left the coins in their ANACS holders. And no offense, I don't see either variety as being major.

 

Edited to add: Again, no offense made, but the fact that you referred to a Mercury Dime variety as a "VAM" indicates to me that you are not well versed in coin varieties. VAM designations apply to Morgan and Peace Dollars.

 

There is a 1921 Micro S Morgan. I'm assuming that he is referring to VAM-2, but if he had done his homework, he would have known that it is not one that either NGC or PCGS will attribute.

 

As for the rest of his rant, all I can say is that I don't particularly care for whiners who make up a bunch of cr@p just because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

 

Chris

 

You're right about the Morgan, and I am not sure why I had read Mercury into his statement; it was not there and I had something else on my mind. I apologize to the referenced poster for the one last part of my remark (that has now been removed from my original post). I was the wrong wrong about this - I didn't realize that you were indeed referencing a Morgan.

[CoinPulsive PCM]

First off, I didn't make up anything. So go eat sh*t. You can't Say my story is false NGC is full of cr@p and how they are one of the best TPGs is beyond me. And I DO know what I am doing, I will forward your dumb the email between mark speigel and I as to the issue.

 

Most of the variety guide is outdated, even he said it. But his excuses were BS. NGC isn't selling the coins that i submit. Regardless of an error coins significance to NGC, i paid for the designation, the RPM is recognized in several publications, and it was a nice example of that RPM.

You would think with all their crazy fees, they could pay someone to upgrade the catalogs on the website.

 

I don't like having my money go to waste and if you do, you have issues.

[mkman123]

Coinpulsive you need to go tell mark feld right now to stop selling ngc coins and only look for anacs coins to sell. Ngc is a great tpg and your rant if it was taken ats, you'd be long gone and banned so consider yourself lucky here. Both pcgs and ngc make mistakes and I would still choose those two over anacs.

 

Lastly, you said you know what your doing but I remember you as the person that reported a 1856 Fe which went from au55 to vf to details........

[CoinPulsive PCM]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

Did you see the 1oz gold eagle in hand that you referenced in your post? Are you sure that those marks are on the coin and not the holder? With regards to your argument about bulk submissions, you make bold conclusory statements without any evidence to back it up. I don't suspect any preferential grading and any claim made should be backed up with evidence.

 

With regards to your other points, all TPGs make errors and trust me, I have seen my fair share of dogs in ANACS holders (and NGC, PCGS, and ICG for that matter). No service is going to get it right 100% of the time, and when you are grading millions of coins, even a 99.9+% accuracy rating can produce a relatively large quantity of errors on the market. This is why collectors must work to protect themselves by becoming knowledgeable.

 

With regards to varieties, NGC publishes which varieties they recognize and which ones they will not. I am not sure why you are upset with them about this; you could have left the coins in their ANACS holders. And no offense, I don't see either variety as being major.

 

Edited to add: Again, no offense made, but the fact that you referred to a Mercury Dime variety as a "VAM" indicates to me that you are not well versed in coin varieties. VAM designations apply to Morgan and Peace Dollars.

 

There is a 1921 Micro S Morgan. I'm assuming that he is referring to VAM-2, but if he had done his homework, he would have known that it is not one that either NGC or PCGS will attribute.

 

As for the rest of his rant, all I can say is that I don't particularly care for whiners who make up a bunch of cr@p just because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

 

Chris

 

The scratches were on the coin, and yes I saw them in hand because I offered to buy them. Also it was a MORGAN VAM, not merc. Dime. The coins that I was talking about that I submitted we're not in ANACS holders, or any other holders.

 

Go proof read what your typed. "you make bold conclusionary statements with out evidence to back them up". Saying that I am not well versed in coin varieties IS a Bold BS statement without evidence to back it up. RPMs and other error coins are some of the main coins I buy and collect. I can back up my statements about bulk submissions because I personally know 2 dealers who have done so with ASEs.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

First off, I didn't make up anything. So go eat sh*t. You can't Say my story is false NGC is full of cr@p and how they are one of the best TPGs is beyond me. And I DO know what I am doing, I will forward your dumb the email between mark speigel and I as to the issue.

 

Most of the variety guide is outdated, even he said it. But his excuses were BS. NGC isn't selling the coins that i submit. Regardless of an error coins significance to NGC, i paid for the designation, the RPM is recognized in several publications, and it was a nice example of that RPM.

You would think with all their crazy fees, they could pay someone to upgrade the catalogs on the website.

 

I don't like having my money go to waste and if you do, you have issues.

 

I never said that you made up the story, but suggested the possibility that you were either mistaken and that you shouldn't make bold accusations without any evidence to back up your claims. The fact that you opine something doesn't make it true or accurate at least. I agree that NGC could expand its variety offerings, but the fact is that you knew or should have known this information before you submitted the coins, so it's your fault. You seek to blame everyone else for problems that clearly could have been prevented if you had done your homework. A simple call to customer service ahead of time would have resolved most of your issues.

 

Edited to add: I don't understand your comment about NGC not "selling coins" that you submit. This makes no sense to me. Third party grading services are not in the business of selling coins; they sell their opinions.

[CoinPulsive PCM]

Coinpulsive you need to go tell mark feld right now to stop selling ngc coins and only look for anacs coins to sell. Ngc is a great tpg and your rant if it was taken ats, you'd be long gone and banned so consider yourself lucky here. Both pcgs and ngc make mistakes and I would still choose those two over anacs.

 

Lastly, you said you know what your doing but I remember you as the person that reported a 1856 Fe which went from au55 to vf to details........

 

And I addressed that issue as to my error. The 1856 FE was VF details, I confused an 1858 FE which was the AU55 grade.

[coinman_23885]

ANACS should never let any other TPG crossover their slabs for 1 main reason.

 

ANACS grading is not as BS as NGC or PCGS. You can't tell me that NGC doesn't let someone pay for a higher grade in bulk submissions, and that is ridiculous. Regardless of where each TPG stands in the industry, ANACS should be in a higher position.

 

I saw a 2011 1oz gold eagle graded MS70 by NGC and the obverse has numourus highly visible scratches. Shouldn't that have got a " Briliant unc. Details, scratched" label?

 

IMHO, I don't think anyone should send anything other than bullion and BU silver and modern coins to NGC. I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

M point is don't waste your money unless you are sending in a bunch of Proof silver because 9/10 your going to get screwed.

 

 

Did you see the 1oz gold eagle in hand that you referenced in your post? Are you sure that those marks are on the coin and not the holder? With regards to your argument about bulk submissions, you make bold conclusory statements without any evidence to back it up. I don't suspect any preferential grading and any claim made should be backed up with evidence.

 

With regards to your other points, all TPGs make errors and trust me, I have seen my fair share of dogs in ANACS holders (and NGC, PCGS, and ICG for that matter). No service is going to get it right 100% of the time, and when you are grading millions of coins, even a 99.9+% accuracy rating can produce a relatively large quantity of errors on the market. This is why collectors must work to protect themselves by becoming knowledgeable.

 

With regards to varieties, NGC publishes which varieties they recognize and which ones they will not. I am not sure why you are upset with them about this; you could have left the coins in their ANACS holders. And no offense, I don't see either variety as being major.

 

Edited to add: Again, no offense made, but the fact that you referred to a Mercury Dime variety as a "VAM" indicates to me that you are not well versed in coin varieties. VAM designations apply to Morgan and Peace Dollars.

 

There is a 1921 Micro S Morgan. I'm assuming that he is referring to VAM-2, but if he had done his homework, he would have known that it is not one that either NGC or PCGS will attribute.

 

As for the rest of his rant, all I can say is that I don't particularly care for whiners who make up a bunch of cr@p just because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

 

Chris

 

The scratches were on the coin, and yes I saw them in hand because I offered to buy them. Also it was a MORGAN VAM, not merc. Dime. The coins that I was talking about that I submitted we're not in ANACS holders, or any other holders.

 

Go proof read what your typed. "you make bold conclusionary statements with out evidence to back them up". Saying that I am not well versed in coin varieties IS a Bold BS statement without evidence to back it up. RPMs and other error coins are some of the main coins I buy and collect. I can back up my statements about bulk submissions because I personally know 2 dealers who have done so with ASEs.

 

 

 

 

The comment about making assertions without being able to back them up was by your statement which implied that bulk submitters receive preferences in grading and that, as a result of this and other things, NGC was not a good service.

[coinman_23885]

. Go proof read what your typed. "you make bold conclusionary statements with out evidence to back them up". Saying that I am not well versed in coin varieties IS a Bold BS statement without evidence to back it up. RPMs and other error coins are some of the main coins I buy and collect. I can back up my statements about bulk submissions because I personally know 2 dealers who have done so with ASEs.

 

 

If you go back and read closely, you will see that I admitted that I had misread that portion of your post and had apologized to you before your rant. But since you wish to discuss credibility, your post on the Flying Eagle cent, which you changed at least three times, would make some question your posts. At the very least, it suggests that you should verify the accuracy of your information before posting (as should I regarding the variety remark which I had previously retracted, and which was not meant as an attack but a simple observation to begin with).

 

Edited to add: See also your post about NGC not "selling coins" that you submit. What does this mean?

 

 

[CoinPulsive PCM]

First off, I didn't make up anything. So go eat sh*t. You can't Say my story is false NGC is full of cr@p and how they are one of the best TPGs is beyond me. And I DO know what I am doing, I will forward your dumb the email between mark speigel and I as to the issue.

 

Most of the variety guide is outdated, even he said it. But his excuses were BS. NGC isn't selling the coins that i submit. Regardless of an error coins significance to NGC, i paid for the designation, the RPM is recognized in several publications, and it was a nice example of that RPM.

You would think with all their crazy fees, they could pay someone to upgrade the catalogs on the website.

 

I don't like having my money go to waste and if you do, you have issues.

 

I never said that you made up the story, but suggested the possibility that you were either mistaken and that you shouldn't make bold accusations without any evidence to back up your claims. The fact that you opine something doesn't make it true or accurate at least. I agree that NGC could expand its variety offerings, but the fact is that you knew or should have known this information before you submitted the coins, so it's your fault. You seek to blame everyone else for problems that clearly could have been prevented if you had done your homework. A simple call to customer service ahead of time would have resolved most of your issues.

 

Edited to add: I don't understand your comment about NGC not "selling coins" that you submit. This makes no sense to me. Third party grading services are not in the business of selling coins; they sell their opinions.

 

What I meant by NGC selling coins was that if I paid for a designation that is legit, it should be designated on the label. Just because they don't think it is significant, what's the harm in putting the designation on the label? It is a recognized RPM. TPGs are graders, not coin dealers.

 

And in all honesty, i did check the variety guide prior to submitting. And I did call customer service a day or so after. And I was told that the guide is not 100% up to date. I figured that if the coin is recognized and has a FS# NGC would grade it. The same applied to the morgan VAM. But that one I should have held. It is very hard to determine what I have when many coins listed have no pictures to confirm what I have in hand.

[coinman_23885]

What I meant by NGC selling coins was that if I paid for a designation that is legit, it should be designated on the label. Just because they don't think it is significant, what's the harm in putting the designation on the label? It is a recognized RPM. TPGs are graders, not coin dealers.

 

And in all honesty, i did check the variety guide prior to submitting. And I did call customer service a day or so after. And I was told that the guide is not 100% up to date. I figured that if the coin is recognized and has a FS# NGC would grade it. The same applied to the morgan VAM. But that one I should have held. It is very hard to determine what I have when many coins listed have no pictures to confirm what I have in hand.

 

Have you thought that they don't have enough time or find it profitable to research insignificant and/or esoteric varieties where the demand is likely to be small? Remember, they are staking their reputation on it, and they would be foolish to take the word of any submitter on it without having the resources and time to back it up. If this means that it is not profitable for them to recognize some varieties (and should they refuse to designate them as a result), then I don't really see a problem.

 

Also, you admit that you "figured that if the coin is recognized and has a FS# NGC would grade it." The issue again is with your assumptions. You shouldn't make assumptions that aren't well grounded in fact and reason. If seems that you are angry with NGC for an error made as a result of your erroneous assumption.

[cpm9ball]

What I meant by NGC selling coins was that if I paid for a designation that is legit, it should be designated on the label. Just because they don't think it is significant, what's the harm in putting the designation on the label? It is a recognized RPM. TPGs are graders, not coin dealers.

 

And in all honesty, i did check the variety guide prior to submitting. And I did call customer service a day or so after. And I was told that the guide is not 100% up to date. I figured that if the coin is recognized and has a FS# NGC would grade it. The same applied to the morgan VAM. But that one I should have held. It is very hard to determine what I have when many coins listed have no pictures to confirm what I have in hand.

 

I lost $150 because NGC doesn't think a FS-102 D/D 1951 cent is a significant error and a 1921S micro S variety is not a Significant VAM. They both are significant to collectors.

 

Has the CPG come out with a 6th Edition? I just checked both my 4th & 5th Editions, and neither one lists the 1951 Lincoln D/D, FS-102. Given that, I fully understand NGC's decision not to attribute it.

 

As for the "significance" of the 1921 Micro S Morgan, the rarity factor for the VAM-2 (is that the one you mean?) is R-3 which equates to "hundreds of thousands". What is so significant about that?

 

Again, I feel that you didn't do your homework, and you are merely making unfounded accusations out of anger.

 

Oh, and one more thing. The fee for the variety service for both of these coins is not $150. Perhaps you would like to qualify this statement.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

Mr Horsehockey! I do not disagree with your analogy of the grading service leaders. Unfortunately you gave your opinion and avoided answering my question. So I'll repeat my question for you.

 

Why shouldn't NGC provide this service?

 

I'll give you just one example why they choose not to, and it concerns Morgan VAM's. ANACS attributes all VAM's and NGC does not. How can you expect to cross any Morgan with a VAM that is not on the NGC list?

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

Bill, I've seen this happen far to many times for it to be an anomaly. The proof is when the coin that was rejected is removed from the NGC holder and resubmitted raw, magically it grades the same or higher. Of course one could blame it on the holder.

 

There is a good reason for the low crossover statistics and the reason is the holder itself. It is much more difficult to adequately view a coin through its holder, so the graders are naturally going to be more conservative. If there is any doubt, they are going to resolve the doubt against crossing it over. After all, why would they break open the holder of a questionable coin and potentially open themselves up to liability?