Should NGC crossover?

[coinman_23885]

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

 

He should also read my first post regarding TPG liability when breaking open another TPG's slab only to find a problem that wasn't visible through the holder.

[shish-migration]

You make a vilid point regarding VAMS that do not appear on NGC's list. However I feel this is an extremely weak justification for their decision to allow only PCGS graded coins for their crossover service. I'm sure NGC has their reasons but I don't think that reason makes their list.

[shish-migration]

Again you make a valid point. However I will repeat the fact that PCGS is able to deal with this exact same problem. Again your arguement is very weak because NGC offered this service for many years, only recently did they change their minds.

[coinman_23885]

Again you make a valid point. However I will repeat the fact that PCGS is able to deal with this exact same problem. Again your arguement is very weak because NGC offered this service for many years, only recently did they change their minds.

 

I guess it depends on how you define being "able to deal with this...problem." If you look at the statistics posted on the PCGS website, the crossover rate is consistently in the 30-40% range or so. While some of it could be attributed to the coins alone, the holder cannot be ruled out as a possibility. Also, the fact that NGC offered the service for many years proved nothing. Fallout from failing to cross over coins (from collectors who want to complain) or for the associated risk could have been the impetus.

 

This is not to say that I disagree with those of you who think that NGC should consider crossing ANACS and ICG coins. I don't. I would limit the policy to third world slabs where soldered together coins, etc., have been a problem. This is the primary reason why I would only submit coins to NGC through my ANA membership and why my collector's club membership is ATS. I like the flexibility in crossing coins.

[shish-migration]

Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. I'm convinced that the vast majority of coins that do not cross can be attributed to the coins alone. This is because NGC uses its grading standards, not PCGS, ANACS, or ICG grading standards. You're correct that the holder can not be ruled out as a possibility. I'm convinced that the holder accounts for a very small percentage of the coins that do not crossover.

 

Your statement below seems logical and could be the reason.

 

"Fallout from failing to cross over coins (from collectors who want to complain) or for the associated risk could have been the impetus."

 

I too "like the flexibility in crossing coins."

[copper toning]

Lots of interesting opinions in this post. For some reason I simply can not get past the "eat sh*t"!

 

A little over the top. Still funny.

[coinman1794]

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.

 

I imagine they are worried about the same things I am when considering an ANACS coin: are there hidden rim problems that I will to find when I crack it out? If NGC cracks a coin and finds rim damage or counterfieting, they cannot replace the ANACS slab and cannot put it in an NGC slab at the same grade. PCGS has a good enough reputation on grade and counterfiet slab protection that NGC can take the stance that the grade opionion probably isn't going to change once the coin is cracked out.