What's your experience?

[Raisethis2]

Will the folks ATS be more likely to grade a coin with questionable toning? I'm afraid that sending it to NGC will get the dreaded "Details" designation.

 

Similarly, does one service reject coins for improper cleaning more often than the other?

[FishyOne]

Will the folks ATS be more likely to grade a coin with questionable toning? I'm afraid that sending it to NGC will get the dreaded "Details" designation.

 

Similarly, does one service reject coins for improper cleaning more often than the other?

 

I won't comment on the toning question because I don't have much experience submitting toned coins and am not a big buyer there either.

 

Cleaning: On my favorite series' (which are all 19th century U.S. silver) I feel NGC is touch more lenient on what they consider "Market Acceptable" with regard to cleaning.

 

TMMV.

[crypto79-migration]

Will the folks ATS be more likely to grade a coin with questionable toning? I'm afraid that sending it to NGC will get the dreaded "Details" designation.

 

Similarly, does one service reject coins for improper cleaning more often than the other?

 

I won't comment on the toning question because I don't have much experience submitting toned coins and am not a big buyer there either.

 

Cleaning: On my favorite series' (which are all 19th century U.S. silver) I feel NGC is touch more lenient on what they consider "Market Acceptable" with regard to cleaning.

 

TMMV.

 

I used to think that but both companies let through plenty of dogs. The biggest current difference I see is PCGS puts a bigger emphasis on luster affecting the grade of a coin than NGC which really effects the XF45-AU58 range. CAC's overall standards seam more in line with PCGS'd definition of market grading in my experience and sticker a larger % wise although I am pretty sure PCGS has tightened their standards since CAC came around for this reason. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

EX-NGC AU53>>>>Current PCGS XF45>>>>>> Reality-XF details cleaned (but very rare)

[jom]

I used to think that but both companies let through plenty of dogs. The biggest current difference I see is PCGS puts a bigger emphasis on luster affecting the grade of a coin than NGC which really effects the XF45-AU58 range. CAC's overall standards seam more in line with PCGS'd definition of market grading in my experience and sticker a larger % wise although I am pretty sure PCGS has tightened their standards since CAC came around for this reason. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

EX-NGC AU53>>>>Current PCGS XF45>>>>>> Reality-XF details cleaned (but very rare)

 

I agree with the luster emphasis at PCGS with the higher end circulated grades. I also see the CAC trend as well.

 

As to AT vs. NT for the OP: Remember that the TPGs don't consider AT they consider what is "market acceptable". That gives them some leeway as the definition of "AT" is rather nebulous.

 

jom

[michael]

i have heard this from one of the smartest, brutal, ruthless

coin seller and part time coin fixer i ever knew

 

i dont know send it in and find out

 

 

my thought

 

send it in!!

sometimes you win sometimes you lose but if the slab doesn't fit

 

resubmit

[dimefreak]

Depends what kind of coin it is

 

[AnkurJ]

Does NGC have a sniffer like PCGS?

 

If the coin is worth a minimal amount, I don't think it's worth resubmitting over and over. At one point it will no longer be cost effective.