Mercury dimes FB designation – PCGS vs. NGC

[brg5658]

BACKGROUND

Based on an article that I had read years ago, it was my understanding that NGC and PCGS do not assign the "FB" designation to Mercury dimes in the same way. In an article written by David Lange (who works for NGC), I drew the conclusion that NGC assigns the "FB" designation to Mercury dimes which exhibit both fully split, and raised/rounded uninterrupted bands. By contrast, PCGS assigns the FB designation to Mercury dimes that exhibit fully split uninterrupted bands, even if the bands are not raised/rounded.

 

Based on my understanding of these differences, and borrowing a graphic which was used in the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist, PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrated bands as "FB”, whereas NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

 

In a recent thread, whether or not there was really a difference in the way that PCGS and NGC assign the FB designation was questioned. One way of examining this difference would be to look at the proportion of coins of each year and mint mark that have been designated as “full bands” by the two grading companies.

 

METHODS

My goal was to investigate whether any information could be gleaned from the PCGS and NGC population reports to support a difference in the “FB” designation as applied by PCGS and NGC. Using the respective population reports as downloaded on April 16, 2013, I calculated the percent of coins graded with FB designation separately for each year and mint mark. In primary comparisons, I only included coins graded MS65 or higher (gem uncirculated) for two reasons: 1) so as to avoid a bias if one service had graded a much larger number of low-grade examples (almost all “FB” designation coins from both services are uncirculated); and 2) because the number of coins with large hits or dings that may preclude the “FB” designation on an otherwise strongly struck coin should be uncommon on coins graded MS65 and higher.

 

I calculated the absolute percentage difference between FB designated coins from the two companies. In addition, I calculated the relative difference in FB designation by calculating the ratio of the percentage of coins designated FB by the higher frequency company divided by the percentage of coins designated FB by the lower frequency company. Coins with additional modifiers of the grade (“+” grades for PCGS and NGC) or modifiers of the strike or eye appeal (“PL” and “star” grades for NGC coins) were also included in the calculations.

 

RESULTS

A total of 80 different coins were summarized, including two overdate varieties (1942/1-P and 1942/1-D) and one mint-mark variety (1945-Micro S). The Table below shows the results for all of the coins. For every one of the 80 coins, PCGS designated a higher proportion of the coins as “FB” than did NGC. The largest absolute difference in the percent of coins designated FB was for the 1927-S (PCGS 57.5% FB vs. NGC 13.9% FB). As reported in the ratio column, the largest relative discrepancy between PCGS FB% and NGC FB% was for the 1931-S coin (PCGS 42.9% FB vs. NGC 10.2% FB: ratio = 4.19). Even among series rarities in FB (e.g., the 1945-P), PCGS assigned the FB designation nearly 4 times more often than did NGC. The Figure shows the absolute differences in FB% between NGC and PCGS.

 

 

Table:

 

Figure:

 

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that PCGS and NGC do not apply the FB designation equally. This is true across the board for all 80 coins of the series. Even when the FB% difference is small in absolute terms between PCGS and NGC, the relative difference can be upwards of 4-fold increased application of the FB designation by PCGS. Comparisons restricted to coins grading MS65 or higher are less prone to biases; but, findings were the same when considering all grades from MS60 and higher, and when considering all grades from P01 through MS70 (data not shown). The observed differences are consistent with what one would expect if NGC requires both fully split and raised/rounded bands; however, I can not rule out other possible explanations.

 

LIMITATIONS

As with all investigations relying on TPG population data, results are only as good as the data going into them. Interpret these findings with a grain of salt, as they do not account for resubmissions, cross-overs, and of population inaccuracies.

 

[coinman_23885]

Interesting post. By any chance did you run a statistical analysis and establish confidence intervals?

[brg5658]

Interesting post. By any chance did you run a statistical analysis and establish confidence intervals?

 

Kenny, I am a professional statistician for a living. Confidence intervals are irrelevant given the size of most of the samples -- most of the comparisons are based on hundreds if not thousands of coins graded by each service.

 

In addition, every test by year and mint mark is independent; so please don't suggest the need for adjusting for multiple comparisons.

 

-Brandon

[jom]

Great info. Thanks.

 

Now...here's something. Is this coin a FB? If not, why not?

 

 

Most would agree this is very close to FB. However, if the rest of the coin is fully struck AND this coin is NOT considered FB then how much would this coin be worth? Let's assume a non-FB is $1000 and a FB is $10,000.

 

If you say $1000, then is another coin designated FB really worth 10X this coin? What if that other FB coin wasn't as fully struck as this one?

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

[brg5658]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

 

Jason I think this is far from confirming what "specialists already know". Lehigh was the person in the other thread who told me he didn't believe that NGC and PCGS used different standards for the FB designation on the Mercury Dime. He's not exactly a beginner.

 

The FBL, Full steps, and FT/FB Roosevelt designations are well known and no one doubts or disagrees with the fact that they are appreciably different across PCGS and NGC. Seems silly to do numerical analysis for something for which you already know the answer.

 

The point of this thread was to show that among Mercury dimes PCGS and NGC likely use different standards. IMO, for Mercury dimes, it is not well known or established that there are differences of this magnitude.

 

[brg5658]

Great info. Thanks.

 

Now...here's something. Is this coin a FB? If not, why not?

 

 

Most would agree this is very close to FB. However, if the rest of the coin is fully struck AND this coin is NOT considered FB then how much would this coin be worth? Let's assume a non-FB is $1000 and a FB is $10,000.

 

If you say $1000, then is another coin designated FB really worth 10X this coin? What if that other FB coin wasn't as fully struck as this one?

 

jom

 

My honest opinion: It depends on the plastic.

 

PCGS, yes FB (uninterrupted split bands).

 

NGC, I say no FB. The bands are too flat.

 

Sadly, most people who would be putting a set together of that coin would either a) wait for one with the "FB" on the slab, or b) only pay below book for what the non-FB version would go for.

 

 

 

[dimefreak]

I think all your confirming is that smarter people send there coins to PCGS therefore they get the nicer coins sent to them IE : More full bands

[BKW]

Informative post Brandon. Thanks.

[brg5658]

I think all your confirming is that smarter people send there coins to PCGS therefore they get the nicer coins sent to them IE : More full bands

 

I knew that would be someone's argument. It's complete hogwash though.

 

I specifically restricted to coins that were gem. For a given date and mint-mark the fact that PCGS grades a higher proportion of gem coins with FB across 80 different coins is not coincidental. PCGS clearly has looser standards for the FB designation.

 

I understand that some people (cough -- PCGS Kool-aid drinkers) don't want to admit that there are likely thousands of FB PCGS Mercs out there that would never make it into NGC FB holders. I believe evidence, not megalomaniac story-telling.

 

[dimefreak]

I beleive there are likley thousands of NGC that wouldnt cross either.... Graders arent perfect! Your story though is hogwash! They are toughr on Franklins but not Mercs... Sorry!

 

[brg5658]

I beleive there are likley thousands of NGC that wouldnt cross either.... Graders arent perfect! Your story though is hogwash! They are toughr on Franklins but not Mercs... Sorry!

 

Story? It's evidence. Apparently you don't believe in the scientific process? You'd rather just spout old wive's tales? If you can provide EVIDENCE to support your anecdotal hypothesis, I will give it consideration. Until that time, I'm sorry for you, but the evidence supports that NGC is stricter on the FB designation for Mercs than is PCGS.

 

PS -- crossing at technical grade is a completely different animal than crossing with the FB designation. I don't doubt there are many many Mercs that would not cross to NGC at the same numeric (technical) grade. That has nothing to do with the proportion that would make it into FB holders at both services.

 

 

[dimefreak]

Collectors send to NGC

Investors and collectors send to PCGS

 

This means many of those FB's @ PCGS are the same coin just cracked out multiple times

[brg5658]

Collectors send to NGC

Investors and collectors send to PCGS

 

This means many of those FB's @ PCGS are the same coin just cracked out multiple times

 

dimefreak, I understand your arguments. The problem is that they are anecdotal. They are not backed by any evidence. My hypothesis is just as likely as yours (actually, mine is more likely given that I actually have shown evidence). So, my question still stands -- do you have any evidence? Either you have evidence to support your claim, or you don't. Anecdotes and regurgitation of stories from other coin forums is not evidence.

[dimefreak]

Collectors send to NGC

Investors and collectors send to PCGS

 

This means many of those FB's @ PCGS are the same coin just cracked out multiple times

 

dimefreak, I understand your arguments. The problem is that they are anecdotal. They are not backed by any evidence. My hypothesis is just as likely as yours (actually, mine is more likely given that I actually have shown evidence). So, my question still stands -- do you have any evidence? Either you have evidence to support your claim, or you don't. Anecdotes and regurgitation of stories from other coin forums is not evidence.

 

Do you have evidence against my claims?

 

Lets use logic for starters. Why would I send a crackout coin in multiple times? Most likely for financial gain because if I am just collecting I prolly don't give two hoots about the grade. If I know enough to start cracking coins than I prolly know I will get way more money in a PCGS holder (in most cases).

 

I also know from personal experiences and prior to this week you could stroll through coinfacts and see multiple pics and cert numbers of the same coin. Many times you could watch it "climb the ladder" so to speak.

 

So no I dont have too much evidence to back my wives tale, but you have no evidence against it either

[Coindude]

DF: I'll bet if you keep defending PCGS here, they'll unban you....

[dimefreak]

DF: I'll bet if you keep defending PCGS here, they'll unban you....

 

I could have easily been unbanned. All I had to do was send Don Willis a Message and let him know the chick on my coin wasnt naked she has a bra on..... Sending messages explaining myself isnt my bag. Life goes on and if I need something over there I just make an alt real quick

 

editted to add the coin/token I posted

[michael]

great thread!!

 

i will vote this thread for thread of the month on the us coins board

 

i think that as time goes on pcgs graded ms 65 66 67 FSB merc dimes (if not totally FULLY 100% split bands AND FULLY100% rounded bands) will BE IN LESS DEMAND AS PRICES WILL RISE AND BUYERS GET PICKIER FOR THE NO BRAINER ALL THERE COINS

 

sooooooooooooo EXTREMELY PICKY COLLECTORS WILL BE REWARDED

 

EVEN MORESO FOR THE HIGHER GRADED BETTER DATES

 

AND JUST MADE IT COINS IN PCGS HOLDERS WILL be in a no mans land demand wise

 

SAME THING WITH THE DMPL pcgs morgan market;; coins graded DMPL in the circa 1989 TO 1995 green tag days; MANY not all, but MANY DMPL PCGS MORGANS seen today with regularity still in their green tag holders aint CONSIDERED DMPL anymore with less demand and hard to sell unless you get a fish as the market acceptability have changed due to higher pricing

 

collectors buying only the strongly cameoed;; ultra deep;; DMPL pcgs green tag morgans in the 1989 to 1995 era have already upgraded and/or have trophy coins in DEMAND in todays market

[James_OldeTowne]

Collectors send to NGC

Investors and collectors send to PCGS

 

This means many of those FB's @ PCGS are the same coin just cracked out multiple times

Analysis as provided by the OP does not support your implication that somehow, "multiple resubmissions" skewed the statistics. Why would someone repeatedly send in a 1940 dime, for example, for a bump from MS-64 to 65? There really aren't many issues in the Mercury dime series that would warrant a large number of resubmissions for a single bump in grade, so I don't think that explains the statistical trend.

 

In my experience, I actually do believe NGC's designation is slightly narrower than what PCGS uses. And I also believe that in terms of numeric grade, the companies are virtually on par, and paying an exorbitant "fee" for one over the other makes no financial sense at all.

[dimefreak]

Collectors send to NGC

Investors and collectors send to PCGS

 

This means many of those FB's @ PCGS are the same coin just cracked out multiple times

Analysis as provided by the OP does not support your implication that somehow, "multiple resubmissions" skewed the statistics. Why would someone repeatedly send in a 1940 dime, for example, for a bump from MS-64 to 65? There really aren't many issues in the Mercury dime series that would warrant a large number of resubmissions for a single bump in grade, so I don't think that explains the statistical trend.

 

In my experience, I actually do believe NGC's designation is slightly narrower than what PCGS uses. And I also believe that in terms of numeric grade, the companies are virtually on par, and paying an exorbitant "fee" for one over the other makes no financial sense at all.

 

The big price differences for a one grade bump would be for the most part 1931 and prior.... Now go look at the dots for 1931 and prior..... notice they all start going to the right???

[brg5658]

The big price differences for a one grade bump would be for the most part 1931 and prior.... Now go look at the dots for 1931 and prior..... notice they all start going to the right???

 

You really don't understand science do you?

[dimefreak]

The big price differences for a one grade bump would be for the most part 1931 and prior.... Now go look at the dots for 1931 and prior..... notice they all start going to the right???

 

You really don't understand science do you?

 

I have a bachelors in Science actually.... I dont think you understand economics.

 

1919D MS65FB in PCGS $17000 NGC $11000..... I own a raw one I think can go GEM where am I going to send the coin for grading? 1919D MS64FB in PCGS $4000.... I get a MS64FB back from them I'm cracking it and going for the big bucks.... Its not really hard to understand.

[TonerGuy]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

 

+1 .... I would like to see the analysis on FT and FBL as well.

 

And if you havent I would love to see this posted ATS... just to see the Kool-Aid drinkers go nuts over this analysis... Edited to add: apparently that isnt necessary since there seems to be a few here as well...

 

Thank you for your work and a well thought out and useful analysis.

[dimefreak]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

 

+1 .... I would like to see the analysis on FT and FBL as well.

 

And if you havent I would love to see this posted ATS... just to see the Kool-Aid drinkers go nuts over this analysis...

 

Thank you for your work and a well thought out and useful analysis.

 

I beleive NGC is much harder on FBL and FT, especially FBL. I wouldnt argue that,but they have very similar views when it comes to Mercs.

[$ilverHawk]

Great info. Thanks.

 

Now...here's something. Is this coin a FB? If not, why not?

 

 

Most would agree this is very close to FB. However, if the rest of the coin is fully struck AND this coin is NOT considered FB then how much would this coin be worth? Let's assume a non-FB is $1000 and a FB is $10,000.

 

If you say $1000, then is another coin designated FB really worth 10X this coin? What if that other FB coin wasn't as fully struck as this one?

 

jom

 

My honest opinion: It depends on the plastic.

 

PCGS, yes FB (uninterrupted split bands).

 

NGC, I say no FB. The bands are too flat.

 

Sadly, most people who would be putting a set together of that coin would either a) wait for one with the "FB" on the slab, or b) only pay below book for what the non-FB version would go for.

 

 

 

First, very exhaustive analysis. This must be a topic that you are very passionate about. The coin in the photo is not FB. Note the three semicircular occlusions in the central area. What is the magnification in this photo? Way above 5X or 10X which is the commonly accepted examination threshold for determination for assigning any specific attributes. There is not a complete separation between the bands under any objective standards.

 

Based on your illustration in your initial post, this coin does not qualify as "split bands" or "fully split bands".

 

I realize that this is a discussion regarding the grading parameters of NGC vs. PCGS, but I as a novice in this area can clearly see that the example coin does not fit the illustrations of "split bands" or "fully split bands".

 

I wonder what parameters PCGS is using to determine the assignment of "FB" ?

 

Carl

[brg5658]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

 

+1 .... I would like to see the analysis on FT and FBL as well.

 

And if you havent I would love to see this posted ATS... just to see the Kool-Aid drinkers go nuts over this analysis...

 

Thank you for your work and a well thought out and useful analysis.

 

I beleive NGC is much harder on FBL and FT, especially FBL. I wouldnt argue that,but they have very similar views when it comes to Mercs.

 

dimefreak, there is no "believing". The two services have completely different published standards on FBL and FT/FB for Roosies. It doesn't take too much "believing" to establish that they are different.

 

Regardings Mercs -- opinions are cheap. I believe that NGC and PCGS standards are quite different. Also, for your resubmissions "story" to be a plausible explanation for the inflated FB%'s from PCGS, you would have to assume a HUGE proportion of coins were resubmitted and counted multiple times. This isn't just restricted to the series rarities and early years before 1931. There are persistent and large differences across ALL 80 coins.

 

 

[dimefreak]

Would you expect anything different? You sound a tad irritated? All I am saying is PCGS will have a higher ratio because if I have a really nice merc ( ALL 80) Im more likley to send it to PCGS where it is coveted higher. Aside from modern stuff they both have the same technical grading standards in my opinion. That reason alone was enough for me to ditch my NGC membership.Why am I going to send my coins to NGC and let them grade as tough as PCGS when PCGS coins sell for more? Yea, I thought I had it all figured out. I busted a bunch of PCGS coins and sent them to NGC for the automatic grade bump.... NOPE! All came back the same and one downgraded. So thast when I decided to go ahead and stay with PCGS and let my NGC membership go. I cant think for one second I am alone in that thinking. So now I certainly seek out NGC coins to crack and send to PCGS. I know you wont say your wrong so this will be my last post on this subject. And for what its worth I tend to agree with the vibe I was getting from Jom's post earlier in the thread. Designations are for the birds!!! My only point is that FH and FB are about the only two PCGS and NGC agree on. Everything else NGC takes far more serious!

[jom]

First, very exhaustive analysis. This must be a topic that you are very passionate about. The coin in the photo is not FB. Note the three semicircular occlusions in the central area. What is the magnification in this photo? Way above 5X or 10X which is the commonly accepted examination threshold for determination for assigning any specific attributes. There is not a complete separation between the bands under any objective standards.

 

Based on your illustration in your initial post, this coin does not qualify as "split bands" or "fully split bands".

 

I realize that this is a discussion regarding the grading parameters of NGC vs. PCGS, but I as a novice in this area can clearly see that the example coin does not fit the illustrations of "split bands" or "fully split bands".

 

I wonder what parameters PCGS is using to determine the assignment of "FB" ?

 

Carl

 

The above coin was posted by me, not the OP. It was an illustration of a situation where a coin could be considered VERY close to FB but yet the value of said coin is far less. Quite possibly 10X less in this case. The implication on my part is that it is a questionable practice to pay such a large premium for such a small difference in strike. Especially since the middle bands are NOT the only place on a Merc Dime that has the potential of having a weak strike.

 

BTW, what is it that you mean by "Note the three semicircular occlusions in the central area". I don't know what you mean by that.

 

As to the standard in the OP, I've seen many coins with LESS separation of the bands at both TPGs in FB holders. However, it is very possible the posted coin will NEVER make it to FB due to the huge premium on it. The coin is a 19S.

 

jom

[jom]

On the resubmission theory: If that is true then isn't plausible that ANY analysis of the PCGS data is bogus? It would also tend to make even the values in the coin market, many of which are dependent on the Pop data, become skewed as well. No?

 

jom

[lehigh96]

Interesting, but you really are just confirming was specialists already know - NGC is, across the board, more strict on all strike designations. It would be interesting to see similar numerical analyses for the other strike designations to prove that point.

 

For my own series, the Franklin, I don't even waste my time with PCGS "FBL" coins, unless I can see the coin in hand and judge it for myself. A large percentage of PCGS designated coins would only get laughed at if submitted to NGC.

 

Jason I think this is far from confirming what "specialists already know". Lehigh was the person in the other thread who told me he didn't believe that NGC and PCGS used different standards for the FB designation on the Mercury Dime. He's not exactly a beginner.

 

The FBL, Full steps, and FT/FB Roosevelt designations are well known and no one doubts or disagrees with the fact that they are appreciably different across PCGS and NGC. Seems silly to do numerical analysis for something for which you already know the answer.

 

The point of this thread was to show that among Mercury dimes PCGS and NGC likely use different standards. IMO, for Mercury dimes, it is not well known or established that there are differences of this magnitude.

 

Brandon,

 

That is not exactly what I said. I said that I don't believe that NGC requires fully split and rounded bands. It is well known that NGC is tougher on just about every strike designation, including the FB designation for Mercury Dimes. I submit that if NGC required fully rounded bands, the ratios would be much higher than the current data suggests.

 

BTW, that was a fantastic analysis and post. Bravo!

 

Paul