Mercury dimes FB designation – PCGS vs. 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.

 

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

 

Paul, the point is that if NGC is tougher than PCGS, then how and why are they tougher? For the Frankie FBL designation it is two sets of lines by NGC versus one set for PCGS. For Full steps designation, it is 5FS and 6FS designated separately by NGC versus PCGS "5 steps is good enough". For Roosies FT versus FB, it is whether you look at separation in the entire torch (FT) by NGC versus PCGS "just the bundling horizontal bands matter" (FB).

 

For the Mercury Dime series if it is truly "well known" that NGC is tougher than PCGS on the FB designation, then they have to be tougher on some characteristic of the bands. Maybe it's that NGC is tougher on dings and marks that interrupt or bridge the band splitting? BUT, if that were the case, why would such large differences on gem coins persist (MS65 and higher) where those types of distractions should be minimal.

 

You say that you would expect much larger differences? How much larger are you talking? The current ratio across all dates is around 3:2. In other words, for every 3 coins called FB by PCGS, NGC would only agree with 2 of them. For some of the individual coins in the series, the ratio is as high as 4:1 (i.e., for every 4 coins called FB by PCGS, NGC would only agree with 1). These are not "small" differences. In fact, if you consider NGC rates for each coin graded MS65 or higher to be the general rates in the population at large, the excess gem coins across the series called FB by PCGS that would likely not make it at NGC is around 20,500 coins!!!

 

If the proportion of "FB" coins is artificially inflated at PCGS by resubmissions and crossovers as dimefreak suggests, then why would the same differences in FB designation persist even on coins in the grade level MS60-MS63 where such resubmissions and crossovers serve no monetary-gain purpose for most of the coins in the series (see new Figure below). Just as a case in point, consider the 1943-D Mercury Dime in grades MS60 through MS63. This is a very common coin, and there is no one who would surmise that the populations of this coin in grades MS60 through MS63 would be "tainted" by inflated FB examples from resubmissions and cross overs. Yet, PCGS has graded 84.9% of coins with the FB designation compared to NGC's 53.9%. That's a more than 30% difference. This can't be logically explained away by resubmissions or crossovers as dimefreak suggested.

 

In short, I believe it's clear that NGC and PCGS have different standards for assessing the FB designation on Mercury dimes. Furthermore, I believe these different standards are consistent with a distinction of rounded/raised bands. It's not the only explanation, but given what David Lange clearly stated in his article from 2000 specifically referring to NGC (i.e., fully split and raised/rounded bands) and what is listed on the PCGS website (i.e., no mention of whether the bands must be raised/rounded) -- it's a quite feasible explanation.

 

-Brandon

 

 

Figure: Absolute percentage difference in FB designation between PCGS and NGC for coins graded MS60 to MS63.

 

 

[BKW]

In short, I believe it's clear that NGC and PCGS have different standards for assessing the FB designation on Mercury dimes. Furthermore, I believe these different standards are consistent with a distinction of rounded/raised bands. It's not the only explanation, but given what David Lange clearly stated in his article from 2000 specifically referring to NGC (i.e., fully split and raised/rounded bands) and what is listed on the PCGS website (i.e., no mention of whether the bands must be raised/rounded) -- it's a quite feasible explanation.

 

I'm not a scientist, economist or statistician. Frankly, I'm horrible at math and add on my fingers. But I am an attorney and I can tell you that the statements on NGC's and PCGS' websites would be prima facie evidence in court that NGC and PCGS have different grading standards for FB Merc dimes; at least in principal. And Brandon's analyses seem to support this distinction in practice as well. While the analyses have their limitations as Brandon readily admits, and there are potentially other explanations, given the facts to date, if this were a legal proceeding, the case is weighing heavily in favor of NGC having stricter standards on the FB designation.

 

Now if we want to add another layer of complexity to the issue, we could throw CAC in the mix. Are their standards more in line with the looser PCGS standard or the tighter NGC standard? I'm not sure we could determine this because I don't believe CAC keeps records (at least publically) of NGC vs PCGS coins which it stickers. It does make a distinction in its POP report of FB v non-FB so I assume it takes the designation into consideration when evaluating a coin (as opposed to say the + designation which it doesn't take into consideration and doesn't put in its POP report.)

 

[jom]

I think an important thing here to point out that just because NGC has a tougher standard than PCGS doesn't mean it's "better". This is also true for overall grades or any other standard that is applied.

 

A better TPG would be the one that consistently applies the standards. If the TPG is all over the place with the application then the grading (or strike designation or whatever) is essentially worthless.

 

As long as you know the standard of each and the graders apply it correctly then you know what you are getting and can value the coin appropriately.

 

jom

 

PS: I should also add that this is a very well done thread. Excellent in fact. I appreciate the data analysis myself as I'm an engineer. The math is right up my alley. This in an MS70 thread! (thumbs u

[brg5658]

I think an important thing here to point out that just because NGC has a tougher standard than PCGS doesn't mean it's "better". This is also true for overall grades or any other standard that is applied.

 

A better TPG would be the one that consistently applies the standards. If the TPG is all over the place with the application then the grading (or strike designation or whatever) is essentially worthless.

 

As long as you know the standard of each and the graders apply it correctly then you know what you are getting and can value the coin appropriately.

 

jom

 

PS: I should also add that this is a very well done thread. Excellent in fact. I appreciate the data analysis myself as I'm an engineer. The math is right up my alley. This in an MS70 thread! (thumbs u

 

Thanks for the kind words jom. I never once suggested that one standard was better than the other, only that the standards must be different based on the data. And, further, I hypothesized that the standard difference may be one of split and rounded bands (NGC) versus merely split (PCGS).

 

I have excluded the possibility that NGC assigns FB less often based on strictness with marks, dings, or other impeding hits based on the gem only analysis (MS65 and higher) where such impeding marks would likely preclude a gem grade. I have also shown convincingly that in the grade range where resubmissions and crossovers can not logically be biasing the results (MS60 - MS63 coins), the differences still persist in the percentage of FB designated coins.

 

Again the point of this thread was to detail what I don't think is "well known" about the designation of FB for Mercs. I know Jason and Paul both said it's apparently common knowledge as if this were as simple as the FBL or FS story, but it simply is not. Not only is it apparently not "well known", but no matter how much data you can present to show that it must be different, some people will still swear until they are blue in the face that Mercs are assigned FB equally by PCGS and NGC.

 

 

 

[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.

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???

Sorry, but that just makes no sense. I don't see anything in the analysis that suggest you can throw out half the data and just use the half that supports your own perspective. That's like a baseball player throwing out all the called strikes because they weren't "really" the strikes that lowered his hitting average.

 

As for the theory that somehow the same coins keep going back to PCGS for resubmission, that also makes little sense, since that doesn't affect the ratio that would get the FB designation... unless you are saying PCGS is wildly inconsistent in how they apply it.

[dimefreak]

I apologize that you guys dont understand too much about getting coins regrading for finnancial gain

[dimefreak]

20143441 25537234 20905814 One coin but takes up 3 spots on your chart

27438278 27266120 24932992 24230187 18698015 One coin but takes up 5 spots on your chart

 

24926803 20142602 24413132 26630428 One coin but takes up 4 spots on your chart

 

25025795 24986389 One coin but takes up 2 spots on your chart

 

 

This happends daily and if I had no life I could keep searching coinfacts and heritage and show you many many cases of this.... Your charts and info just arent accurate my freind

 

 

[coinman_23885]

20143441 25537234 20905814 One coin but takes up 3 spots on your chart

27438278 27266120 24932992 24230187 18698015 One coin but takes up 5 spots on your chart

 

24926803 20142602 24413132 26630428 One coin but takes up 4 spots on your chart

 

25025795 24986389 One coin but takes up 2 spots on your chart

 

 

This happends daily and if I had no life I could keep searching coinfacts and heritage and show you many many cases of this.... Your charts and info just arent accurate my freind

 

 

Brandon admitted that his study was limited insofar as the data inputted into the analysis could be off because of, among other things, resubmissions. I think his problem with your argument lies in the fact that you allege the PCGS has a higher number of crackouts/regrades; however, this is hard to decipher and prove without hard data to back it up. The argument is that both PCGS and NGC data are compromised by resubmissions, and this should, theoretically speaking, help cancel out or limit any effect.

[brg5658]

20143441 25537234 20905814 One coin but takes up 3 spots on your chart

27438278 27266120 24932992 24230187 18698015 One coin but takes up 5 spots on your chart

 

24926803 20142602 24413132 26630428 One coin but takes up 4 spots on your chart

 

25025795 24986389 One coin but takes up 2 spots on your chart

 

 

This happends daily and if I had no life I could keep searching coinfacts and heritage and show you many many cases of this.... Your charts and info just arent accurate my freind

 

 

I redid the analyses for coins graded only MS60 to MS63. I even gave a specific example of the 1943-D in those grades. To think that someone is cracking out coins of that level and price range to resubmit is simply absurd. I know you don't like to hear evidence directed squarely at your claim, but in this case you're simply wrong. READ the details of what I posted without your "I already know the answer" glasses on.

 

I'm sorry "my freind" [sic] but you simply don't understand scientific arguments.

[brg5658]

20143441 25537234 20905814 One coin but takes up 3 spots on your chart

27438278 27266120 24932992 24230187 18698015 One coin but takes up 5 spots on your chart

 

24926803 20142602 24413132 26630428 One coin but takes up 4 spots on your chart

 

25025795 24986389 One coin but takes up 2 spots on your chart

 

 

This happends daily and if I had no life I could keep searching coinfacts and heritage and show you many many cases of this.... Your charts and info just arent accurate my freind

 

 

Brandon admitted that his study was limited insofar as the data inputted into the analysis could be off because of, among other things, resubmissions. I think his problem with your argument lies in the fact that you allege the PCGS has a higher number of crackouts/regrades; however, this is hard to decipher and prove without hard data to back it up. The argument is that both PCGS and NGC data are compromised by resubmissions, and this should, theoretically speaking, help cancel out or limit any effect.

 

I specifically redid the comparison in grades where cracks and resubs should not be an issue. I mean, who is resubmitting their 1943-D MS63FB? No sane person. Read the new results I posted related to MS60 through MS63 coins. The results are the same, and they don't rely on the hypothesis that NGC and PCGS regrades are equal.

[mumu]

"Sorry, but that just makes no sense. I don't see anything in the analysis that suggest you can throw out half the data and just use the half that supports your own perspective. That's like a baseball player throwing out all the called strikes because they weren't "really" the strikes that lowered his hitting average.

 

As for the theory that somehow the same coins keep going back to PCGS for resubmission, that also makes little sense, since that doesn't affect the ratio that would get the FB designation... unless you are saying PCGS is wildly inconsistent in how they apply it. "

 

NGC has had a reputation of being about a point more relaxed than PCGS. I dont think anyone can argue that. Whether it is due to different standards or whatever it exists. As such more coins would make the grade on the first go and thus result in less re-submission attempts than PCGS. It is also my opinion that PCGS submitters are more prone to retries of multiples over 1. If a coin received the FB on every attempt while the submitter tried to get the grade he wanted also it would absolutely throw of the ratios. Everyone one of those attempts would add 1 the the FB count while still being just 1 coin.

 

If 4 coins are submitted once each and dont get FB and a 5th is submitted 6 times and gets FB all 6 times the census will show 6 FB coins out of 10 = 60% when in reality only 1 out of 5 coins is FB = 25%

[brg5658]

"Sorry, but that just makes no sense. I don't see anything in the analysis that suggest you can throw out half the data and just use the half that supports your own perspective. That's like a baseball player throwing out all the called strikes because they weren't "really" the strikes that lowered his hitting average.

 

As for the theory that somehow the same coins keep going back to PCGS for resubmission, that also makes little sense, since that doesn't affect the ratio that would get the FB designation... unless you are saying PCGS is wildly inconsistent in how they apply it. "

 

NGC has had a reputation of being about a point more relaxed than PCGS. I dont think anyone can argue that. Whether it is due to different standards or whatever it exists. As such more coins would make the grade on the first go and thus result in less re-submission attempts than PCGS. It is also my opinion that PCGS submitters are more prone to retries of multiples over 1. If a coin received the FB on every attempt while the submitter tried to get the grade he wanted also it would absolutely throw of the ratios. Everyone one of those attempts would add 1 the the FB count while still being just 1 coin.

 

If 4 coins are submitted once each and dont get FB and a 5th is submitted 6 times and gets FB all 6 times the census will show 6 FB coins out of 10 = 60% when in reality only 1 out of 5 coins is FB = 25%

 

mumu,

 

The question has nothing to do with NGC and PCGS technical (numeric) grades of the Merc dimes. It has to do with the application of the FB standard. Presumably if PCGS has any accuracy at applying the FB designation on coins that would not change even if the FB designation did. The point being that you have to assume not only that coins are getting cracked and resubmitted, but that the cracking and resubmitting is happening at a MUCH higher rate for coins that PCGS calls FB than for those that they didn't give the attribute to.

 

And, as I have now pointed out 3 times, the trends hold even for grade ranges where no sane person would be resubmitting or cracking out coins (MS60 - MS63 very common date coins). Thus, while the resub/cracking theory is fine and dandy, it doesn't hold any water when the evidence is actually looked at.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

NGC has had a reputation of being about a point more relaxed than PCGS. I dont think anyone can argue that. Whether it is due to different standards or whatever it exists.

Where have you seen such a statement made? I do not recall ever reading that claim from any sort of reliable source, and absolutely do not believe there is any truth behind it.

 

IF it were true, then it would be easy to get rich by simply crossing all the Mercs from PCGS over to NGC, get the point upgrades, and collect considerable profits. There wouldn't be any Mercs left in PCGS holders.

[dimefreak]

Hey I just tried to help. You are way to involved with your numbers and a claim on a grading companies website.

 

Any chance your related to this chick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

[brg5658]

Hey I just tried to help. You are way to involved with your numbers and a claim on a grading companies website.

 

Any chance your related to this chick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

 

Yes, that's the solution. Resort to ad hominem attacks when all of your other claims fail to make any sense. Classy.

 

[dimefreak]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

[jom]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

 

I think the first post in this thread did that already.

 

jom

[mumu]

NGC has had a reputation of being about a point more relaxed than PCGS. I dont think anyone can argue that. Whether it is due to different standards or whatever it exists.

Where have you seen such a statement made? I do not recall ever reading that claim from any sort of reliable source, and absolutely do not believe there is any truth behind it.

 

IF it were true, then it would be easy to get rich by simply crossing all the Mercs from PCGS over to NGC, get the point upgrades, and collect considerable profits. There wouldn't be any Mercs left in PCGS holders.

 

So then you must be saying NGC and PCGS have the same EXACT grading standards.

[dimefreak]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

 

I think the first post in this thread did that already.

 

jom

 

No, it didnt...sorry

 

If McDonalds sells more burgers than Burger King I bet they will likley sell more burgers "hold the onions" as well.

 

PCGS grades more,,,, You cant even compare the two the way he is comparing them. Any half wit with a minitab program can make false claims based upon numbers.

[jom]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

 

I think the first post in this thread did that already.

 

jom

 

No, it didnt...sorry

 

If McDonalds sells more burgers than Burger King I bet they will likley sell more burgers "hold the onions" as well.

 

PCGS grades more,,,, You cant even compare the two the way he is comparing them. Any half wit with a minitab program can make false claims based upon numbers.

 

If PCGS grades 307 1926 Dime and 88% of them are graded FB but NGC grades 67% of them FB based on 195, there is a high chance if NGC all of a sudden got to grade 100 more examples (coming to about 300 examples like PCGS has) the percentage graded as FB will NOT rise significantly if at all...and certainly not to 88%...assuming of course they don't change their standards. The law of large numbers or some such. Add to the fact the data shows this ACROSS the board says a great deal about FB standards here.

 

So, yes, he CAN compare the two the way he is doing.

 

jom

[brg5658]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

 

I think the first post in this thread did that already.

 

jom

 

No, it didnt...sorry

 

If McDonalds sells more burgers than Burger King I bet they will likley sell more burgers "hold the onions" as well.

 

PCGS grades more,,,, You cant even compare the two the way he is comparing them. Any half wit with a minitab program can make false claims based upon numbers.

 

I pray that you are not an educator. You are so clueless it is scary.

 

And, if your ability to spell, punctuate, and form complete sentences is any insight to your general logic skills, then I fear there is no convincing you of anything. I don't really care if you agree with my findings. It doesn't change the fact that they are methodologically sound.

[mumu]

How have they failed to make sense? Show evidence against them?

 

I think the first post in this thread did that already.

 

jom

 

No, it didnt...sorry

 

If McDonalds sells more burgers than Burger King I bet they will likley sell more burgers "hold the onions" as well.

 

PCGS grades more,,,, You cant even compare the two the way he is comparing them. Any half wit with a minitab program can make false claims based upon numbers.

 

I pray that you are not an educator. You are so clueless it is scary.

 

And, if your ability to spell, punctuate, and form complete sentences is any insight to your general logic skills, then I fear there is no convincing you of anything. I don't really care if you agree with my findings. It doesn't change the fact that they are methodologically sound.

 

I agree they are methodologically sound, based on the data available. But the data itself is flawed because of resubmits. No accurate quantification can be made when the unknown resubmit variables are there altering the real census.

 

And yes I know that you have isolated the data to 60-63 but thats not telling the whole story and even if it wasnt a matter of resubmits we still dont know what effect the lighter FB standard has on that grade range. Meaning the FB might be more impoirtant to someone getting a 62 FB over a 63. I also think that at the 63 level the NGC and PCGS standards deviate much less from each other. PCGS tends to tighten up when it comes to 65 grades over NGC.

[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

 

Paul, the point is that if NGC is tougher than PCGS, then how and why are they tougher? For the Frankie FBL designation it is two sets of lines by NGC versus one set for PCGS. For Full steps designation, it is 5FS and 6FS designated separately by NGC versus PCGS "5 steps is good enough". For Roosies FT versus FB, it is whether you look at separation in the entire torch (FT) by NGC versus PCGS "just the bundling horizontal bands matter" (FB).

 

For the Mercury Dime series if it is truly "well known" that NGC is tougher than PCGS on the FB designation, then they have to be tougher on some characteristic of the bands. Maybe it's that NGC is tougher on dings and marks that interrupt or bridge the band splitting? BUT, if that were the case, why would such large differences on gem coins persist (MS65 and higher) where those types of distractions should be minimal.

 

You say that you would expect much larger differences? How much larger are you talking? The current ratio across all dates is around 3:2. In other words, for every 3 coins called FB by PCGS, NGC would only agree with 2 of them. For some of the individual coins in the series, the ratio is as high as 4:1 (i.e., for every 4 coins called FB by PCGS, NGC would only agree with 1). These are not "small" differences. In fact, if you consider NGC rates for each coin graded MS65 or higher to be the general rates in the population at large, the excess gem coins across the series called FB by PCGS that would likely not make it at NGC is around 20,500 coins!!!

 

If the proportion of "FB" coins is artificially inflated at PCGS by resubmissions and crossovers as dimefreak suggests, then why would the same differences in FB designation persist even on coins in the grade level MS60-MS63 where such resubmissions and crossovers serve no monetary-gain purpose for most of the coins in the series (see new Figure below). Just as a case in point, consider the 1943-D Mercury Dime in grades MS60 through MS63. This is a very common coin, and there is no one who would surmise that the populations of this coin in grades MS60 through MS63 would be "tainted" by inflated FB examples from resubmissions and cross overs. Yet, PCGS has graded 84.9% of coins with the FB designation compared to NGC's 53.9%. That's a more than 30% difference. This can't be logically explained away by resubmissions or crossovers as dimefreak suggested.

 

In short, I believe it's clear that NGC and PCGS have different standards for assessing the FB designation on Mercury dimes. Furthermore, I believe these different standards are consistent with a distinction of rounded/raised bands. It's not the only explanation, but given what David Lange clearly stated in his article from 2000 specifically referring to NGC (i.e., fully split and raised/rounded bands) and what is listed on the PCGS website (i.e., no mention of whether the bands must be raised/rounded) -- it's a quite feasible explanation.

 

-Brandon

 

 

Figure: Absolute percentage difference in FB designation between PCGS and NGC for coins graded MS60 to MS63.

 

 

Brandon,

 

The difference you describe between the PCGS FS and NGC FS designation for Jefferson Nickels has not existed since 2004. Prior to February 2004, NGC held a completely different standard in which they required 6 full steps for a FS designation while PCGS only required 5 full steps for their FS designation. In February 2004, NGC created two different designations: 5FS & 6FS. In essence, their 5FS designation became the exact same standard as the PCGS FS designation.

 

So if both companies employ the same grading standard, why are the numbers for PCGS FS designation so much higher than that of NGC. Some may argue that the overall numbers are skewed by the coins graded prior to 2004. And while that may have an effect, if you compare only the coins graded after 2004, PCGS Jefferson Nickels still have a much higher % of FS designations than those graded by NGC. But if they employ essentially the same standard, the question is: WHY?

 

The answer is that PCGS is simply much more lenient in what they consider separation. PCGS is well known for grading both FS Jefferson Nickels and FB Mercury Dimes that have very small bridges. NGC will not award a strike designation if there is a bridge or any break in separation. The result is that both companies employ the same written standard but their application of that written standard is different. I am sorry, but I have seen way too many NGC Full Band Mercury Dimes that are not fully rounded to believe that they actually employ that standard. FWIW, I used to collect FB Mercury Dimes (both PCGS & NGC) back in the late 90's.

 

Paul

[dimefreak]

I crack out all of my NGC coins so I have no examples to share,,,,, Good news is friday there is a coin show that should provide me some mushy NGC FB's Until than I wont argue with people that dont understand the coin market and trends that effect the pop reports

[lehigh96]

I crack out all of my NGC coins so I have no examples to share,,,,, Good news is friday there is a coin show that should provide me some mushy NGC FB's Until than I wont argue with people that dont understand the coin market and trends that effect the pop reports

 

Is it your argument that crackouts are the sole reason for the disparity in the FB numbers between NGC & PCGS?

[James_OldeTowne]

Hey I just tried to help. You are way to involved with your numbers and a claim on a grading companies website.

 

Any chance your related to this chick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

I am sorry that factual information is painful to you, and I have no idea why you'd post something about State Farm, except to divert the thread from simple facts.

 

You still haven't yet named a single person who actually believes that NGC somehow grades Mercury dimes a point higher than PCGS across the board.

NGC has had a reputation of being about a point more relaxed than PCGS. I dont think anyone can argue that. Whether it is due to different standards or whatever it exists.

Where have you seen such a statement made? I do not recall ever reading that claim from any sort of reliable source, and absolutely do not believe there is any truth behind it.

 

IF it were true, then it would be easy to get rich by simply crossing all the Mercs from PCGS over to NGC, get the point upgrades, and collect considerable profits. There wouldn't be any Mercs left in PCGS holders.

 

So then you must be saying NGC and PCGS have the same EXACT grading standards.

How on earth would you jump to that conclusion? Are you saying that there are two, and only two, possibilities, that the TPGs grade either exactly the same or one point apart??

[dimefreak]

Hey I just tried to help. You are way to involved with your numbers and a claim on a grading companies website.

 

Any chance your related to this chick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

I am sorry that factual information is painful to you, and I have no idea why you'd post something about State Farm, except to divert the thread from simple facts.

 

You still haven't yet named a single person who actually believes that NGC somehow grades Mercury dimes a point higher than PCGS across the board.

 

I never said that.... I have actually said the opposite James. I think your beef is with MUMU there.

[jerseycat10]

[dimefreak]

I crack out all of my NGC coins so I have no examples to share,,,,, Good news is friday there is a coin show that should provide me some mushy NGC FB's Until than I wont argue with people that dont understand the coin market and trends that effect the pop reports

 

Is it your argument that crackouts are the sole reason for the disparity in the FB numbers between NGC & PCGS?

 

Absolutely not Paul!

First let me adress the math portion. Nothing about grading can be explained by Math. Math was always one of my favorite subjects because there is typically one answer. If you knew your formulas than you could find the answer and in most cases there was a way to check that answer. In grading coins there are so many variables. There are many many answers. Thats why there are people in this world that make a living off cracking coins out of the holder and sending in for a regrade. Any nit wit with a minitab program can make a graph, table, plot, etc. to convincingly argue a point, but at the end of the day thats not the gospel.

 

Here let me give this is a try

 

Coinfacts page for 1941FB show 17 coins pictured and 7/17 are the same coins (regrades). That means 41% of the coins graded with Full Bands in 1941 are all regrades. So really PCGS has graded 59% of what Brandon claims. That means 2668 ( roughly)

 

PCGS 2668 NGC 3409

 

Its true because NUMBERS are FACTS!!!

 

Ya see, pretty stupid right! But what I did was nothing different than what Brandon did, I took some numbers that are not accurate, but favor my argument and put them into a Math equation to paint a pretty picture for my argument.

 

Now for the crackouts Paul....Brandon claimed to be a pro with stats (or something along those lines) With that said I assume he knows what he is doing and truly believes that there is a small deviance in the numbers supplied by the grading companies. So small of a deviance that he feels the numbers a reliable. Im here to tell ya that the numbers are not even freaking close!!! This is where I feel he might be spending too much time looking at his horse coins and not enough time realizing that today PCGS will most likely grade 20+ coins that were in PCGS holders not too long ago... And some of those 20+ coins wont make the grade hoped for and they will get busted out and will be in a future batch of 20+ coins being regraded..... And so on and so on. So in no way do I beleive crackouts are the main cause and my main argument, but they certainly play a big enough role to make the POP reports extremley unreliable in a large scale like this. I feel POP reports are more reliable in the scarce grades, but not in a realm like this.

 

Here are some things off the top of my head that cause a large variance in the suggested numbers compared to real number.

 

Preference of company- I have said it a million times, Pre modern I see no real difference between NGC and PCGS grading, but PCGS has out marketed NGC by a long shot. They use there PCGS only registry to there advantage and they have some big fish dealers that are PCGS only... Among other things. I think PCGS wins this category

 

Crackouts- Kenny asked earlir how do I know if PCGS has more crackouts.... I dont! Common sense however tells me if a person is trying to milk every penny out of a coin he will be using PCGS to do so!

 

Human Error- Graders are human. PCGS and NGC both will have some coins we might not agree will and we could say this category is a wash or you can choose a side.

 

Lastly, Id like to say that I have bought some really nice raw Mercs from Paul and I know he knows what he is doing with the series... I have seen my fair share as well. I know that I will have no problems supplying the peices needed tommorow evening after the coin show. And that IMO is true evidence. I cant wait to see a math problem that can prove that wrong!

 

[brg5658]

Now for the crackouts Paul....Brandon claimed to be a pro with stats (or something along those lines) With that said I assume he knows what he is doing and truly believes that there is a small deviance in the numbers supplied by the grading companies. So small of a deviance that he feels the numbers a reliable. Im here to tell ya that the numbers are not even freaking close!!! This is where I feel he might be spending too much time looking at his horse coins and not enough time realizing that today PCGS will most likely grade 20+ coins that were in PCGS holders not too long ago... And some of those 20+ coins wont make the grade hoped for and they will get busted out and will be in a future batch of 20+ coins being regraded..... And so on and so on. So in no way do I beleive crackouts are the main cause and my main argument, but they certainly play a big enough role to make the POP reports extremley unreliable in a large scale like this. I feel POP reports are more reliable in the scarce grades, but not in a realm like this.

 

Dimefreak,

 

Given that the rest of your last post was void of any content, I will address only this portion.

 

Firstly, let me clear up that I said that I was a statistician as a profession. I have a graduate degree in statistics, and I analyze data and write peer reviewed medical research papers for a living. I will refrain from posting my CV as justification for my credentials, but suffice it to say that I think I probably know more about numbers than you do. Your childish "horse coin" jab and other various ad hominem attacks throughout this thread evidence your state of mind, regardless of any logical evidence that may be presented.

 

Secondly, you have still not addressed my 2nd post with data that showed that in the grade ranges of MS60 through MS63, PCGS still assigns the FB designation at a much higher (and consistent) rate than does NGC. Your incessant rambling about cross overs and regrades is completely irrelevant to most coins in this grade range. Are all of those "regrades" you're mentioning in PCGS CoinFacts really post-1940 MS62FB coins?

 

My point (which apparently you can't understand) is that if the increased application of the FB designation at PCGS versus NGC persists across all grades, even those not likely impacted in any way by crossovers and regrades, then your hypothesis is debunked. Are those 1941FB regrades you're referencing in your previous post in the MS60 to MS63 range?

 

Your other laundry list of reasons is also unintelligible.

 

Preferences of company: Again, in the low grade (MS60-63) range for very common Mercs, I can't foresee any bias in the demographic of people who would submit coins to PCGS vs. NGC (i.e., investors vs. collectors as you call them). These coins are clearly coming from people who equally don't know what they're doing, regardless of the company whose plastic they prefer. This explanation is dead.

 

Crackouts: I have shown and argued above, that the FB% inflation at PCGS persists across grades where even the most clueless person would not crack out the coin and resubmit. This explanation is dead.

 

Human error: You're really drawing at straws here. If PCGS and NGC can't consistently apply their own standards for FB designation, then the designation is worthless even within a service of choice and this analysis and subject is moot. As you state, there is no reason to believe that this factor has any differential impact across the two companies, thus this explanation is also dead.

 

Now, I'm eagerly awaiting your cherry picked examples of coins from this show you attended to prove your point. The problem is, your sample size of 2-3 new pieces specifically chosen to prove a point, don't prove any point at all. So, carry on believing whatever you want to believe.