NGC market grading for originality?

[DirtyGoldMan]

I have recently seen quite a few (and purchased a couple) circulated NGC gold coins that at first glance and closer inspection appear to be generously graded by a grade or two. After thinking about it a bit and discussing it with other more experienced collectors, I have come to the conclusion that what I might be observing is what I have hoped for all along. Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality. I do not see a similar phenomenon at PCGS. Any comments?

 

(Have I made my point clear?)

[Tradedollarnut]

I doubt it. Recently an 1846-O seated dollar went from NGC MS64 to NGC MS65 after a little dip. Same for a PCGS MS64 1851 that went to NGC MS65. An awful lot of the Richmond collection went up after going thru NCS ... quite a bit of the gold and the 1871-CC Norweb seated dollar, for example.

 

There's too much evidence to the contrary for me to agree with your premise.

[EZ_E]

I can imagine a day when originality will be rewarded. More and more original coins are being conserved which decreases their availability in the market.

[TomB]

I haven't noticed what you have, however, I would hope that it would not be the case. The market can reward originality through sales prices, but the TPG services should grade consistently. Anything else just muddies up the waters.

[EZ_E]

I haven't noticed what you have, however, I would hope that it would not be the case. The market can reward originality through sales prices, but the TPG services should grade consistently. Anything else just muddies up the waters.

 

Well, the converse is presently true, i.e. conservation is rewarded. I have a 1909 PCGS Proof 65 Cam Liberty nickel that is very conservatively graded. It has original envelope toning and the obverse is actually Deep Cameo and the surfaces and mirrors are incredible. If this coin was conserved then I can see it easily grading PR66* Cameo and maybe even PR67 but in order to do that one must give up originality for marketability.

[EVillageProwler]

Without agreeing that NGC (or any service for that matter) subscribes to this notion of "market" grading, I feel that there is some good in this concept.

 

The line between "cabinet friction" and "circulation wear" is a fine one, and can be debated ad nauseum. This is especially pronounced with the early stuff, like bust coinage. So often, we see large-sized bust coinage with awesome original mint luster that cover just about 100% of the coin's surface. Yet, the coin has minute traces of field wear or darkness on the highpoints. In truth, these coins look just a couple of grade points below the gem specimens within their series.

 

How does one assign a value to them? As we all know, there are many inexperienced buyers among us who seem married to pieces of paper (price guides as well as TPG inserts) and haven't adequately learned the series into which they are intending to enter.

 

Technical nuances aside (or, maybe not aside), are these uber-fine specimens worth just a hair less than their gem counterparts or are they worth just a hair more than their ChEF/AU counterparts?

 

Sure, we all wish to rip these super eye appealing specimens at price levels just above the solid AU specimens. That aside, put yourself in the shoes of a seller. What would you want to get for your coin? Be realistic, and recognize that one needs to be honest when buying as well as when selling.

 

Good thread.

 

EVP

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't have near enough experience with NGC grading to argue your point, but I sure wish orignality carried more weight (or any weight!) in grading coins. It does for me.

 

I guess an alternative way to look at it is, coins that are not original should receive a deduction in grade. But then the point would be argued of what constitutes "original"!

 

James

[jom]

Good thread.

 

You are right! The silver ions didn't blow up this thread like it did across the street.

 

I guess an alternative way to look at it is, coins that are not original should receive a deduction in grade. But then the point would be argued of what constitutes "original"!

 

Uh..oh. Let's not go there.

 

There is nothing wrong with market grading. There is nothing wrong with technical grading. There is nothing wrong with market grading one series and using technical with another. There is nothing wrong with giving a bump for "originality" or "dipped" or whatever else. Just be friggen CONSISTANT so we can all know what to expect. Quit changing standards every time the damn wind blows....

 

Is that too much to ask?

 

jom

[TomB]

You are right! The silver ions didn't blow up this thread like it did across the street.

 

I tried to politely explain some issues that seemed to be causing collective board angst.