What's the difference?

[Raisethis2]

In another thread there's lot's of discussion about differences between our host and ATS regarding grading outcomes. In that discussion I learned that NGC seems to demand full bell lines on Franklin Halves while ATS just wants the bottom line complete to award FBL designation. This is great info.

 

I know also that ATS seems to award higher grading designations on coins with great luster while our host seems to like "pop" in a coin.

 

I'd be interested to know what other tendencies the two TPG Services are known for consistently. Things like rim nicks, toning, soft strike, die polish marks etc. would help a great deal in selecting and buying slabbed coins.

 

Share your observations if you will.

[MarkFeld]

In another thread there's lot's of discussion about differences between our host and ATS regarding grading outcomes. In that discussion I learned that NGC seems to demand full bell lines on Franklin Halves while ATS just wants the bottom line complete to award FBL designation. This is great info.

 

I know also that ATS seems to award higher grading designations on coins with great luster while our host seems to like "pop" in a coin.

 

I'd be interested to know what other tendencies the two TPG Services are known for consistently. Things like rim nicks, toning, soft strike, die polish marks etc. would help a great deal in selecting and buying slabbed coins.

 

Share your observations if you will.

 

How do you distinguish "great luster" from "pop"? I think they are often one and the same.

[cpm9ball]

In another thread there's lot's of discussion about differences between our host and ATS regarding grading outcomes. In that discussion I learned that NGC seems to demand full bell lines on Franklin Halves while ATS just wants the bottom line complete to award FBL designation. This is great info.

 

I know also that ATS seems to award higher grading designations on coins with great luster while our host seems to like "pop" in a coin.

 

I'd be interested to know what other tendencies the two TPG Services are known for consistently. Things like rim nicks, toning, soft strike, die polish marks etc. would help a great deal in selecting and buying slabbed coins.

 

Share your observations if you will.

 

How do you distinguish "great luster" from "pop"? I think they are often one and the same.

 

Pop comes in a can or bottle.

 

Chris

[jpcienkus]

In another thread there's lot's of discussion about differences between our host and ATS regarding grading outcomes. In that discussion I learned that NGC seems to demand full bell lines on Franklin Halves while ATS just wants the bottom line complete to award FBL designation. This is great info.

 

I know also that ATS seems to award higher grading designations on coins with great luster while our host seems to like "pop" in a coin.

 

I'd be interested to know what other tendencies the two TPG Services are known for consistently. Things like rim nicks, toning, soft strike, die polish marks etc. would help a great deal in selecting and buying slabbed coins.

 

Share your observations if you will.

 

How do you distinguish "great luster" from "pop"? I think they are often one and the same.

 

Pop comes in a can or bottle.

 

Chris

 

Isn't that soda?

[Coindude]

In the south it's all coke!

[johnny9434]

In the south it's all coke!

in mexico its kilo's umm never mind

[coinman_23885]

In another thread there's lot's of discussion about differences between our host and ATS regarding grading outcomes. In that discussion I learned that NGC seems to demand full bell lines on Franklin Halves while ATS just wants the bottom line complete to award FBL designation. This is great info.

 

I know also that ATS seems to award higher grading designations on coins with great luster while our host seems to like "pop" in a coin.

 

I'd be interested to know what other tendencies the two TPG Services are known for consistently. Things like rim nicks, toning, soft strike, die polish marks etc. would help a great deal in selecting and buying slabbed coins.

 

Share your observations if you will.

 

How do you distinguish "great luster" from "pop"? I think they are often one and the same.

 

This. Usually when I use the term "pop," I think of a coin with great luster.

 

In response to the OP's question, the are several differences in the designations. As mentioned, the FBL designation for Franklin Half Dollars at PCGS only requires the bottom bell lines to be complete, while NGC requires separation of both the top and bottom set. PCGS will label any Jefferson Nickel with 5 or more steps as "FS" while NGC uses either a "5FS" or "6FS" designation respectively. In the older days (pre 2003), NGC also used the "FS" designation to only refer to coins with 6 full steps. In my opinion, PCGS is also more lenient on other aspects of the full step designation, included minor bridges caused by contact marks (although both NGC and PCGS are more lenient that what I was previously accustomed to for determining the full step designation). PCGS uses the "FB" designation on Roosevelt Dimes to mean a separation of the horizontal bands, while NGC uses the "FT" designation to encompass the horizontal bands and also requires the full separation of the vertical torch lines. Just recently I learned from Brandon (brg5658) that NGC is stricter on the FB designation on Mercury Dimes and requires fully rounded arches in addition to band separation. I'll try to find his post, but he found an interesting link on the NGC website indicating NGC's position on this. I believe the standards for the "FH" (full head) designation of Standing Liberty Quarters is the same.

 

It is much more subjective when it comes to grading, but I do agree with the observation that luster is very important to PCGS, especially in higher uncirculated grades. In NGC's early days especially, and to a lesser extent now, they are more forgiving on luster provided that the rest of the coin is "all there." PCGS also tends to market grade more in my opinion (and again this is very subjective and I am sure that others will disagree with me on this point). While they both market grade, PCGS is more likely to bump a coin up a full point or two for coins with outstanding toning or blinding luster, for instance, while NGC would be more likely to just award the star designation. I have also seen PCGS net grade coins (in my opinion) for things like carbon spots, etc., that probably would not be penalized at NGC. In the Capped Bust half series especially, I have seen differences in the way they evaluate field friction (i.e. in terms of the amount of reduction in grade) and luster, but in several other instances, the coins are equivalent.

 

There are also substantial differences in the guarantees of the two companies. PCGS no longer guarantees the color of copper (for all new coins and those that have changed hands since their announcement), whereas NGC will guarantee the color from 10 years from encapsulation (a reholder would renew this - I have discussed this with NGC previously). PCGS's guarantee is stronger on varieties. PCGS will guarantee its attribution whereas the NGC guarantee does not cover attributions. For these reasons, I like my red copper in NGC holders and my variety coins in PCGS plastic.

 

These are just my thoughts. I am sure others may see it differently.

 

 

[Raisethis2]

Thank you Coinman, this is exactly the kind of info that furthers my understanding and education.

 

[e1cnr]

prooflike coins are treated differently

 

NGC will designate them PL, while PCGS only does so on Morgans.

 

They seem to score them differently in series I am familiar with as PCGS likes business strikes to have cartwheel luster to get 67 or more and not many PL get much more than 65, while NGC has 67s and higher that are PL .

[coinman_23885]

prooflike coins are treated differently

 

NGC will designate them PL, while PCGS only does so on Morgans.

 

They seem to score them differently in series I am familiar with as PCGS likes business strikes to have cartwheel luster to get 67 or more and not many PL get much more than 65, while NGC has 67s and higher that are PL .

 

As a proof like collector, I am shocked that I didn't actually mention anything about the PL and DPL/DMPL designations.

 

First, I will only speak to U.S. coins because I am predominantly a U.S. coin collector (possessing only a handful of foreign coins). PCGS will attribute proof like designations on Morgan Dollars, the 2009 high relief double eagles, and I believe the 5 oz. state parks coins (someone double check on the moderns - I don't deal with them much so it is possible that I have overlooked some). NGC will attribute all regular issues with prooflike designations if the coins warrant it. NGC used to limit application of the designations to select series, but it expanded the application of the PL/DPL designation in the early 2000s (2004 I think). One more note here, PCGS uses the "DMPL" designation for deep mirror prooflike coins, but NGC calls them "DPL." The standards are the same; they just use different designations. This is similar to PCGS using the DCAM (deep cameo) and NGC using the UCAM (ultra cameo) designation. The terms are synonymous.

 

While we are on the subject of proof-likes, it is important to note that the standards for both services have tightened considerably in applying the designation since the 1990s. Coins in older holders that are touted as conservatively graded, may very well be evaluated using looser PL or DPL/DMPL standards. Many of those old deep mirror proof likes would not retain their designations today.

 

If you collect proof cameo copper, PCGS will only designate red coins as cameo. NGC will designate RB and BN examples too.

 

Thank you Coinman, this is exactly the kind of info that furthers my understanding and education.

 

I'm glad that my post was helpful.

 

 

Edited to add: Actually NGC extended the PL designation to all U.S. and World Coins in March of 2003, and not 2004 as I had written.

[coinman1794]

I find more often that it is certain graders within each service displaying certain tendencies, rather than the service as a whole.