Should NGC offer a reconsideration service?

[Walkerfan]

When you submit a coin in an older slab (or any slab) for regrade it is not cracked out, unless it will be upgraded.

 

Thoughts?

[coinsandmedals]

That would be amazing as some of us really appreciate the older slabs, but some upgrades can really make a difference in monetary value.

[wdrob]

 

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

[wdrob]

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

Mark .. I agree that what you stated above is in fact true. However, it is also true that the graders routinely grade inconsistently without a piece of plastic in front of the coin. You have stated that on a number of occasions.

 

Why would it be such a difficult task to look through a plastic holder, see if the coin could be crossed at the same level at the very least, then crack it and then determine if it is possible to up the grade? PCGS seems to be able to accomplish this feat. Surely you are not suggesting that NGC graders posses a lower level of expertise and would fail miserably at this task.

 

NGC already does something similar, if I am not mistaken, since they accept PCGS slabbed coins to be submitted while remaining in the holder for crossover. I would assume that they actually look at the coin through the holder prior to cracking it but I could be wrong and maybe they just cross no matter what. I have not had any experience crossing a coin from PCGS to NGC so I would have to rely on your experience or that of others.

 

I still do not see why they can't do it with holders that are not all scratched up and such.

 

 

 

 

[JPS-WI]

I don't see why not either. As long as the holder is not damaged/scratched. Graders at NGC and PCGS don't seem to have a problem grading GSA Morgans through a plastic holder.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

John

[Raisethis2]

 

The upgrade potential is already being addressed by CAC. If PCGS is already doing something similar, then seems to me NGC is late to the party.

 

I can definitely see the appeal of sending a coin for reconsideration rather than getting out the hammer first and chancing a downgrade of some fashion. (I.E. R/B now BN, FBL going away, FSB no more, etc).

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

Mark .. I agree that what you stated above is in fact true. However, it is also true that the graders routinely grade inconsistently without a piece of plastic in front of the coin. You have stated that on a number of occasions. Yes, I believe that grading is imperfect and sometimes inconsistent.

Why would it be such a difficult task to look through a plastic holder, see if the coin could be crossed at the same level at the very least, then crack it and then determine if it is possible to up the grade? You're changing the subject. Initially, the discussion pertained to examining coins in their holders, in order to determine if they should up-grade.That creates more liability for the grading company. And if a reconsideration service coin is removed from its holder and not up-graded, the client will likely be upset. PCGS seems to be able to accomplish this feat. Surely you are not suggesting that NGC graders posses a lower level of expertise and would fail miserably at this task. Of course not.

 

NGC already does something similar, if I am not mistaken, since they accept PCGS slabbed coins to be submitted while remaining in the holder for crossover]As stated previously, that's very different from determining that a coin will upgrade. I would assume that they actually look at the coin through the holder prior to cracking it but I could be wrong and maybe they just cross no matter what. I have not had any experience crossing a coin from PCGS to NGC so I would have to rely on your experience or that of others.

 

I still do not see why they can't do it with holders that are not all scratched up and such.

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

 

This is very interesting.

 

Mr. Feld has used very logical reasons why this would be difficult, and would certainly be a liability that would not be wise for a business to undertake. What was not mentioned is that the coin could also be accidently damaged.

 

There is also a hidden part to the discussion and that is is whether the subject is market grading or technical grading.

 

I understand completely the reason such a service would be wanted by collectors and dealers, alike.

 

The collector/dealer has an old holder (or even new), the coin looks better to the owner than the grade on the holder. There is a monetary incentive (or registry incentive) to have the coin re-evaluated, but (blah blah) what is missing is a hedge your bet approach. If the coin is sent in for a review, and it does not go well, then the owner "loses", because the coin is now in a new holder (most likely market grading), and could even come back a lower grade.

 

So, it appears that what is being suggested is an 'insurance" approach that guarantees a no harm position for the owner.

 

The fact is, it is still an opinion. If the collector felt strong enough about his/her position, then why send the coin in at all? Does the coin not speak for itself?

 

Is there not already a service available to collectors, via CAC, that would accomplish the desired result.....apply a sticker if the grade is reasonable, and/or apply another color sticker if the coin is exceptional...and does not involve doing anything to the holder? While this may not "help" in a registry situation, it certainly would afford the owner the opportunity to bargain for/sell and then purchase that which is needed for the registry, if that is the goal.

 

If the goal is strictly monetary, and the coin is under graded (by market or technical standards) then it seems logical that CAC is the answer. If a sticker is not applied, the coin is returned intact, and no harm is done, and the opinion of the owner, is still intact, in that the non-application of a sticker does not negate the owner's opinion, it just doesn't agree with it.

[Conder101]

Graders at NGC and PCGS don't seem to have a problem grading GSA Morgans through a plastic holder.

True, but until just recently those grades were not covered by the grade guarantee.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Graders at NGC and PCGS don't seem to have a problem grading GSA Morgans through a plastic holder.

True, but until just recently those grades were not covered by the grade guarantee.

 

..and is an entirely different scenario than that suggested by the OP, which is seeking an upgrade insurance policy... no upgrade, leave the holder alone.

 

The "guarantee" referred to is not an upgrade "guarantee", it is only an insurance policy for the coin as graded.

[coinman1794]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

 

PCGS is doing this. However, they are charging a 1% "Guarantee Premium" on all coins that do upgrade. This can be seen as insurance to pad their losses in the event of a mistake. I think NGC could charge a similar fee that would insure against those instances where they are wrong.

 

Personally, I would exclude Proof coins from such a policy, altogether. It is impossible to grade them inside a slab, due to hairlines that can't be seen at limited viewing angles. Additionally, the distractions created by the reflections on the mirrors, of hairlines on the plastic, conceals true flaws.

[coinman1794]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

 

This is very interesting.

 

... why this would be difficult, and would certainly be a liability that would not be wise for a business to undertake.

 

As per my last post, PCGS has solved this problem by charging a 1% Guarantee Premium for those coins that do cross....See post above.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

 

This is very interesting.

 

... why this would be difficult, and would certainly be a liability that would not be wise for a business to undertake.

 

As per my last post, PCGS has solved this problem by charging a 1% Guarantee Premium for those coins that do cross....See post above.

 

I am easy. I will go along with whatever you say. You are more knowledgeable than me.

 

I do have a question, though.

 

How is it accomplished...is the coin reviewed in the holder, then the owner notified that it will up grade, and then the owner pays the added fee, or is it a check off on the form, and you live with the outcome? If the outcome is that it won't upgrade, is the coin returned in the original holder?

 

Is the 1% based on the value of the coin as listed by PCGS, or some other method?

 

As an example, if the coin is worth 100 in a 64 and is worth 500 in a 65, the owner would pay 1% of 500=$5.00, in addition to the regular fees?

[coinman1794]

Absolutely!

 

I can't imagine why they do not offer that now.

 

 

 

 

I can imagine why they don't do it now. Coins can look very different out of a holder, from how they do in a holder. And sometimes it is quite difficult to get a really good look at a coin when it's in a holder.

 

So, it's one thing to cross a coin at the same grade or to crack a re-grade coin out of a holder to examine it. It's another thing, entirely, to determine whether a coin is an up-grade, while viewing it in a holder. That is espcially true in the case of proof coins, which often have fine hairlines. And ditto for some more heavily toned coins.

 

This is very interesting.

 

... why this would be difficult, and would certainly be a liability that would not be wise for a business to undertake.

 

As per my last post, PCGS has solved this problem by charging a 1% Guarantee Premium for those coins that do cross....See post above.

 

I am easy. I will go along with whatever you say. You are more knowledgeable than me.

 

I do have a question, though.

 

How is it accomplished...is the coin reviewed in the holder, then the owner notified that it will up grade, and then the owner pays the added fee, or is it a check off on the form, and you live with the outcome? If the outcome is that it won't upgrade, is the coin returned in the original holder?

 

Is the 1% based on the value of the coin as listed by PCGS, or some other method?

 

As an example, if the coin is worth 100 in a 64 and is worth 500 in a 65, the owner would pay 1% of 500=$5.00, in addition to the regular fees?

 

PCGS determines the value based on the new PCGS grade. The submitter pays an estimated fee upfront, on the submission form, and the actual charges would presumably be matched against the estimate to determine whether a credit or a balance is owed them. I say presumably because I've never tried it.

 

It should also be noted that they now charge the 1% Guarantee Premium for all crossovers, as well. Crossing a coin poses similar dangers to a grading service.

[William J. Rodgers]

Three months ago I sent my 2009 UHR (which I bought from the mint in '09 and has been sitting in it's OGP in the back of my safe since ) and my recently mint purchased Rev. PF Buffalo into NGC for grading. The Buffalo came back PF69. I was disappointed, but, so is life. My UHR came back MS69 PL. Now I was mad. I asked several dealers at my coin club to look at the coin and they all said MS70. So I sent both back for re-grade. The Buffalo came back in it's original holder graded Rev. PF69. To my great pleasure, My UHR came back MS70 PL. By NGC's price guide, the coin increased in value from $3,030 to $5,400. I'm happy, but am confused as to how a coin can go from MS69 PL to MS70 PL in 3 weeks? Should I just count my blessings and not ask questions?

[wdrob]

 

Mark you are absolutely right - I kind of veered of the topics original intent and included something I would like them for them to offer such as they do elsewhere.

 

John, I would gladly pay you $100.00 to never again use that silly emoticon.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mark you are absolutely right - I kind of veered of the topics original intent and included something I would like them for them to offer such as they do elsewhere.

 

John, I would gladly pay you $100.00 to never again use that silly emoticon.

 

 

Trade ya this: for this .

Deal?

 

[coinman1794]

Three months ago I sent my 2009 UHR (which I bought from the mint in '09 and has been sitting in it's OGP in the back of my safe since ) and my recently mint purchased Rev. PF Buffalo into NGC for grading. The Buffalo came back PF69. I was disappointed, but, so is life. My UHR came back MS69 PL. Now I was mad. I asked several dealers at my coin club to look at the coin and they all said MS70. So I sent both back for re-grade. The Buffalo came back in it's original holder graded Rev. PF69. To my great pleasure, My UHR came back MS70 PL. By NGC's price guide, the coin increased in value from $3,030 to $5,400. I'm happy, but am confused as to how a coin can go from MS69 PL to MS70 PL in 3 weeks? Should I just count my blessings and not ask questions?

 

The difference between 69 and 70 is often accomplished by tiny flaws inflicted on coins before they went into the government packaging. It does not matter that you left them in the packaging, though it certainly helps.

 

As far as the grade change, they may have initially mistook a tiny die defect or strike-thru for a tiny mark, and then corrected the error upon a second examination.

[MarkFeld]

Three months ago I sent my 2009 UHR (which I bought from the mint in '09 and has been sitting in it's OGP in the back of my safe since ) and my recently mint purchased Rev. PF Buffalo into NGC for grading. The Buffalo came back PF69. I was disappointed, but, so is life. My UHR came back MS69 PL. Now I was mad. I asked several dealers at my coin club to look at the coin and they all said MS70. So I sent both back for re-grade. The Buffalo came back in it's original holder graded Rev. PF69. To my great pleasure, My UHR came back MS70 PL. By NGC's price guide, the coin increased in value from $3,030 to $5,400. I'm happy, but am confused as to how a coin can go from MS69 PL to MS70 PL in 3 weeks? Should I just count my blessings and not ask questions?

 

The difference between 69 and 70 is often accomplished by tiny flaws inflicted on coins before they went into the government packaging. It does not matter that you left them in the packaging, though it certainly helps.

 

As far as the grade change, they may have initially mistook a tiny die defect or strike-thru for a tiny mark, and then corrected the error upon a second examination.

 

Or, perhaps they made an error when they upgraded the coin. Or, maybe grading is a subjective opinion and they weren't "right" or "wrong", either time.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Three months ago I sent my 2009 UHR (which I bought from the mint in '09 and has been sitting in it's OGP in the back of my safe since ) and my recently mint purchased Rev. PF Buffalo into NGC for grading. The Buffalo came back PF69. I was disappointed, but, so is life. My UHR came back MS69 PL. Now I was mad. I asked several dealers at my coin club to look at the coin and they all said MS70. So I sent both back for re-grade. The Buffalo came back in it's original holder graded Rev. PF69. To my great pleasure, My UHR came back MS70 PL. By NGC's price guide, the coin increased in value from $3,030 to $5,400. I'm happy, but am confused as to how a coin can go from MS69 PL to MS70 PL in 3 weeks? Should I just count my blessings and not ask questions?

 

The difference between 69 and 70 is often accomplished by tiny flaws inflicted on coins before they went into the government packaging. It does not matter that you left them in the packaging, though it certainly helps.

 

As far as the grade change, they may have initially mistook a tiny die defect or strike-thru for a tiny mark, and then corrected the error upon a second examination.

 

Or, perhaps they made an error when they upgraded the coin. Or, maybe grading is a subjective opinion and they weren't "right" or "wrong", either time.

 

Yikes!

 

Logic! Yuk

[William J. Rodgers]

I think I'll just stop asking about it and be thrilled with my MS70 PL

[$ilverHawk]

I think I'll just stop asking about it and be thrilled with my MS70 PL

 

Yeah I think you got it The last one was for John.

 

Seriously, be glad for the NGC "grade fairy" giving you a substantial value boost.

 

Carl

[Scott_Schechter]

If you believe an NGC-certified coin grades higher than the grade originally assigned, NGC already offers a regrade service. To use this service, coins are sent to NGC in their holders. We remove them, and then coins are evaluated raw by NGC graders. They are returned in new holders either at the original grade or higher grade.

 

In the rare event that a coin grades lower, the NGC Coin Grading Guarantee kicks in, so the submitter is protected.

 

Reconsideration differs by leaving coins in old holders if they don't upgrade. But does this benefit collectors?

 

Is it good for NGC to reevaluate a coin but leave it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that the coin has been reexamined by us?

 

Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in NGC holders?

[MarkFeld]

If you believe an NGC-certified coin grades higher than the grade originally assigned, NGC already offers a regrade service. To use this service, coins are sent to NGC in their holders. We remove them, and then coins are evaluated raw by NGC graders. They are returned in new holders either at the original grade or higher grade.

 

In the rare event that a coin grades lower, the NGC Coin Grading Guarantee kicks in, so the submitter is protected.

 

Reconsideration differs by leaving coins in old holders if they don't upgrade. But does this benefit collectors?

 

Is it good for NGC to reevaluate a coin but leave it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that the coin has been reexamined by us?

 

Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in NGC holders?

 

Hi Scott,

 

Reevaluating a coin, but leaving it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that it has been reexamined, offers at least a couple of potential benefits to submitters. One is that the coin is more likely to remain stable in the older holder. Another is that the owner can try to convince would-be buyers that the coin might be conservatively graded and still has upgrade potential.

 

Also, I am wondering if perhaps, you meant to write "Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in (insert the word "older" here) NGC holders"?

[coinman1794]

If you believe an NGC-certified coin grades higher than the grade originally assigned, NGC already offers a regrade service. To use this service, coins are sent to NGC in their holders. We remove them, and then coins are evaluated raw by NGC graders. They are returned in new holders either at the original grade or higher grade.

 

In the rare event that a coin grades lower, the NGC Coin Grading Guarantee kicks in, so the submitter is protected.

 

Reconsideration differs by leaving coins in old holders if they don't upgrade. But does this benefit collectors?

 

Is it good for NGC to reevaluate a coin but leave it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that the coin has been reexamined by us?

 

Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in NGC holders?

 

Reconsideration only benefits collectors of holders, which admittedly is a much smaller market.

 

There is no question that there are considerable drawbacks to offering the service.

[MarkFeld]

If you believe an NGC-certified coin grades higher than the grade originally assigned, NGC already offers a regrade service. To use this service, coins are sent to NGC in their holders. We remove them, and then coins are evaluated raw by NGC graders. They are returned in new holders either at the original grade or higher grade.

 

In the rare event that a coin grades lower, the NGC Coin Grading Guarantee kicks in, so the submitter is protected.

 

Reconsideration differs by leaving coins in old holders if they don't upgrade. But does this benefit collectors?

 

Is it good for NGC to reevaluate a coin but leave it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that the coin has been reexamined by us?

 

Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in NGC holders?

 

Reconsideration only benefits collectors of holders, which admittedly is a much smaller market.

 

There is no question that there are considerable drawbacks to offering the service.

 

It also benefits sellers of coins/holders to those who are "collectors of holders".

 

[Scott_Schechter]

Another is that the owner can try to convince would-be buyers that the coin might be conservatively graded and still has upgrade potential.

Of course, if a coin didn't upgrade, it can still have "upgrade potential." But this still seems duplicitous to me, unless it is disclosed that a coin was reconsidered. Since we worked together for a number of years, I know that you would always be forthcoming with this information. Not everyone would.

 

Also, I am wondering if perhaps, you meant to write "Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in (insert the word "older" here) NGC holders"?

Not just older holders. Reconsideration service could be used by anyone who wants to submit a coin for regrade without others knowing. Even if a coin is in a new holder, the certification number won't change. When regrade service is used, it does.

[MarkFeld]

Another is that the owner can try to convince would-be buyers that the coin might be conservatively graded and still has upgrade potential.

Of course, if a coin didn't upgrade, it can still have "upgrade potential." But this still seems duplicitous to me, unless it is disclosed that a coin was reconsidered. Since we worked together for a number of years, I know that you would always be forthcoming with this information. Not everyone would. I agree about the duplicity issue and that is one reason I don't like the service

 

 

Also, I am wondering if perhaps, you meant to write "Further, over time, wouldn't a reconsideration service just reduce the quality-for-the-grade of coins housed in (insert the word "older" here) NGC holders"?

Not just older holders. Reconsideration service could be used by anyone who wants to submit a coin for regrade without others knowing. Even if a coin is in a new holder, the certification number won't change. When regrade service is used, it does.

Thanks, Scott

[Walkerfan]

Reevaluating a coin, but leaving it in an old holder so that there is no evidence that it has been reexamined, offers at least a couple of potential benefits to submitters. One is that the coin is more likely to remain stable in the older holder.

 

I agree with Mark's statement that coins in older slabs should be left stable and secure in those old holders rather than cracked out and that would be an important benefit of reconsideration.

 

I also agree that reconsideration should only apply to business strikes, as proofs present a whole different set of challenges in grading (namely hairlines), and it would be tough to do so without cracking them out.