Do you think it would be possible for new grading company to beat NGC and PCGS?

[the_Thing ®]

Many have tried, but none have made it. What do you think the chances are of a new company starting and becoming the top rated grading company, surpassing PCGS and NGC? What would it take? Personally, I don't think it could happen.

[Oldtrader3]

IMHO, it is unlikely unless one of the big 2 really fails to meet customer need. The cost of entry is pretty high (for salaries and Ovrhd) for any company who does not already have the organization and network in place. Others have tried and haven't met the product standards or couldn't pull enough market share to survive.

[the_Thing ®]

I agree with you. I coinsider NGC and PCGS to coin grading what Microsoft is to the Computer world. I just wonder if there are anymore niches to be filled in the hobby. Slabbing/grading was certainly one, but I sure as heck can't figure out if there are any left.

[TomB]

The cost of the salaries and overhead involved would be dwarfed by the cost of having market makers support and sustain the pricing of coins certified by a new company.

[Hoot]

ICG tried it.

 

It'll take NGC or PCGS going out of business to make such a possibility happen. I'm amazed at how well ANACS appears to do. Of course, they have a lot of collectors' respect.

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

I agree with you. I coinsider NGC and PCGS to coin grading what Microsoft is to the Computer world. I just wonder if there are anymore niches to be filled in the hobby. Slabbing/grading was certainly one, but I sure as heck can't figure out if there are any left.

 

Early die state strikes! This one very important criteria to grading coins is missing from the grading books of the TGCs. I'm dumbfounded as to why we have coins certified in high grade MS holders with less than full strikes! Mainly for moderns coins, that is!

 

Leo

[gmarguli]

What do you think the chances are of a new company starting and becoming the top rated grading company, surpassing PCGS and NGC?

 

100%

 

It will happen, it's only a matter of time. No one stays #1 forever. It might start next week or in 10 years.

 

The people who made buggies probably didn't see their replacement coming until it ran them over.

[TJ]

When the US Mint sees the $$ in it and starts grading...

"Certified MS67 by the United States Mint" in a unique holder would get my attention. (They could start off certifying Proof coins only at first.)

[Hoot]

When the US Mint sees the $$ in it and starts grading...

"Certified MS67 by the United States Mint" in a unique holder would get my attention. (They could start off certifying Proof coins only at first.)

 

That'd be interesting. Talk about a biased grading company!

 

Hoot

[the_Thing ®]

I got to thinking, there is a need for a quality grader/slabber of ancients. I know ICG has tried, and some others, but they never seem to work out. David R. Sear will authentic anients and give a nice history/photo of the coin, but no slabs or grades. It would be quite an undertaking considering the diverse world of ancients and attributions.

[gmarguli]

ANACS does ancients. NGC is starting to, but on a very limited basis.

[Leothelion]

David R. Sear will authentic ancients and give a nice history/photo of the coin, but no slabs or grades.

 

An excellant idea! Forget the mint state grades and let's come up with a grading number system that highlights the qualities of the coin in respect to it's strike, condition and luster, all on a scale of 0 to 9. A coin's grade could be designated in the following ways in respect to its strike, condition and luster; 676, 578, 446, 559. PL, UCPL designations and the like could be added with the number system. For example, 667 PL. For the AG to AU graded coins, the numbers could read like the following; EF544 or VG343. Each number would represent a condition level description for that aspect of the coin such as for the strike, condition or the luster of the coin. There would be different discriptions for those numbers for the grade ranges of AG to AU and other discriptions for MS60 to 70 coins. And they would change for proof coins, foreign coins etc.

Years ago, I designed a simular number grading system when I wanted to rank my FS nickels as to which coin was the better coin. We all know that a MS67 6FS nickel was a better coin then that of a MS66 coin that also had 6 steps. But how would a MS67 5FS coin rate with a MS66 6FS coin or a MS65 6FS? Applying a number system to each aspect of the coin was a way I could rank my coins.

Other pluses for the system I suggested above is that many more grade catagories would open up for coins to fall in. Whereas today, for most modern coins, we have a very limited selection of MS grades since most coin's grades fall in the MS64 to MS68 grades. Most high grade coins would fall into a 555 to 999 range for the 3 number grading system.

How coins are graded has always fallen back on the shoulders of the collectors because they are the submitters of the coins!!

Aside from all this, artificially toned coins should be slabbed and labeled AT and without a MS grade! Better yet, AT coins should be branded or stamped AT before they are returned to the submitter. What an excellant way to screw the coin doctors!!!

 

Leo

 

 

[spy88]

Leo, I think you've been smokin the funny stuff again! You're going to have to quit it if you can't share with everybody!!!!

 

And I like your idea very much! Now, go out there and convince NGC, PCGS, ANACS, etc. that they would be better off adopting your grading system and scrapping theirs!

 

For the AG to AU graded coins, the numbers could read like the following; EF544 or VG343.

In this example, where would the cutoff for a VG be before making EF? Or EF and AU?

 

As much as it would work and be more accurate, the present system is so entrenched as to make any significant changes to it extremely difficult, if not plain impossible. However, a new TPG using your system might make it with time, patience, lots of money and clients that think the same way.

 

Thinking outside the box is a gift we all have but rarely use.

[Leothelion]

Leo, I think you've been smokin the funny stuff again! You're going to have to quit it if you can't share with everybody!!!!

Hi David

I can only imagine that there were people like you back when Dr. William H. Sheldon came up with his idea!

And I like your idea very much! Now, go out there and convince NGC, PCGS, ANACS, etc. that they would be better off adopting your grading system and scrapping theirs!

I wouldn't expect Pcgs and NGC to adopt anything. They're still working on consistency!

By the way, the discussion is about "what would it take for a new company to start up and become the top rated grading company". And perhaps a more strict grading method would fill the needs of a group of collectors who want consistent grading of their coins and accurate population reports.

For the AG to AU graded coins, the numbers could read like the following; EF544 or VG343.

In this example, where would the cutoff for a VG be before making EF? Or EF and AU? .

There would be no cut-offs! A lower grade coin such as a VG is unlikely to have the luster of a MS65 coin. So a lower 0 to 3 number would be used that would describe the appropriate possible conditions for that grade of coin. A VG coin may have a nice strike with it's usual wear but there may also be some hits on the coin. So the condition would drop to the description number that says, coin has distracting nicks, scrapes, scratches or carbon spotting, etc. That description could be number one. 0 could stand for coins with damage, rust corrosion and so on. The number 3 could describe a coin with comon wear and minimal marks. A 4 could discribe a coin with common wear for the grade. But for the mint state 60 to 70 coins, the 3 could stand for the same but the wear part would drop from the description and minimal contact marks would remain.

I don't believe all the descriptions would be confusing to the collectors. For the most part, knowing that a coin had 3 high marks would automatically tell them it was a high grade coin. But if one of the 3 numbers were low than it could be referenced to and the collector takes a second look at the coin to see if it matches to what the the description says.

One moment please........(inhale)(hold it)(cough, cough)(exhale).... ...Whoa! Where were we? Ok, getting back to what I was saying....(cough, cough)...it's only a idea man! That's all it is! (cough) I got to go! Later man!

Measuring the strike of a VG coin may be incorrect and so does trying to measure the luster on lower grade coins. So there's a flaw in my suggestion! Maybe the 0 would be used where the measureing of some aspects of the coin weren't appropriate. But then again, that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever because then we would have only 10 possibilities for a VG coin. So now we're right back to the drawing board with the Sheldon system for coins AG to AU!

However, a new TPG using your system might make it with time, patience, lots of money and clients that think the same way.

 

 

Right on!

 

Leo