Incomplete Certification of NGC coins

[MLCoins-migration]

There appears to be an inconsistency in the way NGC reports population statistics for some of their certifications. Some more uncommon holder certifications are slipping past the Population data part of the certification. I have discovered one such error. The coin is certified as "1957 25C REVERSE STRUCK THRU MINT ERROR PF 67 CAMEO", and the holder number is 2635014-018.

 

We might argue that, since this error most likely varies within coins of the same date, denomination and grade, it shouldn't be segregated and reported differently than any other coins of that year, denomination, and grade. However, apart from MS/PF 70, all coins of a given date, denomination and grade vary, since the "defects" occur at different locations on all the coins within that grade.

 

Complicating matters, there may be inconsistencies in the language used on the holder descriptions, since some errors aren't commonly graded. For example, in the description entered on the holder, one grader might abbreviate a word, where in another instance the word is completely spelled out. This is a matter of "Cleaning" the Database entries to correct for all description inconsistencies, so that accurate Population Data may be tallied.

 

I have a double degree in IT (database Specialist) and applied mathematics, so can assure you that both certification issues can be addressed and corrected relatively easy.

 

The issue of certification reporting might seem benign to most; however, for those who have a low population error coin, the issue becomes one of having the ability to 'Vet" their coin(s) to prospective buyers. In the case of the aforementioned proof error coin, it is common knowledge that Modern (sic. 1955 to present) Proof Error coins belong to a small population.

 

NGC prides itself on its excellent grading services, and the access of all members to its very accurate Price data and Census data.

 

The irony is (and really not NGC's fault), to show the existence of at least one coin of an uncommon "Type" in NGC's coin certification database, while reporting "Population Data is Unavailable" defies the logic of anyone who can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....ect.

 

Correcting this error will not only increase NGC's reputation among all collectors, but, more importantly, make it possible for all its members to sell coins of absolute rarity for the prices they deserve, which are currently incorrectly lumped in with coins of relative rarity, which simply stated, "Obscures that coins unique pedigree"

[MarkFeld]

Welcome to the forum.

 

Curiously, have you discussed this with NGC and if not, why not?

[cpm9ball]

First, welcome to the neighborhood!

 

NGC recognizes varieties but not errors in their Census. The reason being that there are an infinite number of errors that can exist for a single denomination/type/date/mintmark. It is not inconceivable that the Census could have 100x, 500x or more pages than are currently posted.

 

Chris

[MLCoins-migration]

Yes, and the customer service person first made excuses why this "Justifiably" exists, then relented only to promise that it would be passed along to the IT department.

[MLCoins-migration]

Chris,

 

Please read my analysis of the current situation again...This is not an issue of adding anything to the "Census"; rather, it is an issue of providing "Complete" coin statistics at the "Certification" process... Every coin should, NO, MUST include population statistics based on all of its attributes.

 

And, no, the total number of errors and varieties are not an issue, only those that NGC considers important enough to place on their holders.

 

Again, read my post again, you are mixing apples with oranges in your argument.

 

Marcus

 

 

[MLCoins-migration]

BTW,

 

The "Census Data" was not even mentioned on my original post; rather, the issue is one of giving complete certification information for every coin.

 

Marcus

[MLCoins-migration]

Chris,

 

BTW, thank you for your interest; however, I must ask, are you an employee of NGC?

 

Marcus

[MLCoins-migration]

MarkField,

 

I have, and it would be prudent for NGC Society members to look at their online certifications to see if they too are missing this very vital piece of information...SIC...The population data.

 

Again, commingling coins of absolute rarity (some substantially rare!!!!) with coins of relative rarity hides their true intrinsic value.

 

Any argument to the contrary, or any argument which skirts my argument by trying to make this a Census Data issue needs to be called out as superfluous, if not down right erroneous.

 

mLibbi765

 

(AKA Marcus)

[MLCoins-migration]

One last comment for now....Even if NGC's database is so archaic as to consist of excel spread sheets (I don't know, maybe they are, maybe not?), the process of separating graded coins based on their holder's label is a very simple thing. We are not discussing a very arduous task to update the coins with online certifications missing population statistics.

 

Marcus

[cpm9ball]

Chris,

 

BTW, thank you for your interest; however, I must ask, are you an employee of NGC?

 

Marcus

 

I decided to respond to this remark, first, so that all subsequent responses can be taken in their proper context.

 

No, I am not an employee of NGC, nor have I ever been. This comment smacks of being some form of paranoid, retaliatory remark merely because I have been a member of these forums for 10-1/2 years, and you have no other reasonable comment.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

Chris,

 

Please read my analysis of the current situation again...This is not an issue of adding anything to the "Census"; rather, it is an issue of providing "Complete" coin statistics at the "Certification" process... Every coin should, NO, MUST include population statistics based on all of its attributes.

 

And, no, the total number of errors and varieties are not an issue, only those that NGC considers important enough to place on their holders.

 

Again, read my post again, you are mixing apples with oranges in your argument.

 

Marcus

 

 

On the contrary, I think you should reread your own opening comment.

 

"1957 25C REVERSE STRUCK THRU MINT ERROR PF 67 CAMEO"

 

Do you see where this coin is described by NGC as a MINT ERROR?

 

No, I am not mixing apples and oranges. The apples are the varieties, and the oranges are the errors. It appears that you are the one who wants to put them in the same basket.

 

Some say "po-tay-to" while others say "po-tah-to". NGC establishes their Census based on their population parameters, not yours.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

MarkField,

 

I have, and it would be prudent for NGC Society members to look at their online certifications to see if they too are missing this very vital piece of information...SIC...The population data.

 

Again, commingling coins of absolute rarity (some substantially rare!!!!) with coins of relative rarity hides their true intrinsic value.

 

Any argument to the contrary, or any argument which skirts my argument by trying to make this a Census Data issue needs to be called out as superfluous, if not down right erroneous.

 

mLibbi765

 

(AKA Marcus)

 

Please define "rarity" in absolute terms as it applies to numismatics.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

One last comment for now....Even if NGC's database is so archaic as to consist of excel spread sheets (I don't know, maybe they are, maybe not?), the process of separating graded coins based on their holder's label is a very simple thing. We are not discussing a very arduous task to update the coins with online certifications missing population statistics.

 

Marcus

 

Horsehockey!..............Colonel Sherman T. Potter

[MLCoins-migration]

I assure you that this issue is not born of paranoia, it is simple mathematics. The statement " subsequent responses can be taken in their proper context" is nothing more than obfuscation...This individual is offering nothing more than "confusion" in place of the original analysis.

 

Don't allow this response to lead you away from what you are legally entitled to...which is full disclosure of the population statistics for your individual coin(s). This individual would have you believe that I am "Paranoid"...the truth is that he and other self servicing individuals want you to believe that the absence of the population data disclosed in your certification is "reasonable". They wait for complaints, then they waite for you to sell your "special" coins on eBay or some other sells cannel and buy the coin(s) at a prices which are simply steeling the coin from you.

 

I'm ashamed to admit that I too wait for "absolute rarity" coins to be put up for sale on eBay or "Heritage" auctions.

 

This has to stop!

 

I am truly ashamed...It really has to stop!

 

Marcus

[MLCoins-migration]

Some coins are relatively rare, as disclosed by the higher grade(s) 0f the coin(s); while, other coins are rare in any grade.

[cpm9ball]

So, you can't define rarity in absolute terms. Perhaps it is because it is subjective just like the term "numismatic error" is subjective.

 

How many errors could be classified for just one date/mintmark? A cud from 1-3 o'clock along the rim of a 1909 Lincoln is one; a cud from 2-4 o'clock is another; a cud from 3-5 o'clock is another, and so on and so on. How about another 1909 Lincoln with a grease-filled die on one number of the date? _909? 1_09? 19_9? What about two numbers missing? What about three numbers or all four numbers missing? Do you get the picture? For every variety that is currently listed, there could be thousands of errors, and if you're going to list one error, it is not unreasonable to expect that all other errors are listed.

 

Maybe you should start your own grading service so you can do what you want. Good luck to that!

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

I assure you that this issue is not born of paranoia.........Marcus

 

Who said anything about the issue?

 

...........however, I must ask, are you an employee of NGC?

 

Just because I disagreed with your original post, you think that I'm an NGC employee. That is what I referred to as being paranoid!

 

Chris

 

 

[cpm9ball]

I assure you that this issue is not born of paranoia, it is simple mathematics. The statement " subsequent responses can be taken in their proper context" is nothing more than obfuscation...This individual is offering nothing more than "confusion" in place of the original analysis.

 

Don't allow this response to lead you away from what you are legally entitled to...which is full disclosure of the population statistics for your individual coin(s). This individual would have you believe that I am "Paranoid"...the truth is that he and other self servicing individuals want you to believe that the absence of the population data disclosed in your certification is "reasonable". They wait for complaints, then they waite for you to sell your "special" coins on eBay or some other sells cannel and buy the coin(s) at a prices which are simply steeling the coin from you.

 

I'm ashamed to admit that I too wait for "absolute rarity" coins to be put up for sale on eBay or "Heritage" auctions.

 

This has to stop!

 

I am truly ashamed...It really has to stop!

 

Marcus

 

Legally entitled!? Legally entitled!? Ordinarily, I'd suggest that you take them to court, but since they are only violating your law, you'd probably lose. By the way, your English composition, spelling and punctuation are starting to deteriorate, as well.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

they waite for you to sell your "special" coins on eBay or some other sells cannel and buy the coin(s) at a prices which are simply steeling the coin from you.

 

Now, that smacks of paranoia!

 

"waite"

 

"sells cannel"

 

"at a prices"

 

"steeling"

 

Maybe you should take a nap and calm down.

 

Chris

 

 

 

[brg5658]

The issue of certification reporting might seem benign to most; however, for those who have a low population error coin, the issue becomes one of having the ability to 'Vet" their coin(s) to prospective buyers. In the case of the aforementioned proof error coin, it is common knowledge that Modern (sic. 1955 to present) Proof Error coins belong to a small population.

 

This seems to be a thinly veiled argument that you would like to be able to point a potential buyer to some "official" source of data to justify a very high price for a supposed "unique" error coin. You have also jumped to conclusions about the quality of all NGC population and census data based on your admitted "one such error." Really?

 

 

NGC prides itself on its excellent grading services, and the access of all members to its very accurate Price data and Census data.

 

Do you just make this up as you go? Yes, NGC has (IMO) the best customer service in the business and is very consistent for the most part on their grading. No where have I ever heard or read that NGC prides itself on "very accurate Price data" -- quite the contrary, as is the case of most all "price guides," they warn against using the price data as anything more than a rudimentary guide. With regard to their Census data, NGC has been conservative in releasing meaningless data to avoid the exact problem that you are trying to justify -- people using the census data as a means of trying to sell their coins as something special when only one example has been graded. "Population Data is Unavailable" is NGC's way of saying that they don't want to release any summary data because the number graded is simply too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

 

 

Correcting this error will not only increase NGC's reputation among all collectors, but, more importantly, make it possible for all its members to sell coins of absolute rarity for the prices they deserve, which are currently incorrectly lumped in with coins of relative rarity, which simply stated, "Obscures that coins unique pedigree"

 

Do you realize how presumptuous and naive you sound coming to the NGC boards, and in your very first post harping on how NGC should change things to suit your personal goals? If you have a true gripe with NGC as a company, why don't you call them and address it with them in a professional and clear way, instead of pontificating on an online forum? Again, this last block of text comes across as petty and disingenuous -- it seems your goal is to somehow have "official" justification for the supposed rarity and uniqueness of an error coin.

 

 

And, for the record, I do not work for NGC and never have. I found your reply and treatment of Chris (cpm9ball) to be obnoxious and impetuous.

[brg5658]

Don't allow this response to lead you away from what you are legally entitled to...which is full disclosure of the population statistics for your individual coin(s). This individual would have you believe that I am "Paranoid"...the truth is that he and other self servicing individuals want you to believe that the absence of the population data disclosed in your certification is "reasonable". They wait for complaints, then they waite for you to sell your "special" coins on eBay or some other sells cannel and buy the coin(s) at a prices which are simply steeling the coin from you.

 

You are not legally entitled to anything from NGC with regard to population or summary statistics.

 

 

[MLCoins-migration]

Chris,

 

Again, please reread my argument. Where do I even suggest that NGC should redefine their census data? Here is the original post again.

 

"There appears to be an inconsistency in the way NGC reports population statistics for some of their certifications. Some more uncommon holder certifications are slipping past the Population data part of the certification. I have discovered one such error. The coin is certified as "1957 25C REVERSE STRUCK THRU MINT ERROR PF 67 CAMEO", and the holder number is 2635014-018.

 

We might argue that, since this error most likely varies within coins of the same date, denomination and grade, it shouldn't be segregated and reported differently than any other coins of that year, denomination, and grade. However, apart from MS/PF 70, all coins of a given date, denomination and grade vary, since the "defects" occur at different locations on all the coins within that grade.

 

Complicating matters, there may be inconsistencies in the language used on the holder descriptions, since some errors aren't commonly graded. For example, in the description entered on the holder, one grader might abbreviate a word, where in another instance the word is completely spelled out. This is a matter of "Cleaning" the Database entries to correct for all description inconsistencies, so that accurate Population Data may be tallied.

 

I have a double degree in IT (database Specialist) and applied mathematics, so can assure you that both certification issues can be addressed and corrected relatively easy.

 

The issue of certification reporting might seem benign to most; however, for those who have a low population error coin, the issue becomes one of having the ability to 'Vet" their coin(s) to prospective buyers. In the case of the aforementioned proof error coin, it is common knowledge that Modern (sic. 1955 to present) Proof Error coins belong to a small population.

 

NGC prides itself on its excellent grading services, and the access of all members to its very accurate Price data and Census data.

 

The irony is (and really not NGC's fault), to show the existence of at least one coin of an uncommon "Type" in NGC's coin certification database, while reporting "Population Data is Unavailable" defies the logic of anyone who can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ....ect.

 

Correcting this error will not only increase NGC's reputation among all collectors, but, more importantly, make it possible for all its members to sell coins of absolute rarity for the prices they deserve, which are currently incorrectly lumped in with coins of relative rarity, which simply stated, "Obscures that coins unique pedigree" "

 

To Chris, and other responders to my original post:

 

First to those who chose to respond with cheap shots calling me naive, and griping about my G-R-A-M-M-E-R and S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G...Lawyers often do that sort of underhanded thing in order to discredit a witness when a Lawyer can't genuinely rebut the witnesses testimony.

 

Next, for all the rest; firstly, of course I would like complete population data shown on the certification of my coins for economic reasons (I'm not a collector just for the fun of it), secondly, Every NGC Collectors Society member owning NGC graded coins, is an "Investor" of NGC. Legally, NGC is obligated to fully and honestly disclose all data pertaining to their investor's holdings in the company, and those holdings are not simply stock, but can be any economic benefit a Collector’s Society member derives from NGC's data reporting on their coin certifications, and thirdly, the coin which I pointed to in the opening statement of my argument is 1 of 199 according to the census, IFF (If and only if) the grade of this particular specimen is the only defining factor placing the coin in that census population. NGC defines it's census to make that a verifiable fact. So, I have no argument against NGC's census data reporting; however, I do stand by my one argument concerning the reporting of each coin's certification population data.

 

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for NGC to report "1's" in its census data reporting, and their ability to place confidence in the reporting for those coins is dependent upon the assumption that they have enough data points. The coin shown as an example at the beginning of my argument is from a population which is 58 years old. Quite simply, how can they not have the confidence needed to state that coins with the same holder description are of a population statistic "N of M" within the census population 199? Any claim of “insufficient data” after so many years of collectors finding such like specimens, and those specimens finding their way into the numismatic community, is disingenuous.

 

[MLCoins-migration]

What legal precedence(s) can you cite for us to justify such a claim?

[MLCoins-migration]

Chris,

 

Since the value of coins depends on their rarity, there are several scales which have been developed for the definition of the rarity of a particular coin. The most common are the "Sheldon rarity scale" and the "Universal rarity scale". The most basic principle for the rarity of a coin is a statistic "1 of M" within a given census population P for all coins of a given date, denomination and grade, where M is the sub-population defined by everything else in NGC's description for like coins within the population P.

 

An example for this is the very coin in my opening argument. The census population is 199. the rarity population is M < or = 199. A basic fact first. "Strike Thru" errors are not very rare among Mint State Coins; hence, neither are they of much interest to most collectors. Nonetheless, any error which NGC considers important enough to place on the coin holder description should receive an "M" population for that specimen's certification.

 

The previous statement uses a very common error and applied it to a Mint State (Sic. business strike) coin. If we now apply that error to a modern proof coin, we get a very very rare coin, as proofed by the fact that modern proof errors belong to a very small population among the sum of all modern proof coin census statistics.

[coinman1794]

Chris,

 

Please read my analysis of the current situation again...This is not an issue of adding anything to the "Census"; rather, it is an issue of providing "Complete" coin statistics at the "Certification" process... Every coin should, NO, MUST include population statistics based on all of its attributes.

 

And, no, the total number of errors and varieties are not an issue, only those that NGC considers important enough to place on their holders.

 

Again, read my post again, you are mixing apples with oranges in your argument.

 

Marcus

 

 

1) The NGC Census is the same thing as the "population statistics."

 

2) NGC does not publish population statistics for ANY error coin. The census is not a complete listing of everything graded and NGC has no obligation to make it such. That's just the way it is, period

[cpm9ball]

I have wasted enough time trying to explain how the attribution of errors works. Marcus is on his own. He can complain to anyone he wants as long as it isn't me. You can take that as an absolute, and you'll find no errors in my thinking!

 

Chris

[brg5658]

MLCoins, you are so clueless. Get a grip, and tone down your entitlement complex. NGC owes you nothing. No matter how loudly you say it or how many times you repeat it will not change reality.

 

PS -- it is spelled GRAMMAR.

[ldhair]

I would almost bet that NGC has never kept all the data on error coins that have been graded. That's a lot to ask. Way too many types to keep track of.

[cpm9ball]

I sure do feel sorry for the customer service rep who had to put up with him on the phone. (Note: We need an emoticon for "Why Me!")

 

Chris

[MLCoins-migration]

Chris,

 

I am sorry that I offend your sensibilities.

 

I'm afraid that "statistics" as applied to coin rarity is entrenched in a culture which simply redefines mathematics to suit its own industry wide practices.

 

I have a double degree in IT (database analysis) and Mathematics. I may be new to the coin collector society world, which appears to be driven by mathematical fallacy rather than mathematical reality.

 

I guess I'm just used to living in the real world where mathematics, when correctly applied, ensures that bad things, like planes falling from the sky on a regular basis, don't happen. And, in the case of providing a true population statistic for every NGC certification, would allow owners of those coins to ask real world prices, where now, they have to guess.

 

If I misused statistics, like NGC obviously is, at any prior place of employment, I'd have been fired. I have experience plying my trade in Aerospace, Manufacturing Engineering, Banking, and Business Cost Analysis, and can assure you that I'm not some newbie trying to stir up the pot with supposition and naivety.

 

The old adage holds true in this case , "Statistics don't lie, but people lie with statistics"

 

Marcus