ANACS Grading

[benjmurts]

How does ANACS grading compare to NGC and PCGS? I have a (2009 1c MS 68 and

2011D 1c MS 68) graded by ANACS that would be worth a bit in NGC or PCGS, but dont know if they would even come back as good as MS66/MS67. Thoughts??

 

[michaeldixon]

Without high resolution pictures it is hard to tell. My question to you is: "What do you think they actually grade?"

[MarkFeld]

General grading comparisons of the type you're asking about are largely useless. What counts are your specific coins.

[e1cnr]

I have had some of the older ANACS in small white holders come back in same or occasionally higher grade, but they started in the lower 60's.

 

ANACS (and ICG) at one time were on the average rather close to NGC / PCGS. Ownership changes and employee / company swaps as well as catering to shopping network offerings has led to a gradual decline of both in my opinion.

 

If you can pic up a 68 for NGC/PCGS 66 price, I would probably risk it.

 

A few years ago I remember someone buying an early Lincoln in ICG and getting it into PCGS at same grade (MS67), Sold for a few thousand more in new holder.

[Mohawk]

Here's an interesting topic....this is my experience with the current ANACS incarnation. This is not with moderns, as your post seems to be asking, but with US classic and World classic. I gave ANACS a shot a few months ago, and I have to say that they are terrible with undergrading these days. They also like to invent problems that aren't there. I sent a Japanese 10 Sen to them that they called bent. There is no bend on the coin, it lays perfectly flat when rested upon a table top. And that's just one example.

 

I've also seen them call a nice, clean high AU Barber Quarter whizzed. I've seen many a whizzed coin, I've been at this for a while and this coin was definitely not whizzed. The fields are as nice and clean as you could want on a high AU low MS Barber.

 

But mostly they just undergrade. This is specifically yellow label era ANACS. Blue label, third holder ANACS is known for overgrading. This could mean good cherrypicking opportunities with classics, if you're solid on your grading skills. But I wouldn't submit anything to them unless you want to throw your money away and be disappointed by undergrading and imagined problems.

 

Like I said though, I don't know how they are with moderns as I never sent them any. It could be different but this is just my experiences. After this, I just stick with NGC. They really are the best one out there!

 

~Tom

[Nutmeg Coin]

I would generally agree with the above sentiments. With moderns where grades equate to $$$, I would be leery of services other than PCGS and NGC, And the overly critical grading with classic US coins leaves some submitters scratching their heads and since there is little economic incentive for them to not undergrade why shouldn't they except that they tick off collectors submitting; maybe if CAC or another business was willing to stretch their acceptance to other services the gold stickers would send a message, but moderns are not a candidate for CAC anyway. Michael Fahey is as good as some of the best graders, not sure what % he examines.

[A.Phillips]

Well, it varies from my experience with old ANACS. I used to have 1893-O Morgan Dollar in old ANACS slab AU50 and 1923-S Peace Dollar in old ANACS MS61. Then I cracked both out and submitted it to NGC. At the end, 1893-O come back at XF45 and 1923-S come back at MS63. It's like 50/50 undergraded/overgraded to me.

[Critter8880]

In my experience they undergrade and create problems too. I tried them again this past year, and it was very disappointing to get my coins back. I bought a great 1916 Buffalo nickel that is like in the ms 61 to 63 range, and they called it au 55. From here on out I'm sticking to NGC. I'm going to crack it and send it to NGC in a few months. I kind of feel like I torched my money trying ANACS.