Who has the deeper capability for variety attribution: NGC or PCGS? 1 1

[Angry Dragon]

We have a customer who presented a 1795 H10C for sale. Because its authenticity was in doubt (several counterfeits were found in the collection), we submitted the coin on the customer's behalf to CAC for authentication and grading. Unfortunately, CAC came back with "questionable authenticity" which also left us unimpressed with CAC's research staff.

The coin's diagnostics lends itself either to LM-7 or LM-8. Obverse has 7 curls and reverse has no berries. However, placement of star 1 leaves me conclude it is LM-8. While the coin does not display typical die breaks common to most examples, that (in my opinion) does not automatically mean it is counterfeit.

While PCGS has certified nearly twice as many 1795 half dimes as NGC, NGC has variety attributed far more LM-8 than PCGS.

My objective is to obtain a definitive attribution for this coin: either COUNTERFEIT OR AUTHENTIC. Questionable authenticity is an unacceptable outcome. So, which grading service do you consider as having the superior research and attribution service, and why?

[Sandon]

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    I doubt that getting a more definite opinion as to the authenticity of this coin would depend upon a grading service's ability to attribute die varieties. (Both NGC and PCGS have been known to make mistakes in such attributions, but both mostly get them right.) The very heavy toning on this 1795 half dime, which is likely to the point of an "environmental damage" designation, likely precluded sufficient examination of the coin's surface to make an informed decision regarding its authenticity. Many deceptive counterfeits are modeled from genuine coins or their impressions and match known die varieties exactly.

    NGC may also return a coin unencapsulated due to "Questionable Authenticity". "If NGC believes that a coin is likely not genuine, but its research is inconclusive, the coin will be labeled “Questionable Authenticity” and not encapsulated. The grading fee will be refunded less a $5.00 processing fee."  Coins That Are Not Encapsulated | NGC (ngccoin.com). PCGS has the same policy, except that it refers to such submissions as "Authenticity Unverifiable" (code 86) and does not refund any portion of the grading fee. See https://www.pcgs.com/grades#grade86.

   It is possible, perhaps likely, that you could submit this coin to both services and get the same "unacceptable outcome". You might want to try NGC first, as at least most of the grading fee would be refunded in this event.    

[RWB]

Depends on what hole you're digging.

[Henri Charriere]

If I may (having investigated this first-hand) "CAC" does NOT grade coins and, in the absence of clearly redeeming attributes -- the coin appears to be sheathed in anonymity not militating in favor of submission to CACG -- I would submit this for a simple determination: authentic or inauthentic, to NGC. 

[MarkFeld]

On 7/13/2024 at 8:24 PM, Henri Charriere said:

If I may (having investigated this first-hand) "CAC" does NOT grade coins and, in the absence of clearly redeeming attributes -- the coin appears to be sheathed in anonymity not militating in favor of submission to CACG -- I would submit this for a simple determination: authentic or inauthentic, to NGC. 

I’m thinking that perhaps the coin was submitted to CACG (not CAC)  which some people use synonymously with CAC, these days. My reason is the part of the post I’ve quoted below. As, if the coin had actually been submitted to CAC, it should have already been in a PCGS or NGC holder.

“we submitted the coin on the customer's behalf to CAC for authentication and grading. Unfortunately, CAC came back with "questionable authenticity" which also left us unimpressed with CAC's research staff.” 

 

[Henri Charriere]

TO MY FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES ON THE FORUM...

I BELIEVE I HAVE SPENT MANY MORE HOURS DISSECTING THIS TOPIC AND THREAD TO NO AVAIL. PARDON MY IMMATURITY AND IMPERTINENCE IF I SHARE THE FACTS I HAVE FOUND TO BE THE MOST TROUBLING HERE WITH YOU.

IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER, AN OP WHO HAS SAT IDLY BY FOR OVER FOUR (4) YEARS, SUDDENLY ERUPTS LIKE MT. PINATUBO AND LEAVES IN HIS WAKE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS...

1.  ANGRY DRAGON. WHY, OF COURSE! A CONCERN WITH INSTANT NAME RECOGNITION RIVALING THAT OF STACKS AND BOWERS, GC, HA, NEN, AMPEX, LIBERTY AND JULES J. KARP.

2.  THE PURPORTED REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT WITH A COIN WHOSE FMV, NORMALLY STRATOSPHERIC, IS HINDERED BY ISSUES SO CHALLENGING THAT YOU, DEAR READER, CANNOT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CONCLUSIVITY STATE THE EXAMINATION TO WHICH IT IS HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO AND WHY ANYONE POSSESSING A COIN OF THAT CALIBRE WOULD BE REFERRED TO A CONCERN SO OBSCURE I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE NAMES OF ITS PRINCIPALS, ITS WEBSITE, E-MAIL OR STREET ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER.

3.  GIVE THIS RELIC TO ANY NEWBIE AND HE WILL FILL OUT A SUBMISSION FORM AND REMIT THE REQUIRED FEES.  WHY WOULD THIS STUMP THE TWO TOP GRADERS, AND WHAT WOULD CACG BE ABLE TO DO THAT THE OTHER TWO CANNOT?

4.  REGARDING SURFACE PRESERVATION:  THERE ARE FEATURES OF THE COIN THAT OUGHT TO LOOK DISTINCT REGARDLESS OF WEAR, AND FEATURES WHICH WOULD ORDINARILY YIELD TO WEAR AND TEAR, THAT HAVE EMERGED REMARKABLY UNSCATHED.  THE NUMERAL 7 IN THE DATE LOOKS ASKEW, THERE ARE SOME FEATURES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE RESULT OF UNSUPERVISED CHILD'S PLAY BUT RESPECT FOR FORUM DECORUM PREVENTS ME FROM CROSS-EXAMINING THE OP REGARDING THE CONDITION OF THE EDGE. I BELIEVE CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE EDGE WOULD BE KEY.

5. TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS A WHOLE, MANY MORE QUESTIONS ARE RAISED THAN ARE ANSWERS.

IF THE QUANDARY PRESENTED EXCEEDS YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, THE GENTLEMANLY THING TO DO IS PRESENT THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE ALLUDED TO THUS FAR FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPTIVE AYDIENCE HERE, AND MAKE AN APPROPRIATE REFERRAL.  IN THE END, THIS IS ABOUT NOTHING MORE THAN ACTING IN A CLIENT'S BEST INTERESTS.  IF YOU DO NOT FEEL YOU ARE UP TO THE JOB, REFRAIN FROM MOCKING THE PROCESS BY MAKING REFERENCE TO SPECIOUS, NEBULOUS CLAIMS REGARDING WHO HAS THE "DEEPER CAPABILITY FOR VARIETY ATTRIBUTION, STEP ASIDE AND LET JUSTICE TAKE ITS COURSE.

I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THOSE WHO DABBLE IN CLEANING ELIXIRS WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD, MAKE AN INFORMED SUGGSTION AS TO WHICH WOULD PRODUCE THE MOST DESIRED RESULT WITH THIS COIN WHICH CURRENTLY APPEARS TO BE EMINENTLY QUALIFIED FOR FEDERAL DISASTER AID.   🐓 

(POSTED SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF MODERATION.)

 

  

[zadok]

...NGC by far....

[powermad5000]

On 7/13/2024 at 5:33 PM, Sandon said:

The very heavy toning on this 1795 half dime, which is likely to the point of an "environmental damage" designation, likely precluded sufficient examination of the coin's surface to make an informed decision regarding its authenticity.

I appreciate this particular comment. While the OP's coin does not have nearly the level of environmental damage on it that is on a particular 1811 half cent I have, this explains why my 1811 half cent returned as Authenticity Unverifiable as the amount of corrosion on it left it in a level of porosity. Now I fear reading this that there may never be hope for the half cent and it will never realize its potential sadly only to be seen as a potential fake.

For this coin by the OP, I would say NGC, but then to me it also comes to what each TPG actually recognizes. It seems both NGC and PCGS each have some of their own that they will attribute and the other will not attribute. If I were looking for a specific variety to be attributed, I would contact each and make sure it is a variety they will recognize and label as such. Just my opinion.

Edited July 16 by powermad5000

[Henri Charriere]

Q.A.:  Is this the Newby thread?

🐓  :  No Sire, this is the Forum you can speak freely on.

Q.A.:  Then why is it I am finding the ambience here one of anticipatory retaliation?  In fact, I do not like the entire tenor of this party line!  Where's the OP?  Why is everyone so pre-occupied with attributes when AUTHENTICY HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED???  Not one member has expressed safisfaction with the opening post.  I want my old job back!

🐓  : Guest Moderator?

Q.A.:  NO, as Tribune relaying instructions to the Hortator in Ben-Hur:  "WE KEEP YOU ALIVE TO SERVE THIS SHIP!  SO ROW WELL -- AND LIVE!!!  It's either that or resolve the irreconcilable differences that have bedeviled this post from Day One.  How is anyone expected to have anything get done when the only issue, front and center, is establishing AUTHENTICITY?  

I have a fool-proof idea --

🐓 :  -- What if you lose?

Q.A.:  Do I perceive dissension in the ranks???  I CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE!  This is a career decision.  If I lose, @Coinbuf and @zadok win!!!  I go back to that thing @GoldFinger1969 mentioned...

🐓  :  Tarmac, Sire?

Q.A.:  Yes,... whatever that means.

(Posted at the discretion of Moderation.)