Experienced Numismatic Nutcase & his First NGC submittals ver1.0

[jgrinz]

Hey guys/gals and other -

 

SERIOUS If you dont have the time

Stop now ... if you feel so brave forge ahead !

 

Probably by now you people are starting to realize I have a little experience in the field and would like to inform you of my findings so far as concerns NGC and there service.All input is honoured and welcome.

Most of this first submission were experiments which NGC passed some they failed some and some they downright disappointed me.

1878-cc /MS62/I think was right on the money as it is more of a strike and abrasion issue (Came out of a PCI holder as MS64)

1878-7tf rev78/MS62/I think was right on the money as it is more of a abrasion issue (Came out of a NTC holder as MS64)

1878-8tf / MS63 / This coin should have been a 64 (Came out of an ANACS holder MS65)

Here are the biggies

1878- 7/8 tf / Body bagged / This coin has not been cleaned PERIOD - what were they thinking IMPROPERLY cleaned - that is a piece of [embarrassing lack of self control]. I would had more respect for them if they BB'd the thing for the rim ding which I knew about and questioned here on this forum.

 

*****WARNING _ EXTREMELY LARGE PICTURE _ LOW BANDWIDTH NEED NOT APPLY *****

 

1878 Seven over Eight Tailfeathers

 

****

 

This coin extremely pisses me off.

1897-p /MS61PL / This coin is a 64 and I thought closer to a 65 (REMOVED FROM A NGC HOLDER 1796929-007 as MS63PL ) I can see a drop of one point or a raise in one point but two points dropped is incredibly unbelieveable to comprehend.

 

1883 Proof Set. I sent 7 coins in for a cameo designation review. As One poster said I DO have a good eye. 4 out of 7 came back CAMEO. I though 5 and two were debateable in my eyes so this set of coins I am pretty satisfied with.( These all were in NGC Holders )

 

1902 Gold Double Eagle - I had two other coins to compare to and thought this MS60 coin had a chance to go 61 or 62. It came back MS61. ( Came out of an ANACS holder MS60 )

 

1893 Isabella Quarter - Should have easily crossed to a 61 and actually looks prooflike but it looks like it didn't by the status page ( Anacs MS61 ) I will post pictures of this coin later.

 

As you can see I have mixed feelings right now and wanted to vent a little before making a final determination on weather to certify with them again. You guys/gals on the boards , I am experiencing for the first time, I think have much more positive atmosphere than on the PCGS's boards as I belong there too.I have not returned there since joining here and thats some serious cudos to you folks at the NGC boards.

 

I will make rev 1.1 available when my American Eagle Anniversary Set comes back

( I allowed them to remove the coins ) and my 14 or so ANACS crossovers ( I allowed them a one pint drop on all coins )

 

I think these will be the deciding factor on what I do in the future. However I will still frequent the boards here as I like it here

 

Numismatically Yours,

 

Mike

MRB

[TomB]

It's impossible to give you any meaningful input as to who is "right" in these cases since the coins cannot be seen in-hand. However, it appears that you and NGC agreed far more than disagreed.

 

The coin bagged for improper cleaning may have been bagged because they believed it to have been thumbed. This is common on Morgans and it may be classified under their improper cleaning header. The Isabella at MS61 may really be an AU58 or AU55. Remember, the MS61/62 grade is many times a vast wasteland of AU pieces with positive eye appeal. What looks like an AU58 one day might look like an MS62 the next. On relatively recent issues, like the Isabella, there has to be something going on for a respected TPG to give it an MS61 grade.

 

The coin that I find bothersome is also the MS63PL that came back MS61PL since an MS63 coin should be safely removed from that MS61/62 wasteland. That, to me, is the true issue that should be looked at carefully.

[HaydenTubbs]

The coin that I find bothersome is also the MS63PL that came back MS61PL since an MS63 coin should be safely removed from that MS61/62 wasteland. That, to me, is the true issue that should be looked at carefully.

 

I agree,could you post pictures of this coin?

[gmarguli]

Remember, the MS61/62 grade is many times a vast wasteland of AU pieces with positive eye appeal. What looks like an AU58 one day might look like an MS62 the next. On relatively recent issues, like the Isabella, there has to be something going on for a respected TPG to give it an MS61 grade.

 

I've found that the grading services love to put MS61 on cleaned coins. Coins that are awful and very likely should be bagged, but just barely made it into the slab.

[jgrinz]

Done !

 

 

I have a 1897 MS64 PL by NGC that is not half this good - Thats why I have an issue with this item.

I can post those pics if you want to compare.

 

Anyway - I will post the Isabella when it returns for your retrospective on it.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

[HaydenTubbs]

Looks like there are hairlines

[jgrinz]

Wanna see the NGC 64 --- Hairlines mean nothing on Morgans..

Gimme a sec I will post the 64pl for you

Mike

 

**

 

Hey Hayden wanna have a bidding war on this puppy

OHHH MYYY GODDD it is beautiful 1880-s PCGS MS69PL Yikes

 

 

Outbid me

[HaydenTubbs]

 

Hey Hayden wanna have a bidding war on this puppy

OHHH MYYY GODDD it is beautiful 1880-s PCGS MS69PL Yikes

 

 

Outbid me

 

 

Holy Cow! Is that even possible on a business strike Morgan!

 

 

Unfortunately,not even a smidgen of toning,I think I'll pass

[TomB]

It certainly looks nicer than an MS61 at first glance, however, there appear to be significant slidemarks going across the cheek and behind the portrait. Perhaps these are the reason for the grade?

[chinook]

I would agree with Tom.

 

Perhaps the correct grade is 62. IMO most likely. It looks, to me, to have too many marks to be a 63. Although they are not big marks, they do appear to be numerous. Or perhaps it is just that the PL surfaces enhance the distractions.

 

As far as the BB. I have heard countless examples of coins that were once BB'ed and later graded from ALL services.

[EZ_E]

re: 1878 Seven over Eight Tailfeathers

 

The photo on the left of your url does appear to be cleaned but as Teddy Roosevelt said: "A coin in the hand is worth two on the boards".

 

And the 1897 does appear to be at least a 62, with luck a 63.

 

All just my most humble opinion.

[Coin]

On the 1878 , I don't think it was a 'thumbing' issue...would have dulled the luster and there would be some bright spots hidden around the feather detail where the rub could not get to ( Mike those feathers ,especially the lower belly, really stand out to me in the pic) .

On the 1897, I'm a lousy grader , but I'd say it is better than 61 , but then I'm not familiar with the strikes of 1897 - whether or not they were mostly defined or weak....It seems that from the buzz I hear from friends , some coins MS grades are affected more by how most coins were struck in a particular year , so I would guess that maybe they have graded more from this year with better strikes since the time it was originally graded , but then , it could have been all the blinking X-mas lights in the grading room ...hehehe , but hurrah for the upgraded 1902 gold!

sorry , John

[jgrinz]

What a surprise _ NOT_

 

The nice 1893 Isabella Quarter that is housed in an ANACS HOLDER MS61 for a crossover to NGC was rejected for and I quote "the coin would MOST LIKELY NOT be graded by NGC due to cleaning"

 

I wonder if that is because of Improper cleaning hahah what a load of cow excrement.

 

I will post pictures tonight.