• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is NGC getting tough on Morgans?

Started by BodyBag,

24 posts in this topic

dragon

dragon

Posted
Posted

Yes, NGC has tightened up AT LEAST a point and a half from their loose standards in the mid 90's IMO.

 

There is a HUGE difference in quality in NGC Morgans graded very recently and ones from about 4-9 years ago IMO. The only thing that annoys me about this is when they grade your coin a 64, and then you see MUCH worse coins in NGC holders graded 65 and 66 from some years ago.

 

dragon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
true_grade

true_grade

Posted
Posted

That does seem a bit low...........I don't see any bag marks.....other than some luster differences.........but from the scan and only the obverse........it could have gone a grade or two higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
true_grade

true_grade

Posted
Posted
That sounds like a very large shift in standards. Is NGC doing anything to get the older, overgraded Morgans off the market?

 

Yep...........simply crack it open and send it in with your check. grin.gif

 

My question is................will this now create a seperate mini markets for grading "eras" in slabbed coins?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dragon

dragon

Posted
Posted

Carl,

 

Neither NGC or PCGS has even remotely enough financial resources to buy back the many thousands of overgraded coins in their holders in the marketplace.

 

dragon

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dragon

dragon

Posted
Posted

true grade,

 

The markets pretty much already make price adjustments for both low end and high end coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted
Look at the nice Lady attached. I know, I know, can't tell much from a scan.. but.... MS62 ? blush.gif

 

It's hard to tell from the scan, but it looks like I can make out reeding/skid marks on the cheek and neck. If so, then the other small marks in the picture might be worse in person.

 

If not, then MS62 might be low. However, the luster might be bad and there might be a lot of tiny ticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted
Neither NGC or PCGS has even remotely enough financial resources to buy back the many thousands of overgraded coins in their holders in the marketplace.

 

And that's why for the most part they don't/won't. If a coin is seriously overgraded they maybe will. However, I believe DH mentioned than even if a coin goes thru the regrade process and is regraded lower they will examine it and if they feel it is borderline, they will put it back in the higher grade slab. This seems to go against their written guarantee, but I believe that is what he said. I'll see if I can dig up the quote to make sure that is exactly what he said.

 

Also, DH mentioned that they spend about $150,000 a year to buy coins off the market. They claim to have graded 8 million coins (about 470,000 a year) with a value of $11 billion. That's $1375 per coin. At $150,000 a year, that means they take off 109 coins per year. That's .023% of the coins they grade. Does anything think they get the grade correct 99.977% of the time?

 

Remember what they said to Laura about her doctored 1913-D MS66 Saint? It's OK and an MS66. It's like an insurance policy with no oversight.

 

As for NGC, I've never heard their stats on buybacks and I've only had one experience with sending a coin to NGC that I thought they should have taken off the market. It wasn't my coin, but submitted for another forum member. NGC disagreed. I remember Laura mentioning a few months back that Mark Slazberg approached her about taking off the overgraded coins. Sounds like a good start - especially if NGC wants to help change those memories of people seeing ugly (yet technically original) coins in really high grade slabs. However, I will say that in the past NGC didn't exactly have a stellar reputation at taking coins off the market. Let's just say that many people felt it wasn't their priority.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

it just goes to show you as dragon pointed

out with the impossibility of buying back all the overgraded/mistakes in holders flamed.gif

it aint going to happen flamed.gif

the market will price them goodevil.gif

 

just make sure you buy the coin not the holder flamed.gifflamed.gifflamed.gifflamed.gif

 

grasding is subjective people are human put those two things together and after millinos of graded coins over a 16 year period well such is life and that is okie

 

JUST BUY THE COIN NOT THE HOLDER

 

 

sincerel;y michael shy.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BodyBag

BodyBag

Posted
  • Author
Posted
... looks like I can make out reeding/skid marks... luster might be bad ... might be a lot of tiny ticks.

The luster is fine, and the ticks are consumate with a MS64. If you add the overall nice appeal of the coin, it's a 64. I think someone was in a bad mood in Sarasota. smirk.gif

 

Buying the coin and not the holder is fine, but since I submitted this coin, a more applicable saying would be Sell The Coin Not The Holder, which ain't going to happen. This one's getting salted away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

At the risk of ridicule for giving an opinion off a scan:

 

It appears as if there was coin to coin rub all up and down the check and neck. Probably occurred in a bag. Looks like that was taken into account in the grading process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted

"As for NGC, I've never heard their stats on buybacks and I've only had one experience with sending a coin to NGC that I thought they should have taken off the market. It wasn't my coin, but submitted for another forum member. NGC disagreed. I remember Laura mentioning a few months back that Mark Slazberg approached her about taking off the overgraded coins. Sounds like a good start - especially if NGC wants to help change those memories of people seeing ugly (yet technically original) coins in really high grade slabs. However, I will say that in the past NGC didn't exactly have a stellar reputation at taking coins off the market. Let's just say that many people felt it wasn't their priority."

 

I have sent many coins in to NGC for appearance reveiew recently. One coin that was clearly overgraded was bought back at buesheet. Others where conserved to remove ugly toning and greatly increase eye appeal. NGC has been, at least in my experience, using NCS quite a bit to fix overgraded coins. If the marks are too severe, they will buy the coin back, but if the marks aren't excessive, and the eye appeal can be greatly increased by removing the toning, they will do that. After this is done and the coins are returned - while, sometimes, I think there are quite a few marks (but not rediculous for the grade) on the conserved coin, I have to say that the coins do look much better than they did, with marks and ugly toning.

 

They have also been very good about removing ugly fingerprints from gem grade coins. NGC is very tough in the grading process now-a-days on assigning gem grades to fingerprinted coins, so, it only makes sense for them to fix coins in gem holders that do have fingerprints, and they do fix them!

 

Overall, I'd say they are doing a good job. However, I think there could be just a little improvement in the buying back of conserved coins that still come out with too many distractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted
Look at the nice Lady attached. I know, I know, can't tell much from a scan.. but.... MS62 ? blush.gif

 

It's hard to tell from the picture how extensive the chatter on the face is. My first impression though is a 63. The coin does have extensive chatter. Also, while it is true that NGC is grading very strictly right now, this one coin isn't a good indication of a further tightening becuase it is only one coin. If it is undergraded, it may just be one of those day to day inconsistencies that all services face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Todd-migration

Todd-migration

Posted
Posted

Michael said it true to the point. Grading is subjective. I have seen some coins that have been way overgraded and way undergraded. We will always have to pay that money to send it back in and have it regraded and they dont want to use their profits on buying coins back. But what it comes down to is what is in that slab. Anyone can buy a slabbed coin in a 65 holder but if that coin is not 65 in my opinion I will send it back. I want the eye-appeal of a 65 not something that accidentally made it in the wrong holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EVillageProwler

EVillageProwler

Posted
Posted

I wonder if that coin is really a slider with the eye appeal and luster of a much better grade; thus, they gave it a market grade of "AU62" to get around the inconsistency of the grading scale...

 

Just a thought...

 

EVP

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted

What makes you think that it could be a slider? I personally see nothing that gives that impression.

 

 

BodyBag: What mint is the coin? It gives me that CC feeling, but I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

some really astute comments on here

 

i would bet that this coin maybe does have some rub and they graded it a compromise grade of au62 like some suggested?? flamed.gif as the coin does look really eye appealling and mark free from the scan and also lusterous so maybe a comprimise of au62 ifm the coin has some ever so slight friction from an original roll?? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif893scratchchin-thumb.gif? personally i have thought myself anything under 63 is really not an unc coin also many 63 coins unless really undergraded or high end are also not unc coins flamed.gif

 

the problem is we cant see the coin sight seen then it would be a no brainer cloud9.gif

 

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS COIN IN PERSON!! makepoint.gif

 

sincerely michael shy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

That coin just doesn't do much for me. I just don't see much of a cartwheel at all, so I'd guess diminished luster combined with the very busy cheek is what warranted the 62 grade.

 

Caveat: grading off a scan is almost impossible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BodyBag

BodyBag

Posted
  • Author
Posted

To those that have said it's "AU62", I'd have to disagree, but I have the luxury of seeing it in the flesh.

The reverse looks better than the obverse wth regards to chatter, but the nice tone is mostly absent. I could attach the reverse but I'm at work surfing grin.gif

 

Greg, it's not a CC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing