The dark ages of NGC Indian Cent coin grading

[shylock]

A recent post here asked about the difference of PCGS vs. NGC coin grading. The usual responses were made, PCGS and NGC do some series better than others. Indian Cent collectors cringe when posts like this are made.

 

NGC's grading of IH's has been the worst of any coin they have encapsulated. I'm not sure why -- perhaps they considered them minor coins and overgraded them to lure more submissions at one point in time. Whatever the reason, there are so many poorly graded NGC slabbed IH's I wonder if they would be better off buying them all back.

 

I could post dozens of examples. NGC dogs keep recirculating, especially on Heritage. They are "fill in" lots in Heritage's spring and fall sales. For example, this lame 1866 RB that looks 64 at best:

 

1866 NGC MS66RB

 

[James_OldeTowne]

IF what you say is true, my guess would be that NGC didn't guarantee grades on copper coins at one time. Since they had no guarantee to worry about, grading was not as tightly monitored as for other series.

 

Frankly, I dismayed by the number of IHCs that I see in both holders that are either overgraded, or that appear to me to be blatantly recolored. Certified Lincoln cents suffer the same problems in both holders.

 

That is why I will never put together a certified set of small-cents. The authentication of a few key issues is the only reason I see to purchase certified Indians or Lincolns.

 

James

[shylock]

James_EarlyUS - "IF" what you say is true?

 

I appreciate one honest response to this thread. But...

 

it's common knowledge among IH and Lincoln cent collectors that NGC small cents have been devalued over the years due to grading practices that encapsulated coins like this 1866. A brief look at Heritage's archives confirms that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a PCGS shill. PCGS has cornered the market in small cents due to NGC's "dark ages" of questionable grading, and I think that's the worst thing that has happened to small cent collectors.

 

In the IH and Lincoln cent series PCGS now has more grading power than any certification company deserves. And they take advantage of that.

 

I long for the day when NGC and PCGS small cents sell for equal prices. But that won't happen if coins like this NGC 1866 MS66RB keep reappearing in auctions.

[Morgannut]

It's not just IHC's. There are series like (1932-64) Washington Quarters where MS67 is the optimal serious collecting grade (for Registry-I have a circ. set too) and the prices in Heritage files show the same thing. It's frustrating because at 1/5th the bid value, people make a sport of finding all the correctly graded NGC 67's and crossing them to PCGS--making things worse.

 

It's not as if NGC can't grade--The NGC Morgan $1's are quite strict and consistently graded. I don't get it.

[IGWT]

I can't comment on the grading standards used by NGC for small cents because it's not my area of collecting. So, I'll take your word; and, if the coin that you posted is typical of the "dark ages," then . . . well, ugh.

 

You refer to the "dark ages" as though that period has passed. If so, when did it end, and why would past practices affect current trades in sight-seen transactions? Perhaps a difference in the guarantees offered by the TPGs for copper accounts for some of the disparity in the way that the market values copper in PCGS v. copper in NGC.

[kryptonitecomics]

Honestly.....I have found the oposite to be true.....I have found that PCGS is undergrading coins so it is no longer viable for a lot of collectors to send IHC in to PCGS. I have purchased a few nice Proof IHC's from some big time copper dealers and on several occasions I bought PCGS 65's that were originally hosed in NGC 66 holders. Now that doesn't automatically back up my statement until you look at the coins.........then you see that NGC had it right and PCGS is simply trying to prove they are the titest grader out there.

 

I think the bottom line is that both NGC and PCGS have shown a lot of inconsistencies in their grading of coper coins but at least with NGC....I don't have to pay a premium for a coin that is technically the same grade as a PCGS coins when in some cases their is absolutely no quality difference in the coin.

[TomB]

Perhaps similar to what shylock has noticed, I can anecdotally state that NGC was a bit more liberal in the early 1990s on the MS66 and MS67 grades for silver Washington quarters. It seems to me that while PCGS valued luster and eye appeal during that period, NGC valued a technical study of the surfaces. This resulted in more low eye appeal coins in high grade NGC holders and I think this hurt their overall influence in this niche.

[chinook]

I have seen very ugly matte proofs in both NGC and PCGS holders. There is a 1913 in PCGS 67RB in an upcoming auction. I have seen the coin in hand and today it would not grade RB, nor would it grade 67. The coin is a 65BN at best. There are other examples.

 

I have also seen many an NGC proof IHC that is liberally graded. One must know the series, or risk being burned.

[michael]

well all i will say is this

 

if i am seeking a matte proof red cent i will notg even look at any ngc red matte proof coins at all

 

i will only look at pcgs holdered red matte proofs

 

and then when i do look at it in a pcgs holder and it says matte proof red at least half of these are not full original red

 

as to why it is not red

 

a liner red

a coin that turned in other words was red and now due to improper storage aint red

a coin that was enhanced before holdering and then turned

etc

 

i do not know

 

but such is life

 

a true superb gem proof red matte lincoln that is full red totally original and not close to red rb enhanced red is an extremely rarified bird in a pcgs holder and even moreso non in an ngc holder

 

not unfair or good or bad just the way it is

[James_OldeTowne]

hi Shylock. No, I'm not saying that your statement is untrue. Honestly, I don't look at nearly enough certified IHCs to know whether or not one company grades more leniently than the other. If you say that's the market perception, then I believe you.

 

My complaint is the number of blatantly altered coins in both NGC AND PCGS holders.

 

There's a member of the PCGS forum that I've met several times, and he's a former PCGS grader. He told me that he can guess with a high rate of accuracy which coin doctor got certain coins certified just based on the style of recoloring used on the coin - and we're talking about PCGS coins here. According to him, there are an awful lot of processed coins in PCGS holders, and I would contend that the same is true of NGC.

 

My observations confirm this. I see an awful lot of "RED" coins that just simply do not "look right" in holders, and it's a darned shame. To me, "RED" should look like the coins you pull out of bank rolls, and not the even, consistent flat RED color that all-too-often appears on high-grade certified coins. I just don't trust the ability of certification companies to differentiate between original and processed copper. Is it possible that they've allowed so many processed coins into their holders that they've either lost the ability to recognize it, or don't want to turn away too many suspect submissions .

 

I don't know the answer.

 

Ironically, I think ANACS non-net graded slabs are the best source of the most original RED copper. Because the market perception of the value of ANACS certified coins is what it is, there's the least incentive to put doctored coins in to their holders. I simply do not buy RED copper anymore, period. I stick with mostly brown or red/brown coins that look original and wholesome.

 

Now, early copper is something I do know a little about, and I do know for an absolute fact that there is one "copper doctor" who works specifically with Colonial coins, and occasionally early Federal copper, and he most uses NGC, so perhaps that indicates that NGC is less consistent weeding out doctored copper. However, this same coin doctor is allegedly the one who worked on the infamous Norweb Hibernia certified by PCGS.

 

Finally, let me disclaim that this is just based on my experience and that of the people I have spoken with who know a lot more than I do, having "inside" information.

 

James

[shylock]

Let me refine my post about the "dark ages' of NGC Indian Cent coin grading to MS coins specifically.

 

NGC monster toned proof IH's sell for the same ridiculous prices as PCGS monster toned proofs these days, I'm very happy to say. In fact, I think there are more beautiful monster toned IH proofs in NGC slabs these days than in PCGS slabs.

 

James - thanks for the very informative post. I love the look of original RD Indian Cents, they are what lured me into the hobby.

 

There's a member of the PCGS forum that I've met several times, and he's a former PCGS grader. He told me that he can guess with a high rate of accuracy which coin doctor got certain coins certified just based on the style of recoloring used on the coin - and we're talking about PCGS coins here. According to him, there are an awful lot of processed coins in PCGS holders, and I would contend that the same is true of NGC.

 

I'm a PCGS copper coin cop junkie. I love exposing their doctored coins. No doubt there are many, but I can also say without a doubt that PCGS RD small cents have been graded tighter than any other services.

 

IGWT - You refer to the "dark ages" as though that period has passed. If so, when did it end, and why would past practices affect current trades in sight-seen transactions?

 

This is my point. Past practices affect current perception because the same terribly graded coins, like the 1866 of this post, live on in NGC slabs and Heritage auctions. These coins recur in Heritage actions to the point where I think NGC would be better served by buying them all off the market and starting with a clean slate. Easy for me to say...

 

NGC made their bed with a generation of poorly graded IH cent MS coins. I don't think they understood how easily their poor grading practices would be exposed on the internet.

 

Heres to NGC learning by their mistakes and becoming accountable to their clients, which I think they already have

NGC is our last hope for making certified grading a competitive market.

[Here]

Try selling a NGC I.H. properly graded. I got treated like I was pushing PCI graded I.H.s

 

 

 

Jerry

[EZ_E]

Shylock, this is an outstanding thread that you've started! One of the best of some great threads of late!

 

You example coin is YUK! I wouldn't even buy it if it were raw.

 

However, in my limited experience, my NGC graded copper is accurately graded. My 1898 PR66 RB IHC is completely accurate as well as my 1865 PR66 RB piece. I also have an el cheapo MS66 Red 1938 D cent that is truly red and undoctored but it is not exactly a scarce coin since many rolls were saved. I was selective in purchasing the proofs, though, and would never rely on what any slab says. I would not buy a slab sight unseen w/o a return privilege regardless of the grading service.

[chinook]

Even today there is a 1 pt difference in grading of IHC proofs between NGC and PCGS with NGC being more liberal, or perhaps more accurate.

[shylock]

However, in my limited experience, my NGC graded copper is accurately graded. My 1898 PR66 RB IHC is completely accurate as well as my 1865 PR66 RB piece.

 

NGC's damage control started recently, maybe after Rick Montgomery took over. NGC's correction of small cent grading will be a long, slow process, and will be interesting to watch.

 

At worst, this post is an example of certified coin grading gone astray. At best, this post is an example of how collectors can kick a major certification company in the butt to do a better job. I appreciate the fact that NGC allowed me to post this here

 

End of topic.

[EZ_E]

These were graded two to three years ago by NGC.

[harpoon111-migration]

Great insight from you guys, kinda makes me want to sell my coppers!