why do NGC holdered coins typical sell for less than PCGS coins of = grades

[jom]

God knows there is no such thing as a sub-par PCGS graded coin. It doesn't exist.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

Bottom line: There are more disapointments in NGC holders than there are in PCGS.

Pat, how much of that do you attribute to many of the better NGC coins being crossed over into PCGS holders?

 

Many of them Mark, but let me ask you... generally, why is it not the other way around?

Why are not the better PCGS coins being crossed into NGC holders?

Pat, I think it often is the other way around, but that the "better" PCGS coins end up in NGC holders at a higher grade. And, that doesn't automatically mean that NGC graded the coins higher than they should have.

[majorbigtime-migration]

I like Accugrade for consistency!

[Houston Investor]

I price the coin and not the holder. I advise my clients as long as a coin is graded by one of the 4 major grading services: PCGS, ICG, NGC, and ANACS they should be in relatively good shape, especially on coins under $300. These are the 4 grading services accepted by Teletrade which has been around since 1986. The majority of my expensive coins (over $300) are in holders of PCGS and NGC.

 

As far as PCGS being superior, I think this is more of a matter of opinion. Certainly there are individuals who will have only PCGS coins. According to the CDN Coin Market Indicator (Bluesheet vs Greysheet factors), if ICG is 100% (I submit a lot to ICG), PCGS is 106%, NGC 99%, and ANACS 71% (way too low in my view). These are average bluesheet bid on the sight unseen market. The differences between the top three are minimal, however according to the stats PCGS is on top. Greysheet sight seen bid can be for raw or certified coins as long as they are properly graded. Consequently for retail pricing purposes, who's holder the coin is in is a moot issue from my perspective (my inventory is marked up at a percentage over CDN greysheet). Certainly there are people who will buy only PCGS & NGC and one should be cognizant of this (but I think this becomes absurd on coins less than $100).

 

For the most part I submit coins over $300 bid value to NGC (they are the grading service of the ANA), under $300 bid value to ICG. I like ICG, especially their independence, staff, and prescreen service for rolls plus their holders stack nicely. I do not deal in big ticket coins (except lots of 1oz bullion pieces (mainly for my own investment) and some gold type) as most of my clients consider a $300 coin an expensive coin. Some of the coins over $1000 I have seen in the inventories of certain big ticktet dealers on the bourse appear grossly overgraded / low end and possibly were resubmitted who knows how many times before achieving that lofty grade. I would suggest caution on these as this is where the novices have the greatest potential to get really ripped. The market place is catching on to this and this is why some of those dealers are seeking other numismatic venues. They can put down the rest of us as "wannabees" but it is some of their big ticket overgraded coins that are the real "wannabees" .

 

Investors need to judge the coin and where falls in the grade range vs which holder of the 4 majors it is in. I have ANACS coins for the same date issue that blow away their PCGS counterpart in my inventory - shall I discount these 30% below PCGS so someone can rip me and then cross them over possibly at a higher grade? Not in my lifetime.

[Bruceswar]

I like Accugrade for consistency!

 

Consistantly high!

[Sequiturr-migration]

and ANACS 71% (way too low in my view).

 

Smart collectors, take note.

[Bruceswar]

and ANACS 71% (way too low in my view).

 

Smart collectors, take note.

 

Alot of the very smart collectors buy RAW and then submit if need be.

[BillJones]

As a dealer who has wholesaled a lot of coins to other dealers, it does not matter if the coin is in an NGC holder or a PCGS holder. It’s the coin that matters, and I’ve gotten premium prices (over Gray Sheet ask) for coins slabbed by either service.

 

As for ICG, ANACS and the rest, I either avoid those coins, or I will only purchase them at heavily discounted prices. My problem is I can’t sell the product in those holders. The alternatives are sell the coins at a discount or crack them out and cross them over.

 

I agree with previous comments that slabbing coins that are worth less than $100 is silly. I’ll buy them at cheap prices, but someone had to take a “hit” for me to buy them (The cost of the coin + the slab fee is MORE than the value of the coin in the slab.

[michael]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One reason is the thinner PCGS plastic shows more of the flash of the coin. You take the exact same coin in each holder and it will look better in the PCGS ... therefore it sells for more money.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

true true true

[Prethen]

I never thought about the attrition of better NGC coins going into PCGS holders. That's interesting and quite plausible. It is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" of sorts. It makes it appear that PCGS is better and that NGC is the wicked stepchild. I have plenty of NGC coins and I'm very happy with them. I also have PCI and ANACS coins that I'm happy with. I agree that the PCGS holder is more attractive and that probably hurts NGC a bit, regardless of how well-graded their coins are.

[BillJones]

I agree that the PCGS holder is more attractive and that probably hurts NGC a bit, regardless of how well-graded their coins are.

 

The odd part is in the pre-slab days the white insert Capital Plastic holder was "gold standard" for displaying most coins to their best advantage. NGC duplicated that with its white insert. In it's very early days the NGC holder had a black insert.

 

In NGC's defense, I find it easier to photo coins in the NGC holder with it's flat windows than the convex windows found on the PCGS holder. The PCGS holder picks up more reflections.

[Houston Investor]

Some interesting points and I agree a lot of coins get crossed over due to liquidity considerations. I try to stick to mainly to PCGS / NGC coins but I sometimes pick up coins from the other 2 main TPG's from walkup sellers. I once had a fellow walk up to my table with a beautiful $2.50 Indian Mintstate 63-66 Set in the holders of one of the C- grading services (not one of the major 4) he was looking to sell. I directed him to another dealer (electing not to coment on who's holders they were in) and simply said "wow what a beautiful set." I heard him say he was asking a 6 figure sum, but there did not seem to be any takers. One dealer offered him melt for the coins and the collector swung his cane at him "why you scoundrel." This is about the only time I have seen someone try to assualt a dealer at a show!

[JJSingleton]

The simple answer to the question is "The market". And markets often move without logic. But here are a couple of additional personal thoughts on the subject that have not been already mentioned.

 

I believe that NGC has really hurt themselves with the huge amount of NCS'd coins in their holders today. For me when someone says "NGC"...the first thing that comes to my mind is "stripped coin". Don't get me wrong, I own many original coins in NGC holders, but when I walk the floor at a show I see NCS'd coins in NGC holders everywhere. Yeah, I see some stripped coins in PCGS holders too, but not anywhere near the amount I see in NGC holders. For me at least, it is a huge negative.

 

Also, with the " * " designation being used, by definition any NGC holdered coin without the star does not have exceptional eye appeal. So when you compare a NGC MS66 to a PCGS MS66 the PCGS may have exceptional eye appeal. The NGC will not, unless NGC got it wrong or the coin was holdered prior to the designation. So in a large sampling it is inevitable that the overall appeal of the PCGS coins will exceed the overall appeal of the NGC coins of the same grade.

 

Just some additional fodder for thought.

[MikeKing]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought you had to pay extra to have a coin considered for the * designation.

[Houston Investor]

I believe NCS is a good thing and I see it as a positive for NGC. Because of reaction with the atmosphere and environment coins will develop toning problems which will need to be removed / enhanced by conservation from time to time. Unless a coin is stored in a vacuum, this is a numismatic fact of life. I have seen many PCGS coins where the submitter did not dip a coin needing a dip before sending it in or sent it in using a soft flip where the coin later on developed the green PVC toning - I pass on these. Tragically, those ignorant of the damaging effects of PVC will describe these coins as "original" or "pretty green toning" and even more disgusting debate whether AT or NT.

 

I applaud NGC in both their grading service and what they are doing with NCS; so has the ANA in designating NGC as their official grading service. Presently, I prefer NGC over PCGS.

[MAULEMALL]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought you had to pay extra to have a coin considered for the * designation.

I have never heard of anyone Paying for the star...

[JJSingleton]

I applaud NGC in both their grading service and what they are doing with NCS; so has the ANA in designating NGC as their official grading service.

Parker, I do appreciate your opinions and your well written posts. I can see that we will forever disagree on the topic of NCS. I do see value in "necessary" coin conservation where contaminant removal from the coin is essential to avoid further damage. Your example of certain contaminants like PVC is valid. However, your assertion that unless a coin is kept in a vacuum that the toning formed is a dangerous contaminant is not accurate IMO. I'm not a chemist but I strongly recommend you check out TomB's posts on the topic. Tom is a chemist, and a fine numismatist too.

 

You've mentioned twice in this thread that NGC is the official grading service of the ANA. You do know that this is a paid endorsement, don't you? NGC just bid with a more attractive package than PCGS. Same for the PNG endorsement. I applaud NGC for having the marketing acumen to go after the endorsements. I personally believe NGC is kicking PCGS's rear end in the marketing and customer service arena, but this has little to nothing to do with the grading rooms.

[Houston Investor]

The fact that the ANA and PNG endourse NGC is a big selling point with my retail clients at shows and so it is with me.

 

As far as some of you that think toning does not harm a coin I would suggest reading the coin preservation handbook.

[Houston Investor]

I think the PCGS pricing guide is a fine tool for retail - but my interpretation of it is that these prices are for properly graded coins not just PCGS.

[coinman1794]

I believe that NGC has really hurt themselves with the huge amount of NCS'd coins in their holders today. For me when someone says "NGC"...the first thing that comes to my mind is "stripped coin". Don't get me wrong, I own many original coins in NGC holders, but when I walk the floor at a show I see NCS'd coins in NGC holders everywhere. Yeah, I see some stripped coins in PCGS holders too, but not anywhere near the amount I see in NGC holders. For me at least, it is a huge negative.

 

 

Only a small fraction of white coins on the market have been conserved by NCS. Further, while many coins are beautifully toned and desirable, a conserved coin will last longer than one that has active surface contamination and oxidation reactions eating it away. I like originality too, but NCS plays an important role in coin preservation.

 

 

Also, with the " * " designation being used, by definition any NGC holdered coin without the star does not have exceptional eye appeal. So when you compare a NGC MS66 to a PCGS MS66 the PCGS may have exceptional eye appeal. The NGC will not, unless NGC got it wrong or the coin was holdered prior to the designation. So in a large sampling it is inevitable that the overall appeal of the PCGS coins will exceed the overall appeal of the NGC coins of the same grade.

 

Only NGC coins graded after the STAR designation came out have been reviewed for a STAR. Further, regarding coins that were reviewed for STARs but did not receive them: just because an NGC coin doesn't have a STAR doesn't mean it's not exceptional. This merely indicates that the coin did not meet NGC's very specific requirements for the STAR designation. There are many amazing coins that, because of NGC's highly subjective and narrow criteria, do not qualify for a STAR.

[MarkFeld]

Only a small fraction of white coins on the market have been conserved by NCS. Further, while many coins are beautifully toned and desirable, a conserved coin will last longer than one that has active surface contamination and oxidation reactions eating it away. I like originality too, but NCS plays an important role in coin preservation.......

Coinman1794, I don't know what constitutes "a small fraction", but there are certainly large quantities of white NGC coins on the marketplace which appear to have been treated by NCS. I see numerous examples at every show I attend and in most auctions I view. Also, many of the "conserved" coins which you say will "last longer" have already had their surfaces affected in such a way as to look stripped and very unnatural.

 

...This merely indicates that the coin did not meet NGC's very specific requirements for the STAR designation....

To my knowledge the requirement is generally extra/special eye-appeal. It is a subjective and fairly vague standard which produces results that collectors and dealers often disagree with. And that is not a knock on NGC, as "beauty is often in the eye of the beholder".

 

There are many amazing coins that, because of NGC's highly subjective and narrow criteria, do not qualify for a STAR.

I'm confused - first you said that NGC's requirements for the STAR designation were "very specific", but now you're saying NGC's criteria is "highly subjective". Which do you believe? Thanks

[JJSingleton]

I have posted this same question before and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. The above insights are the best so far. However, I just did a very quick analysis comparing the last 5 PCGS PR70 Reverse proof American Eagles sold on Ebay against the last 5 NGC PR70 Reverse proof American Eagles sold on Ebay and we are not looking at a 10%, 20%, or even 30% premium, rather, we are lookng at a whopping 50% premium ($1520.00 avg PCGS, $1010 avg NGC). All these coins were sold in the last 3 weeks.

 

Since there is NO good reason that there should be premium this high for PCGS (I thought grading standards were just that - standards), I will now be taking all my NGC PR 70 and sending them to PCGS for a crossover. Costs about 15 bucks to see if they cross, but somehow through some mysterious transition, the identical coin may jump 50% in value. At that rate, I would only have to be successful on a tiny fraction of my submissions to balloon the value of my collection.

Jeff, PCGS will not accept standard crossover service level submissions for any 70 grade coin. The party line reason is that in order to grade a coin a 70 it has to be graded out of the holder so the rims can be checked. Therefore, you must either crack out and submit, or you must submit as "cross at any grade" to give your 70s a shot at a PCGS 70 holder. And from what I have seen with modern grading of 70s, that is a risk that few collectors will ever take.

 

Just thought you should know in case you were serious about trying to cross. With PCGS it would not surprise me if they just took your money and sent your coins back with no explanation. Even if they were upfront and didn't charge you for the grading, you would still be out all associated shipping costs.

[JJSingleton]

Also, with the " * " designation being used, by definition any NGC holdered coin without the star does not have exceptional eye appeal. So when you compare a NGC MS66 to a PCGS MS66 the PCGS may have exceptional eye appeal. The NGC will not, unless NGC got it wrong or the coin was holdered prior to the designation. So in a large sampling it is inevitable that the overall appeal of the PCGS coins will exceed the overall appeal of the NGC coins of the same grade.

 

Only NGC coins graded after the STAR designation came out have been reviewed for a STAR. Further, regarding coins that were reviewed for STARs but did not receive them: just because an NGC coin doesn't have a STAR doesn't mean it's not exceptional. This merely indicates that the coin did not meet NGC's very specific requirements for the STAR designation. There are many amazing coins that, because of NGC's highly subjective and narrow criteria, do not qualify for a STAR.

coinman1794, it seems you missed my point. My fault. My point is a bit convoluted so let me try again.

 

My position is not against the " * " designation. I have no problem with it. My point is that the designation may very well contribute to the issue of PCGS vs NGC grade to grade value differences. For example lets say we take a random sample of 1000 NGC MS65 80-S Morgan dollars and a random sample of 1000 PCGS MS65 80-S Morgan dollars. Now, lets pick out the nicest 150 (15%) from each. It is only logical that the selected PCGS coins will collectively have greater eye appeal as a group than the NGC coins. The reason is simple, NGC has kept the best of the best MS65 coins out of the random sample by segregating them previously with the star designation. All the remaining 850 coins could be dead equal in quality (ranging from nice for the grade to what the heck is that doing in a 65 holder) but when it comes to the market assigning values the perception of the nicest 150 coins will, without a doubt, influence the price. Now, the flip side is that in most cases the NGC star coins sell for a nice premium over the PCGS coin of the same grade. But being that these are not being considered in our random sample (or the price guides), it creates an opposite effect for the rest of the NGC holdered coins.

[Boom]

It's comparable to the childhood Fable, "The King has no clothes." Personally, I cannot comprehend how PCGS can be perceived as #1 especially since nearly all submitters complain that their coins are graded incorrectly and rightfully so, self included.

 

I know for a fact that coins I have sent in and returned to me were not the same coins at all and I am by no means alone on this.

 

Several owners of high ranking sets have experienced the very same thing. I've had coins come back mysteriously damaged. pristine coins scratched and Body bagged, many with fingerprints on them. Every last coin is digitally photographed, submitted to a most unforgiving scanner from which nothing escapes and catalogued. I have undeniable proof that on several ocassions the coin returned was not the one I submitted.

 

How PCGS can be perceived as #1 in light of this and more is totally beyond me. Once Integrity is lost along with trust, you're done! It's only a matter of time. I suppose their formula is, whatever the coin actually grades, subtract AT LEAST a point so that the company can generate revenue for shareholders by having members/ dealers resubmit. That's a bunch of BS. I personally have had coins resubmitted several times to test this theory and each time they came back a different grade. There have been as much as 5 point swings. This is Professional?

 

Obviously my trust in them is shot. I have not submitted so much as one coin in 2006/ not since the last shot 67 came back a 62, was cracked out and sold for strong money RAW with the new owner submitting it and coming back the 67 I thought it to be all along. That pretty much did it for me!

[MikeKing]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought you had to pay extra to have a coin considered for the * designation.

I have never heard of anyone Paying for the star...

 

You're right. I didn't know that. I confused paying the $10 fee for submitting coins already graded for reconsideration with the actual grading. Makes better sense to me.

Submitting Your Coins for a Star

 

The NGC Star Designation is applied to qualifying coins by NGC in its normal course of grading uncertified U.S. coins. No additional fee is required to receive the star. Coins already certified by NGC can be resubmitted and reviewed for Star Designation using the Designation Review Service, the fee for which is $10.

 

[coinman1794]

Coinman1794, I don't know what constitutes "a small fraction", but there are certainly large quantities of white NGC coins on the marketplace which appear to have been treated by NCS. I see numerous examples at every show I attend and in most auctions I view. Also, many of the "conserved" coins which you say will "last longer" have already had their surfaces affected in such a way as to look stripped and very unnatural.

 

I am simply stating that not every white coin on the market went through NCS. It's unrealistic to suggest that every blast white coin out there went through NCS, or that PCGS wouldn't grade every one of them, problem free. Further, coins treated by non-professional conservators are more likely to turn in the holder than those done by professionals.

 

I'm confused - first you said that NGC's requirements for the STAR designation were "very specific", but now you're saying NGC's criteria is "highly subjective". Which do you believe? Thanks

 

You are comparing apples to oranges here: "specific requirements" and "narrow criteria" mean the same thing. The problem with the STAR designation is that NGC can't apply thier own standard consistently, especially in the early days of the program. They will often assign STARs to coins that dont qualify under thier own standards. Thus subjectivity is introduced into the process.

[coinman1794]

My position is not against the " * " designation. I have no problem with it. My point is that the designation may very well contribute to the issue of PCGS vs NGC grade to grade value differences. For example lets say we take a random sample of 1000 NGC MS65 80-S Morgan dollars and a random sample of 1000 PCGS MS65 80-S Morgan dollars. Now, lets pick out the nicest 150 (15%) from each. It is only logical that the selected PCGS coins will collectively have greater eye appeal as a group than the NGC coins. The reason is simple, NGC has kept the best of the best MS65 coins out of the random sample by segregating them previously with the star designation. All the remaining 850 coins could be dead equal in quality (ranging from nice for the grade to what the heck is that doing in a 65 holder) but when it comes to the market assigning values the perception of the nicest 150 coins will, without a doubt, influence the price. Now, the flip side is that in most cases the NGC star coins sell for a nice premium over the PCGS coin of the same grade. But being that these are not being considered in our random sample (or the price guides), it creates an opposite effect for the rest of the NGC holdered coins.

 

 

Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree with you on that.

[MarkFeld]

Coinman1794, I don't know what constitutes "a small fraction", but there are certainly large quantities of white NGC coins on the marketplace which appear to have been treated by NCS. I see numerous examples at every show I attend and in most auctions I view. Also, many of the "conserved" coins which you say will "last longer" have already had their surfaces affected in such a way as to look stripped and very unnatural.

 

I am simply stating that not every white coin on the market went through NCS. It's unrealistic to suggest that every blast white coin out there went through NCS, or that PCGS wouldn't grade every one of them, problem free. Further, coins treated by non-professional conservators are more likely to turn in the holder than those done by professionals.

 

I'm confused - first you said that NGC's requirements for the STAR designation were "very specific", but now you're saying NGC's criteria is "highly subjective". Which do you believe? Thanks

 

You are comparing apples to oranges here: "specific requirements" and "narrow criteria" mean the same thing. The problem with the STAR designation is that NGC can't apply thier own standard consistently, especially in the early days of the program. They will often assign STARs to coins that dont qualify under thier own standards. Thus subjectivity is introduced into the process.

Thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree that there are many white coins on the market in both PCGS and NGC that have not gone through NCS. I must disagree with your point that PCGS would "grade every one of them, problem free", however. PCGS rejects many NCS'd white coins as cleaned or altered surfaces, and rightly so in my opinion.

[Zoins]

Can someone post some pics of "white coins"? Does anyone prefer "white coins" or should discerning collectors generally avoided them?

 

With the issue of slabbed white, AT and other coins, I've been starting to think that collectors need to be fairly well educated, even when buying coins slabbed by the major TPGs. If these issues are more prevalent with one TPG over another, I can see reasons for the market to price the coins differently.

[coinman1794]

I should also note that I am not a fan of stripped coins. If we are discussing only coins that have been overdipped, then we are in complete agreement. I won't touch an overdipped coin, and there is no excuss for such coins in high-grade holders. I can see where NCS might conserve a previously dipped coin to stabalize it. But in so doing, if they contribute further to the coin's stripping, then it should be downgraded or even body-bagged accordingly. However, white in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some white coins are amazing, and many coins will have been be better served with their contaminants removed.

 

This brings me to another problem that I have all to often encountered. NGC is brutal to no end on coins with toning. Coins with any toning, at all, no matter how nice, get downgraded when I submit them. I've had wild rainbow monster mint set 1958-D's that graded 2-3 grades below what they should have! Only after a second examination do the graders raise their lowball assessments of my original coins to their appropriate grades. It is upsetting that they contribute to this attitude that only white coins are good. This happens most often with Modern tier submissions, but it's true across the board.

 

In fairness, there is that other side of the arguement that rightly argues that toning is rust; this is scientifically accurate. However, their arguement is that coins should be made white. But once a coin is toned, the only alternative is dipping it, so which is really better in that case, dipped or toned? Either way, there is damage to the coin.The best option may simply be to place the toned coin in a stable environment so it doesn't deteriorate further, with intercept shield products, for instance.

 

I will try to collect original pieces that I like and white pieces that I like, as long as they are not washed out. That's about all I can do!