NGC economy results just in

[luvdembuffalos-migration]

Hi all, Thought I would share my submission results which came as

quite a surprise to me. The grades in parentheses are what I bought them

at and they were not bought from the same dealers either.

 

Coin List

Coins for invoice number 2049859

Item Year MintMark Variety Denom. Proof Grade Strike Char Comments

001 1913 D TYPE 1 5C MS 62 (AU-58)

 

002 1914 5C MS 62 (AU-58)

 

003 1914 S 5C MS 55 (AU-50)

 

004 1915 D 5C MS 58 (AU-55)

 

005 1927 5C MS 62 (AU-58)

 

006 1919 5C MS 63 (AU-58)

 

007 1929 D 5C MS IMPROPERLY CLEANED

 

008 1935 D 5C MS 58 (AU-58)

 

009 1928 5C MS 58 (AU-58)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EZ_E]

Cool! Lucky for you. Most submissions go the other way unless the coin was bought with an eagle eye and cherry picked.

 

Welcome to the boards, Brian, and thanks for sharing.

[luvdembuffalos-migration]

Thanks EZ_E,

 

I guess I was just lucky this time. I didn't realize that most submissions go the other way. I would only send problem free coins to be slabbed since they

seem to be sticklers when it comes to scratches, cleaning, dings and what not.

 

A few months back I cracked an old green holder PCGS 1924-S AU-50 buffalo

nickel out and sent it to NGC since it looked AU-55 to me. It had a nice peach

iridescense and looked totally original to me. They sent it back to me "improperly

cleaned". Huh?? I sent it back to PCGS raw and they slabbed it AU-50 again.

So I won't send any nicely toned buffalos to NGC, not sure what the grader

was thinking when he looked at it.

 

Regards,

Brian

[gmarguli]

A few months back I cracked an old green holder PCGS 1924-S AU-50 buffalo

nickel out and sent it to NGC since it looked AU-55 to me. It had a nice peach

iridescense and looked totally original to me. They sent it back to me "improperly

cleaned". Huh?? I sent it back to PCGS raw and they slabbed it AU-50 again.

So I won't send any nicely toned buffalos to NGC, not sure what the grader

was thinking when he looked at it.

 

It is very possible that the coin does have the wear of an AU55, yet the coin was cleaned in the past. It might be a coin that was cleaned years ago, but retoned. PCGS might have looked at the coin and felt the cleaning wasn't bad enough for a bodybag, but "net graded" the coin 2 grades down to AU50. NGC might have thought the coin was just a little too heavily cleaned in order to slab as a net graded coin.

 

Who knows, provided this is what actually happened, the coin might get slabbed next time at NGC and bodybagged next time at PCGS. This coin be a very borderline coin.

[TomB]

What Greg has written as an explanation happens more times than people realize. As an example, I had sent in a very nice half cent from the 1850s and expected a grade of MS64 on the coin. It came back as cleaned and I asked NGC to explain to me how bad the cleaning was since I did not think it should have been bagged. They explained that it was borderline, in their mind, as to whether or not it had been cleaned and that they decided to be conservative on the opinion. After looking at the coin again, they slabbed it as MS63BN. Essentially, the grader said he thought the original bagging of the coin was too harsh, however, the apparent grade of MS64BN would not be given because of the possibility it had been lightly cleaned, long ago. In effect, they net graded an apparent MS64BN coin to MS63BN. This happens at both PCGS and NGC.

[luvdembuffalos-migration]

TomB and Greg,

Your analysis seems to fit the situation I encountered. The "improperly cleaned"

designation left me at a loss for exactly what was wrong with the coin. For

a $15 grading fee I guess I can't expect a detailed explanation of what type

of cleaning they were talking about.

 

Thanks for your imput,

Brian