Why shouldn't ANACS be included in the NGC registries?

[Hoot]

I know this question has been asked before, but it seems to me that sentiments and ideas are changing about the issue. I, for one, am in favor of it because (1) I buy ANACS graded coins, (2) I hate crossing them to NGC or PCGS for the registry game, but I do, and (3) I genuinely believe that coins in ANACS holders live up to as good of "standards" as PCGS (at least) and in many cases NGC.

 

My only beef with ANACS is that I think that they could be a bit more consistent, but I think that their tendencies for under/overgrading are just human error and not a ploy to make a market. Recently, I have appreciated the consistency of coins I have looked at in their holders. Have a look at RWW's thread on Crossover results

 

BTW, I would not be in favor of allowing "net graded" coins.

 

What kind of strengths or weaknesses are there in adding ANACS to the list of "acceptable" registry coins?

 

Hoot

[keithdagen]

Does ANACS have an online database of it's certificate numbers like NGC and PCGS? If so, does the database tell you whether a coin has a "net grade" or not?

 

I tried crossing 4 coins to PCGS last year, 3 ANACS seated half dimes and dimes, and one NGC gold piece. The gold crossed, the three silvers were bagged, 1 for AT and 2 for altered surfaces. I did not crack them, but submitted them previously holdered. I dumped them at the TNA show to a dealer who had a bunch in his case and came close to breaking even on the deal.

[Hoot]

I don't know about the database... good question.

 

I've had PCGS body bag 3 coins that were problem-free:

 

1) 1935 buffalo nickel. Reason? AT. Simply not true - Whitman Folder toning.

2) 1913-S buffalo nickel. Reason? Cleaned. This one made me downright mad. There were a couple of faint hairlines in the obverse field in front of the Indian's forehead, but they could have been from anything. The coin was otherwise original, steel gray and beautiful.

3) 1925-S buffalo nickel. Reason? Cleaned. Yup, I soaked the dirt off of it with mild soap and water, then dabbed it dry. It was a nice XF45 specimen. No scratches and no polish - just a typical XF specimen.

 

So, I think little of PCGS's assessments of problem coins. So, does ANACS do any worse?

 

Hoot

[keithdagen]

Don't necessarily disagree. What irks me is that I should have held on to the pieces for another half an hour and I could have showed them to you and Spooly and Kory and got some additional opinions. The AT was pretty weird toning, that's why I picked it up, but I found a stunning replacement, so I'm not too sad. One of the "cleaned" was dipped and retoned, but I saw no hairlines of any kind.

 

I don't have a lot of experience with ANACS beyond that. If I can motivate myself to find a box to ship with, I have an ANACS Washington-Carver I bought that I plan on crossing to NGC here real soon.

[Tradedollarnut]

I believe it's easier to get altered surface problem coins slabbed at ANACS. When the greysheet starts putting ANACS up there with NGC and PCGS, then the resistance to putting them on the registry might drop somewhat.

[braddick]

NGC should look 'UP', not 'DOWN'.

 

Allowing PCGS coins sounds right, ANACS coins sounds wrong.

 

But, while you're on the topic: Why doesn't Teletrade allow SEGS coins to be sold? They allow ICG, why not SEGS?

[keithdagen]

Pat. NGC should look "across." Up implies that PCGS is better, and for many areas, NGC is equal or better.

[Spooly]

"Does ANACS have an online database of it's certificate numbers like NGC and PCGS?"

 

NO

 

Dear Mr. Spooly,

 

I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail. I was on vacation and the messages really piled up!

 

ANACS can provide insert number information, but as of now that can't be done electronically. You can call our office at 1-800-888-1861 M-F from 8am-4:30pm and provide the number, and the representative can verify the information, plus tell you when the coin was graded. Of course, we can't provide you with any information about the submitter of the coin for security purposes. Or, if you prefer, you may e-mail me again with the item number information, and I'll e-mail you back.

 

Sincerely,

 

Kelly Aninao

Administrative Assistant

 

ANACS coins in the Registry?

 

ANACS need to cough up some money to do it! Building a Registry is not cheap! Why would NGC give it to ANACS at no cost? Or atleast......."expense sharing" This coin "socialism" is killing me! Next thing people will want is dealers and collectors to give away coins free. Who needs free health care?..... I need a coin fix! "It's for the children". "It's going to help the working man"...... hey I am a working man, why did it just cost me MORE tax money with no benefit? ... ect... ect... (I am going to bed)

 

 

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

I dislike the crossover game that registries force upon us. But, in line with Spooly's sentiment about coin socialism, I think we will simply have to accept some degree of parochialism.

 

Or, at least some degree of practicality should come into play here. PCGS has an excellent online coin lookup service. In practical terms, this makes it quite easy for Danielle, et al, to lookup our entries.

 

I believe no other service, NGC included, has anything as convenient as what PCGS has. (I'll need to check this later!)

 

Finally, we need to admit that NGC would love to be viewed as the best service around (as well as actually being the best!). That being said, it would be a bad business practice to use one of their best marketing tools -- their registry -- to benefit their competitors. Including PCGS coins is a good idea because it is convenient and it serves to dilute market share from them.

 

Anyway, that's my view if I were part of NGC.

 

However, if I were just being me, I'd have to say that we should include ANACS on a per-series basis, with acceptance criteria based perhaps on demonstrated market equality with NGC.

 

For example, for silver Bust coinage, I think you'll find that ANACS does an excellent job. I'm willing to bet that if you polled the JRCS membership, they will likely vouch for ANACS relative to NGC (and PCGS).

 

If you polled the LSCC membership, you'll probably not find many who will vouch for ANACS relative to NGC.

 

The comparison should be about how well the ANACS graders will do relative to NGC graders. It should not be about the quality of ANACS material that we see today, because too much of the good stuff in ANACS holders have already been cracked out. (This is the same stupid excuse that PCGS kool-aid drinkers say about NGC.)

 

Oh, and, no net-grades...

 

EVP

 

[Oldtrader3]

I think that ANACS is getting much better with their grading. However, IMHO there are still some problems with their consistancy. I agree with Spooly that NGC would be giving ANACS more than they are getting in return.

 

ANACS also needs to build more crediblity in the marketplace. A database program to verify customer's coins is a start. Otherwise, how can NGC verify coins in a timely manner for another service? I am not comvinced that ANACS is an equal partner with NGC and PCGS.

 

I have cracked and crossed some ANACS coins in the past year. The ones that I submitted did not cross and I agreed, based on my inspection of the coins, that they should not have crossed. I bought them cheaply though at the grade that I expected. So there was no loss to me.

 

I do not feel that ANACS is same for same with the other services. IMHO, they still have both some PR and quality issues to work through.

[DWLange]

Without debating the relative merits of various grading services, one very practical reason that ANACS coins are not included in the NGC Registry is the issue of net grading. PCGS and NGC do not perform net grading of problem coins, and their certified coins are thus not subject to any such compromise in value.

 

How would we score a coin with AU detail that is net graded to VF because of scratches and improper cleaning? Certainly, not everyone agrees that such a coin is equal in value and desirability to a problem-free VF example. I suppose we could simply state that net graded coins are excluded from our Registry, but I know already that collectors will submit them anyway and then complain when they are not eligible.

[EVillageProwler]

DWL,

 

For what it's worth, there is an unvalidated observation made through personal experience that ANACS will be more likely to utilize the ``net grade'' option simply because it exists. (I've heard the same about SEGS.)

 

PCGS and NGC, on the other hand, will simply mentally net grade the coin down a bit and attribute that to negative eye appeal. No BB, which is good.

 

This observation pertains to those coins with minimal signs of impairment.

 

EVP

 

[Hoot]

Thanks for all the replies. I find the point that Spooly, EVP and Charlie made about "giving ANACS something (the registry) for nothing" a very strong argument. I suppose that it's true that ANACS has a lot to do to pull its public act together before it can be included in the registry game: first of all, make one of its own and create a reasonably available electronic database. I am persuaded.

 

As for the particular series, it's good to know where they excel. We should always keep an eye out for where other services do their best work, as it may benefit each of us here in our collecting endeavors. Thanks for sharing.

 

DWL - I think you can see from the sentiments shared throughout this thread that nobody is/was in favor of allowing net graded coins. Several people (I for one) expressed their disfavor for inclusion. But it seems like there is pretty good reason for not allowing ANACS altogether, at least for the near future.

 

Thanks again for all the input. Times may always change these things.

 

Hoot

[coinman1794]

So we are saying that ANACS should pay NGC for being included in the registry? Did PCGS pay NGC to be included in the registry? I don't see why this would prevent them from being added.

[coinman1794]

So we are saying that ANACS should pay NGC for being included in the registry? Did PCGS pay NGC to be included in the registry?

[keithdagen]

No, we are saying that there is a "perceived" hierarchy of grading services. Perception is that PCGS is #1 or that NGC and PCGS share that spot. NGC losed nothing by letting PCGS coins in.

 

ANACS is #3, so including them would boost their ranking, suggesting they are equal as well. Why do that?

[Hoot]

It's not what I'm saying coinman. As I said, I am persuaded by and agree with others that ANACS has a lot to do to pull its public act together before it can be included in the registry game: first of all, make one of its own and create a reasonably available electronic database.

 

Hoot

[EVillageProwler]

As we answer Hoot's question, we must first ask ourselves whether we are trying to see things from NGC's perspective, or whether we should simply answer this from our own perspective.

 

I think there is very little doubt that NGC has little to no incentive to include ANACS slabs in the NGC registry.

 

But, *if* NGC were to seriously consider doing this, depending on our feedback, what would our answer be?

 

In my opinion, ANACS is a reputable service. Very reputable, in fact. There definately are areas where ANACS currently remain in excellent standing relative to any other service. To penalize ANACS in a blanket way is similar to our accepting that NGC slabs deserve lesser footing in a non-affiiliated registry set to PCGS slabs.

 

For those of us who are NGC kool-aid drinkers, this notion certainly offends. To those of us who buy the coin and not the holder, but realize that it's still best to have a coin in a holder, we should also be offended that our ``off-brand'' selections are of lesser quality for reasons other than the quality of the coins themselves.

 

I take great pleasure in slamming the PCGS kool-aid drinkers whenever I can. I think I will take just as much pleasure slamming NGC kool-aid drinkers.

 

In addressing the question of whether we -- the registry players -- should want ANACS slabs included, please be sure to drink unfermented beverage before answering! And, take a diuretic too.

 

And, please note that this question -- the specific question I am asking now -- is NOT whether NGC should include ANACS slabs...

 

EVP

 

[keithdagen]

EVP -- short answer:

 

ANACS has nice coins too. Have one sitting on my desk, a nice WC commem with cool toning. From a marketing standpoint, the question seems moot, but if NGC, or PCGS, decided to allow the coins in, wouldn't have a lot of problem with it (barring net graded of course).

[Hoot]

Good points EVP. When I initially posted, I was thinking primarily about the buffalo and Jefferson full step nickels that i have seen in ANACS holders. A bunch of great coins and most deserving of fine collections. Currently, I have 3 full step Jeffs in ANACS holders that I plan to cross to PCGS, as they are 5-steppers, but are exquisite coins (especially one - a 1938-D MS66 - wow! is it nice). From my point of view as a collector, i simply wish I didn't have to go through the crossover process in order to register the coins - they're nice coins, plain and simple.

 

Hoot

[coinman1794]

EVP, I totally agree!

 

To those of us who buy the coin and not the holder, but realize that it's still best to have a coin in a holder, we should also be offended that our ``off-brand'' selections are of lesser quality for reasons other than the quality of the coins themselves.

 

I also buy the coin and not the holder. That brings me this question. Why do some base ANACS's eligibility on whether or not they have an electronic database, rather than on the coins. (ANACS does sell pop reports after all). This viewpoint is balancing on a fine line between buying the coin and buying the holder.

 

What I am more concerned about, and for reasons not associated with the registry, is why the heck they don't accept credit cards! I guess they are not a technologically based company. They don't even use e-mail for customer service.

[prooflike]

Maybe a good start would be some emails to ANACS for an online cert verification? Their slabs do have numbers and this should be available.

 

Until there is an easy way to verify the slabs, I can not see how ANACS could be competitive in the registry business.

[Spooly]

" So we are saying that ANACS should pay NGC for being included in the registry? Did PCGS pay NGC to be included in the registry? "

 

To address this point, NGC was late to the Registry Set game, including PCGS coins only helped NGC...... more like gave them a edge over the PCGS Registry! Smart move on NGC part. It pulled me over to the NGC Registry. Now I can buy what ever coin is best for my collection and not have to worry about the cross over game.