NGC/PCGS

[O mint bug]

I have been actively collecting O mint DEs for a few years now with some success and no major mistakes. Money and availability are the constraints as I am getting to the more expensive side of the set. After collecting them and looking at many coins I have found the following:

 

PCGS is a bit tougher on grading these coins but not by much.

 

Coins in a PCGS holder can be good trade material if someone really values them. NGC slabbed coins are fine but a quick look at the pop reports shows NGC has slabbed many more of the tougher dates, meaning PCGS is less likey to grade a 1850 O as an au 55. To date PCGS has graded 12 1850 Os as a 55 and NGC 42. Same proportion goes for a coin like the 1857 O. It is not because PCGS gets that many more coins.

 

Both grade very rare coins like the 1854 O higher than a more common type one O mint such as the 1851.

 

I still contend that one should buy the coin and not the holder, advise several other collectors and large dealers have told me from the onset.

 

I cannot comment any other coins as I am not familiar with them. I have my hands full with the 10 coins I am after.

 

Pop reports for rare higher priced coins are a bit overstated. Lower for more common coins.

 

I own coins in both holders and am happy with either as I by coins for what they are not the holder.

 

I cannot comment on the NGC/PCGS issue on any other coins as I have a very narrow focus. In other words this may or may not be the situation with walkers or the newer proof issues.

 

Finding a quality coin in this run at a fair price is increasingly difficult. I checked the current Heritage auction and found only one O mint 1850 O au 58 up for auction out of over several hundred DEs.

 

I would be interested to hear what other collectors think about other coins sent for grading to both parties such as the walking lib half.

 

Once you start looking at the very expensive coins the grading service does not seem to be so critical. It is all about the coin inside. An example - During a recent auction there were two 1855 Os up for sale. Both were NGC 55s and one was CAC. To illustrate the " buy the coin " point the NON cac coin went for about $9k more than the cac coin and it should have as it was a better peice. Both were side by side so both were easy for the bidder to compare.

 

Finding a very reputable and experienced dealer is extremely critical.

 

Will I get all 12-Highly unlikely. My focus will be on the AU coins except the 54 O and 56 O if I am ever able to try to acquire one. Don't have over half a million to invest in these two in much lower grades. The 55, 59 and 60 O will be the rarest coins I will be able to acquire and once there I will upgrade the ones I get when I get the chance in years to follow.

 

On a final note I am looking for a pre 1800 large cent for a family member. Any suggestion on what grade and date for the middle class would be appreciated. Most I want to spend is 1k at most.

[delta]

An interesting post, thanks for describing the situation. Of course it's true most coins in PCGS holders tend to sell for more than NGC when other things are about equal, information you can use to your advantage, since you are scrutinizing the coins independently and open-mindedly. The pop reports for many of the rarer higher value coins are definitely skewed upwards due to resubmissions, as you surely realize. Best wishes on your pursuits!

[RWB]

Realistic comments. Make sure you search for and buy real AU coins and not the perverted "AU50" or "AU55" junk.

[brg5658]

I believe this is the 3rd time you have posted basically the same banter...

 

1st time was here...

 

2nd time was here...

 

...isn't that axe you're grinding sharp yet?

 

Just wondering...

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Realistic comments. Make sure you search for and buy real AU coins and not the perverted "AU50" or "AU55" junk.

Could you elaborate, Roger ?

 

BTW, just started reading From Mine To Mint -- fascinating book, what research you put into such an arcane and unique section of commerce. I commend you. (thumbs u

[GoldFinger1969]

The pop reports for many of the rarer higher value coins are definitely skewed upwards due to resubmissions

I'm confused....are you saying that the pop numbers I see in my Akers and Bowers books are skewed upward for very rare coins like the 1907 UHR Saint or other very rare dates ??

 

If there are actually only 10 coins that could theoretically achieve an MS-69 for a particular coin....and 5 were re-submitted to other TPGs.....and then 3 of those were re-resubmitted....are you saying the population number will read 18 ?

[coinman_23885]

The pop reports for many of the rarer higher value coins are definitely skewed upwards due to resubmissions

I'm confused....are you saying that the pop numbers I see in my Akers and Bowers books are skewed upward for very rare coins like the 1907 UHR Saint or other very rare dates ??

 

If there are actually only 10 coins that could theoretically achieve an MS-69 for a particular coin....and 5 were re-submitted to other TPGs.....and then 3 of those were re-resubmitted....are you saying the population number will read 18 ?

 

What he is saying is that there is a growing sense among collectors and numismatists that grade inflation is a significant concern in the current market on these. And I agree. Many of today's AU coins are yesterday's EF coins, especially at the lower end of the AU range.

[delta]

Yes, I believe many higher grade coins, especially those that had been in early generation holders, were submitted and resubmitted and have gone back and forth between NGC and PCGS seeking the highest grade, and these additional submissions were additionally counted in the population reports. Usually the previous grade inserts were not returned for subtraction. For example, sliders, those coins that might be either AU 58 or low MS, were frequently resubmitted. Also please be cognizant that TPG population reports are not very precise tallies, there are many potential sources of error, and mistakes are common.

 

The pop reports for many of the rarer higher value coins are definitely skewed upwards due to resubmissions

I'm confused....are you saying that the pop numbers I see in my Akers and Bowers books are skewed upward for very rare coins like the 1907 UHR Saint or other very rare dates ?? If there are actually only 10 coins that could theoretically achieve an MS-69 for a particular coin....and 5 were re-submitted to other TPGs.....and then 3 of those were re-resubmitted....are you saying the population number will read 18 ?

[jom]

What he is saying is that there is a growing sense among collectors and numismatists that grade inflation is a significant concern in the current market on these. And I agree. Many of today's AU coins are yesterday's EF coins, especially at the lower end of the AU range.

 

I have a general question which is something I've wondered about for years. This is not directed at you but it gives me the opportunity to ask (maybe it should be another thread?). I'm also not even entirely sure how to ask this but here goes:

 

Why does it matter if "yesterday's EF is today's AU" if that "yesterday" is long enough in the past that prices (ie the market) has surpassed it? I understand for the need of consistency in coin grading but I don't see how it makes that much of a difference if EFs in 1990 are AU today. It all comes down to the value of the coin TODAY doesn't it?

 

I do understand if the grading standards change during a relatively short period of time where values can be all over the place and people get burned. This happens all of the time and has for years. But I've heard for YEARS as well some take exception to what you call a certain grade such as EAC collectors laughing at PCGS standards on copper or people up north in Canada having so-called "tougher" grades up there (or so I've heard). But even in those cases what I call one thing and what you call another just comes down to the price/value, doesn't it? If an EAC collector see my EF40 and he thinks it a VF30 and will only pay so much then either we'll meet in the middle or go our separate ways, right?

 

Here's another issue. Even if the grading standards are that important, who is creating this "slide" (of which I've heard discussed for at least 15 years now)? Is it the TPGs themselves? Are they lowering grading in the short term for nothing more than garnering more submissions for the bottom line? Or is it us collectors and dealers who seem to have the need to squeeze every last dollar out of every coin by doing numerous submissions? Over time I'd imagine that the grades can't do anything BUT go up, no?

 

Anyways...just some thoughts on this...just tossing stuff out there to discuss. I'm curious to what others think.

 

jom

[DaveG]

Why does it matter if "yesterday's EF is today's AU" if that "yesterday" is long enough in the past that prices (ie the market) has surpassed it? I understand for the need of consistency in coin grading but I don't see how it makes that much of a difference if EFs in 1990 are AU today. It all comes down to the value of the coin TODAY doesn't it?

 

I would say that it matters if one is keeping track of population counts for relative value purposes. If there are twice as many AUs in the Pops than there were, does that affect the price of an AU relative to an XF or an MS coin?

 

As people have complained about classic commems, the presence of so many "dipped-out" coins is artificially depressing the prices of the nice coins. You have to be that much more educated a collector to play in that pond than if the "dipped-out" coins weren't there.

 

Some of the changes, such as for C-mint and D-mint gold, I think, had a lot to do with the TPGs becoming more familiar with how poorly some of these coins were manufactured. In other cases, who knows. As the saying goes: "ownership adds a point or two to a coin's grade."

 

[O mint bug]

You decide. After chasing a set of type one O mint DEs I have met several people around the country and learned from there mistakes as they were very open about collecting and dealing. I learned the most from reading the successful dealers books and looking at as many DE as I can. I also keep track of pops to check what numbers in the au 50 and up category occur. I can get pretty close on the grading and avoid dipped coins, even if they are slabbed without any such comment.

 

If you disagree with what I post feel free to jump in if it relates to collecting. If all you can do is read posts and claim to be an expert your axe will never get sharp. Mine now only has a good bevel on it. Hopefully the learning curve will remain positive as right now the only thing I feel will ever stop is loss of a pulse. In other words I doubt I will ever stop collecting this set or learning. Got too much time invested in getting started on the right track. It is also fun and DE Os are a good long term investment. Meeting a couple of really great dealers that are honest and happy to help a repeat client was a real break.

 

.

[O mint bug]

I cannot say how many have been graded higher by TPG services. I can tell you the quality DE Os are harder to find as they are getting locked up in collections that probably will remain in tact. Out of nearly 800 DEs for bid there is one O mints up for grabs. I suspect this will be the case for all lower pop coins as the baby boomers age and return to collecting after the family is raised and the 50 and 60s cars are sole.

 

I got my car fix with a 1957 T Bird that I restored and sold after 12 years of driving it. Never again. From now o out it is bird hunting, fishing, R/C models, stamps and coins.

[O mint bug]

Can't remember. I now have a bevel on the axe. I wish I had the time to count someone's number of post. Read it and I think you could begin to get the initial start on a bevel if you do in fact collect. The above could help you as many of the people that post about coins and types they collect have helped me. If you don't collect coins that need to be slabbed I would just disregard it. It is intended for the collector that wants a few but nice coins.