PCGS old holder and cac doesn't crossover
0

25 posts in this topic

I sent in a coin worth around $2000 to crossover to NGC; they would not cross though it was an old green PCGS holder and recently cac stickered.  The coin was at least semi-pl and original, the obverse holder had been scratched and I used Maguire's to clean up the holder.  The "lens" was still a little impaired, but not enough to preclude cac liking it.  I did not get a reason just that they could not guarantee it would be the same grade. Strange.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strange, they just didn't agree that it warranted the grade.  It doesn't matter what PCGS thought of it back then or what CAC thought of it more recently.  They didn't think it deserved it and they didn't cross it.  PCGS rendered an opinion, CAC rendered an opinion, and NGC rendered an opinion.  Opinions vary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some grades are as objective as 2 + 2 = 4, like this one was.  The obverse holder was scratched and then cleaned up with scratch repair but was still a little marred.  The coin went through NCS first, not grading.  If an already certified coin is in an impaired holder it needs to be viewed in semi-darkness like the graders and cac does; I'm not sure how NCS views coins and holders and what provision they have for somewhat impaired holders.  

I can think of a dozen reasons why crossovers do not happen aside from an accurate grade judgment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a picture, it's impossible to give you even a speculative answer to your question.

Just because the coin is in an old PCGS holder and approved by CAC, does not mean that they got it right. Recently a dealer offered me a coin that is on my want list. I want to fill that hole in my set very much, but I could not do it with that piece given the assigned grade. It is in a PCGS MS-63, green CAC holder. The coin has a rub in the fields on both sides, and the market grade is MS-62 in my opinion. The coin technically is not a Mint State piece. The extra point to MS-63 doubles the price, which makes that extra grading point critical to the coin's value. 

As for grading services, including CAC, the comment about "opinions" applies. Not all opinions are correct, and sometimes politics gets involved with the grade. No grading service is "infallible" or "perfect" regardless of what you have read or heard from collectors and dealers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The holder was marred, I could not fix it, there are others who can who contacted me on another site.  I did not want to ship it out again on that proposition, the NGC submission cost shipping and submission cost.  

DhRiJnm[1].jpgs-l1600.jpgs-l500.jpgs-l1600.jpg

Edited by Nutmeg Coin
Link to post
Share on other sites

What grade was assigned to this piece? That information along with a photo of the reverse is essential to rendering any opinions.

And yes, generally an Old Green Label (OGL) plus a CAC sticker brings more money from a fair number of buyers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The coin is MS63; but it would be almost impossible to make a grade assessment in normal conditions with a marred plastic holder especially with the scanner image.  And certainly the grading services are sensible sometimes to err on the side of caution because once they take it out they are responsible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the one picture it would seem that the piece is smooth enough to grade MS-63, but the dull gray areas, which I presume are from the scuffed holder, make any additional support for the grade impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you attempt a crossover anyway? Why spend money to make the coin worth less money? NGC did you a huge favor.   For the right buyer, the PCGS OGH and CAC combination can lead to irrational exuberance and a premium.   It would be worth less in the NGC holder even if it restickered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why cross?  The obverse holder was impaired, I could not fix that.  But it looked PL to me and another dealer.  So it could have gone 63 pl or 63 plus at NGC. The other option was sending it to PCGS to reholder with true view and secure holder.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar situation with this 1903 McKinley commemorative gold dollar. It was in a damaged PCGS MS-64 holder. I could tell from what I could see that the coin had P-L characteristics with warm, coppery toning. It looked like the Proof McKinley coins that I had seen although I knew that it was not a Proof. I had PCGS re-holder the coin, but it cost me so much after all was said and done that I would never do that again.

I have found that getting the P-L notation on a coin is very hard. There are coins that look to be P-L don't get it, and I don't understand what the standards are because they are inconsistant. I would not worry myself with the P-L thing. The odds of getting it on a gold coin seem to be very low to me. It's mostly something that is connected with Morgan Dollars. The only double eagles that I have seen were dated 1904, which is by far the most common date in the series.

 

1903 McKinley whole.jpg

Edited by BillJones
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with all these damaged holders these days. And why are there so many PCGS coins for sale in these damaged holders. Seems like coins I'm looking at are mostly in damaged PCGS holders too (proof Mercs and Lincolns). Where are all the NGC coins that I know exist ? Damaged holders are a sign of mishandling and of course evidence that they have changed hands many times. Its really not that hard for me to get my coins reholdered; I normally wait until I have 4 or 5 at a time for NGC and have also had good luck with crossover to NGC. I have also found that CAC coins resticker with no problems sometimes at no charge. I've even been able to get crossover coins to resticker at CAC by including original PCGS labels with submissions and emailed images of coins in original PCGS holders.

I understand why dealers don't reholder - simply not cost effective and takes a long time. Nearly every certified coin I own is in a fresh holder. As a collector I can appreciate my coins more in clean unmarked holders and they show much better to boot !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so easy or inexpensive to get coins re-holdered. I bought that McKinley gold dollar on the day before a Winter FUN closed. I walked it to the PCGS booth to get it reholdered, which cut out the postage and insurance to send it to them. Still I had to pay for the re-holder, something like $10, then there was an $8 invoice fee plus $25 for postage and insurance that was LESS THAN the coin was worth. If I had not under insured it, it would have been another $8. So that was $43 just get a $1,200 coin (at the the time) re-holered. My reaction was "Never again!" In the old days you could get a coin re-holdered at a show for $5. Now they rip you off.

Today, a scuffed up or damaged holder, which I know I can't polish, is enough for me to reject a coin I otherwise would buy.

As for the reason so many holders are scuffed, all you need is for them to go through an auction a few times. Sliding in and out of the auction boxes beats the holders up completely.

One time I got stuck on a coin in a scuffed up holder. It was an 1807 quarter in PCGS VF-30. I thought I could see enough of the coin to make sure it was okay. It was a circulated coin, after all. I cracked it out because the customer wanted it for a Dansco album. When I craked it, I found out why the holder was scuffed. The coin had been polished and given layer of artificial toning.

Why would PCGS grade something like that? Search me, but I learned a lesson. You can't trust PCGS, and I learned I could not trust the dealer who sold it to me. I sent the coin back to him, and asked for $100 less than I paid. If he didn't agree to that, I was going out him. He paid me the money.

The lesson is, if the holder is scuffed so badly that you can't see the coin well enough to grade it PASS.

Edited by BillJones
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BillJones said:

I learned a lesson. You can't trust PCGS,

Congratulations, now just extend that to the rest of the TPG's as well.  As Reagan said "Trust but verify".  The TPG's try hard, but with their workloads too much stuff slips past them to place blind trust in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillJones said:

One time I got stuck on a coin in a scuffed up holder. It was an 1807 quarter in PCGS VF-30. I thought I could see enough of the coin to make sure it was okay. It was a circulated coin, after all. I cracked it out because the customer wanted it for a Dansco album. When I craked it, I found out why the holder was scuffed. The coin had been polished and given layer of artificial toning.

I've even seen holders 'marked' with scratches directly over problem spots so they are easy to identify. I could easily see perspective buyers doing this when returning coins purchased at auction. I doubt anyone at Heritage would know or care if holders were defaced on purpose. I suggest TPG's take responsibility for these 'recycle bin' coins and buy them back. Guess we all know how soon that will happen. Bill you nailed it...... don't buy coins in damaged or scarred holders because many of these are recycled coins with no place in nice collections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this coin is neither Plus nor PL. The reverse is semi-prooflike, but that obverse would never get PL (from what I'm seeing in the pictures). 

As many have said, sell it as an OGH CAC and people will go crazy for it. They don't care if there is a scuff or two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 12:26 PM, Conder101 said:

Not strange, they just didn't agree that it warranted the grade.  It doesn't matter what PCGS thought of it back then or what CAC thought of it more recently.  They didn't think it deserved it and they didn't cross it.  PCGS rendered an opinion, CAC rendered an opinion, and NGC rendered an opinion.  Opinions vary. 

Strange that NGC was saying that they couldn't guarantee it would at least match the old PCGS grade, no ?

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 8:10 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Strange that NGC was saying that they couldn't guarantee it would at least match the old PCGS grade, no ?

Re-read this section

On 10/11/2017 at 10:33 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

The coin went through NCS first, not grading.

t was NOT a crossover.  The coin was sent in, cracked out, conserved, and then graded.  Once it was cracked out any "guarantee" or the option to get it back in the original holder if it wouldn't cross, went out the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0