• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Coins from other Grading Service

20 posts in this topic

In some people's mind it can be, but for most others ANACS is #3 in the top 3 TPG's. NGC, PCGS, and ANACS are 3 on my list. ICG is either #4 or 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think NGC will ever add ANACS or ICG to the registry. If you have ever tried to get ANACS or ICG slabs to cross. The coin has to be solid for the grade or undergraded before NGC will cross them at the grade on the label. NGC doesn't like ICG to begin with asking them to add them to NGC's registry would be a slap in NGC's face, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't they like ICG? I have many ICG graded coins that are spectacular. They just don't get the value that NGC and PCGS coins get. Would it be a good idea for me to send them in to be crossed to NGC. I prefer NGC because they seem more collector friendly.
Willie ,First let me say Welcome to the boards.

It all depends on what your looking for.

 

 

I collect/hoard all types, in all types of slabs but I also collect raw coins.

 

Cause to me it's all about the coins.

When I do have coins to be graded I send them to NGC .My reasons are They are Fast,Consistant'and they are easily accessable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't they like ICG? I have many ICG graded coins that are spectacular. They just don't get the value that NGC and PCGS coins get.

Howdy and welcome,

 

While it's definitely possible to find superb coins in ICG holders (or in those of any other service other than NGC or PCGS), the primary concern for collectors, and the reason for the lower prices realized for such coins overall, is variability in the grading process.

 

The relationship between prices and the grading process works along at least two dimensions. First, the higher the perceived correlation between the grading service's output and accepted hobby standards, the higher will be overall realized prices. This makes sense. If you've examined thousands of a particular issue and know from that experience what separates (for example) an MS63 from an MS65, you won't find credible a grading service that routinely places MS63 specimens in MS65 holders. Since you know their credibility is suspect, you'll generally pay less for the given grade in their holder than for coins graded by services whose credibility you hold (from experience) in higher esteem.

 

Second, the lower the consistency of the grading service's output, the lower will be overall realized prices. This again makes sense. Consistency of outputs given identical inputs is what builds trust - in technological systems, in societal systems, and in coin grading systems. Experience shows that some grading services are more consistent than others in their output given identical or essentially identical inputs. In nerdy terms, this corresponds to the standard deviation in assigned grades for coins of identical quality, which you could measure at least theoretically by submitting the same coin, say, 1000 times to a grading service and then computing the standard deviation of the resulting grades. Less consistent grading services would show a larger standard deviation, i.e. their grades would be (relatively speaking) "all over the map." Hobbyists trust that the more consistent services are more likely, on average, to assign the "correct" grade (i.e. by accepted hobby standards) than are the less consistent services.

 

Both factors, in addition to such others as transparency (i.e. published grading population reports and standards) and quality customer support, influence the perceived market value of a grading service's product - encapsulated coins.

 

Now to address ICG.

 

While it's true many fine coins exist in ICG holders, it is also true many collectors, including myself, have purchased such coins only to find that they fail to meet the standards maintained by NGC and PCGS. Sometimes these failures are blatant, such as in the allegedly PR70DCAM 1996-S Olympic Swimming 50c piece I purchased several years ago from a reputable seller only to find that the coin had an eye visible 1/2" hairline scratch directly across the obverse. I'm confident that this coin would have received at most PR68DCAM, probably PR67DCAM, from either PCGS or NGC. Yet there it was - a "perfect" coin - sitting in an ICG holder on my desk.

 

A second factor that undermines ICG's credibility as a serious grading service is their lack of published population census data. This always comes up in collector discussions and contributes to poor perception. Without the transparency such published data affords, so-called "gradeflation" is difficult to detect or assess except through direct experience. It adds to the risk a collector senses in trusting the grade assigned on the holder.

 

I'm certainly not saying either NGC or PCGS are perfect - they aren't. In the aggregate, however, the experience of collectors is that both NGC and PCGS are more consistent in their grading, and more likely to assign the "correct" grade, than are any other services. This general perception, based in experience, then surfaces in the general market price structure for encapsulated coins.

 

Regards,

Beijim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one has a nice coin in a holder from another company. Is it better to remove it and submit it as a raw coin to NGC or to send it in the slab as a crossover? What about the minimum grade...I worry about wasting money by setting a minimum grade and then having the coin sent back ungraded. Some advice would be appreciated. I've just sent my first batch of coins for grading and I'm anxiously awaiting to see what they grade at.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think ANACS is better than both NGC and PCGS? I beg to differ!

He wrote they were listed in alphabetical order, not quality order.

 

tonofbricks.gif

Beijim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just their holder problems holding them back. Fix that, and they're above ICG again!

 

IMO,their grading has gone downhill as well...it might have had something to do with all the changes with graders leaving and going....but we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just their holder problems holding them back. Fix that, and they're above ICG again!

 

IMO,their grading has gone downhill as well...it might have had something to do with all the changes with graders leaving and going....but we shall see.

I agree with that, but they're no more laxed than ICG is. But then again, ICG offers those intercept shield inserts... Maybe ICG is the better company? confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites