Also NGC started relaxing their grading standards a few years after JA left which is why I refused to buy more than a couple of California Fractionals in an NGC holder.
JA, I bought the 1914 sightUNSEEEN. Stupid me. While it fits YOUR standards, the coin clearly did not for PCGS. I tried it 2x. They have a certain "look" they like. It can be very frustrating.
I am not saying maybe down the road it will cross, but today, with the graders PCGS has, it won't.
The Legend. 3 +2= 5. Just because one consistently answers 3+2 equally 4 , doesn’t mean they’re correct, they’re consistently wrong. The best way to get results in this scenario is to crack it out , many have done this and not only received their grade but also received a plus! Thank you for your participation. JA
I prefer NGC holders they do scratch too easily but I prefer the white over clear. I do have one series I prefer in PCGS.my two favorite coins are in fatty holders my favorite. NGC doesn't have more overgraded coins . That is just my opinion and collecting coins from both since 1996.
I agree. The coins look better totally encased. If the professionals had been a little less forgiving about rim problems, there would have been no need for "prong" inserts. Many of us could tell some horror stories about crack outs in the old days.
I think many dealers create a self fulfilling prophecy by hyping PCGS coins over NGC coins. Yet in my experience, I’ve got NGC coins in the same year and mint mark and grade, both CAC, yet on average, I like the NGC coin over the PCGS in terms of overall grade and strength at grade.
Given the frequency of disparaging the NGC holder by the dealers I’ve listened to over the years, while at the same time propping up PCGS as universally superior, they both create the higher price point (salesmanship) while also creating the perception, especially among you and new collectors, that NGC is inferior.
So ultimately, it’s the consistency of dealers enhancing PCGS brand and dismissing the NGC brand that truly accounts for the wide spread perception.
Yet when true collectors and investors are purchasing, it’s the coin, and not the plastic that guides the purchase. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
Much of my gold type is in NGC holders and is stickered. I prefer the look of gold in the NGC holders. Will be interesting to see if the new new service equalizes prices. It should since I believe CACCG will become the new preferred standard (I believe it is already), eclipsing the other services in that regard, and stickered coins will cross pretty much automatically. If prices don't equalize and the difference is enough to justify the cost of crossing and the risk of shipping, then I will have to consider crossing all my NGC stickered coins of sufficient value, including all gold.
Much of my gold type is in NGC holders and is stickered. I prefer the look of gold in the NGC holders. Will be interesting to see if the new new service equalizes prices. It should since I believe CACCG will become the new preferred standard (I believe it is already), eclipsing the other services in that regard, and stickered coins will cross pretty much automatically. If prices don't equalize and the difference is enough to justify the cost of crossing and the risk of shipping, then I will have to consider crossing all my NGC stickered coins of sufficient value, including all gold.
If you partake in the NGC Registries, and assuming for the moment that NGC Registry will not accept CAC holders (they probably will, since they accept PCGS graded coins), would you be OK only partaking in the the two new CAC registries? For ME, I partake in the PCGS registries which do NOT allow coins in any other holders, and i am not ready to give that up. I plan on fully participating in both new CAC registries with my PCGS holdered coins.
Thanks, Steve. I don't do registries and am pretty agnostic when it comes to slabs, although I do draw the line when it comes to second tier services, the exception being the early small ANACS holders. Perhaps when I'm at death's door I'll work harder on improving the liquidity and value of the collection, but for now I'm only tying to please my own aesthetic with just a nod to potential resale.
Thanks, Steve. I don't do registries and am pretty agnostic when it comes to slabs, although I do draw the line when it comes to second tier services, the exception being the early small ANACS holders. Perhaps when I'm at death's door I'll work harder on improving the liquidity and value of the collection, but for now I'm only tying to please my own aesthetic with just a nod to potential resale.
Don't you watch the NEWS? we're all at deaths door!
@oldabe , Understood. While none of us ever know when that time will come, I’’ve decided to get that prep work out of the way, just in case. I’m currently turning 72, and my plan at this time is when I turn 80, to stop rolling the dice, and then sell my collection at that time, so the two kids won’t have to handle it if I make it that far. Just in case, I’ve left detailed written instructions on whom they should contact, with details on negotiating terms if it turns out they have to handle it.
Steve, my prep work consists of auction instructions, involving my son-in-law in my collections and slabbing the bulk of my numismatic collection. However, I also have an extensive foreign medal collection which is 99.5% raw. I think the kids will have a tough time selling those optimally, but I have suggested some dealers who specialize in medals. That's about all the enthusiasm I can muster at 76.
Regarding NGC vs. PCGS grading. When I reentered the hobby (at the time Hurricane Sandy hit New York), I soon discovered that HA was auctioning some coins from someone named Newman in, of all places, a posh location just off Fifth Avenue. The coin viewing location was ideal, for someone who inhabits this overcrowded atoll. So I looked at all the bust and seated halves, all of which were in NGC holders. I had no idea what I was doing (Sheraton Downey still believes that…). But I bought a bunch of halves anyway. Not long after, I discovered CAC and sent them in for consideration. Imagine my shock to learn that 1/7 was properly graded. So I then sent them to PCGS, where they were downgraded. And then I brought them back to CAC, where they finally got beaned. I felt rather burned by NGC and HA and have wondered ever since whether this was all part of a joint marketing campaign between these two organizations.
The coin above is representative. NGC graded MS 62. PCGS graded au58+. Now with the green bean.
Regarding NGC vs. PCGS grading. When I reentered the hobby (at the time Hurricane Sandy hit New York), I soon discovered that HA was auctioning some coins from someone named Newman in, of all places, a posh location just off Fifth Avenue. The coin viewing location was ideal, for someone who inhabits this overcrowded atoll. So I looked at all the bust and seated halves, all of which were in NGC holders. I had no idea what I was doing (Sheraton Downey still believes that…). But I bought a bunch of halves anyway. Not long after, I discovered CAC and sent them in for consideration. Imagine my shock to learn that 1/7 was properly graded. So I then sent them to PCGS, where they were downgraded. And then I brought them back to CAC, where they finally got beaned. I felt rather burned by NGC and HA and have wondered ever since whether this was all part of a joint marketing campaign between these two organizations.
The coin above is representative. NGC graded MS 62. PCGS graded au58+. Now with the green bean.
That's where a lot of ms61/ms62 busties likely belong.
The NGC brand is tainted. To much trash has made its way into straight graded holders. And once it gets in the holder straight graded, it might as well be a coffin because it will never get cracked out. Lots of the better coins that somehow did end up in NGC plastic have been crossed to pcgs. When it comes to classic coins. I’d venture to guess that every year there is a net loss of nice coins compared to trash coins. For Seated dollars I know this to be true. In fact I don’t know anyone who would submit a quality Seated dollar to NGC. After decades of gaining crappy quality coins, you end up with a tainted brand. Once cac gets flooded with all the NGC cac crossovers the problem will be compounded. NGC sells for less and deservedly so. I see them continuing on their downward trajectory in the classic coin sector for sure. PCGS is headed down the same path. But, the registry is the one big draw that they will hold above cac. It may take cac years to try and play catch up on the registry front. And even after a decade it may never have the following that pcgs does. The cac only registry on pcgs is not very popular compared to the non cac. Just goes to show that not everyone demands quality. I think the best cac can hope for is having a smaller but much better quality registry. Maybe running promos and incentives for joint there registry would help close the participation gap quicker?
I don't care which slab the coin is in if it's got a CAC sticker. I like to get a CAC sticker, but I like it even more if it gets a sticker when I send it in myself - regardless of the slab. In the very early days of CAC stickers I sent in a bunch of type one double eagles that I bought from a dealer back when gold was $1000 or less an ounce. Many of them were NGC graded. Over 80% of them got CAC stickers So that was a positive. In all of my collections just about 60% have CAC stickers. But when I seek a coin for a specific collection it doesn't really matter to me what the slab is.
However, I only maintain an NGC membership because they do allow PCGS coins in their registry. I like using their registry, but no way would I bother to cross all of my stuff just to use the PCGS registry. I found it very interesting that NGC stopped accepting PCGS coins in their registry and then after a brief time went back to including both. I thought they made a mistake giving up the slim competitive advantage they had there - and apparently they realized it too. Thank you NGC for coming back to common sense. Will they accept CAC graded coins in their registry?
Comments
I am not saying maybe down the road it will cross, but today, with the graders PCGS has, it won't.
Steve
Steve
Steve
Regarding NGC vs. PCGS grading. When I reentered the hobby (at the time Hurricane Sandy hit New York), I soon discovered that HA was auctioning some coins from someone named Newman in, of all places, a posh location just off Fifth Avenue. The coin viewing location was ideal, for someone who inhabits this overcrowded atoll. So I looked at all the bust and seated halves, all of which were in NGC holders. I had no idea what I was doing (Sheraton Downey still believes that…). But I bought a bunch of halves anyway. Not long after, I discovered CAC and sent them in for consideration. Imagine my shock to learn that 1/7 was properly graded. So I then sent them to PCGS, where they were downgraded. And then I brought them back to CAC, where they finally got beaned. I felt rather burned by NGC and HA and have wondered ever since whether this was all part of a joint marketing campaign between these two organizations.
The coin above is representative. NGC graded MS 62. PCGS graded au58+. Now with the green bean.
However, I only maintain an NGC membership because they do allow PCGS coins in their registry. I like using their registry, but no way would I bother to cross all of my stuff just to use the PCGS registry. I found it very interesting that NGC stopped accepting PCGS coins in their registry and then after a brief time went back to including both. I thought they made a mistake giving up the slim competitive advantage they had there - and apparently they realized it too. Thank you NGC for coming back to common sense. Will they accept CAC graded coins in their registry?