NGC Grading Standards for MS/PF 70 & 69

I've had bad luck with both ICG and NGC graded coins with regard to what is known as numismatic perfection. NGC has a better reputation. But, in my opinion they do not. I've purchased "perfect" coins with the ICG slab and resubmitted them to replace the imperfect 69 or 68 with a 70m which was marked on the slab. They did so, although even upon reinspection the coins still showed some minor flaws. Nontheless, flaws that wouldn't make it a 70 in my book, or in PCGS's.

Anyway, I purchased two MS and PF 70 Blad Eagle Commemorative dollars off of eBay. The coins had visible spots on them, most likely occuring during the striking or minting process. I hadn't realized that NGCs standards for perfect coins werer SOOO liberal upon recieving them back from resubmission. Accfording to the person I talked to there and the website there stadard reads as follows:

NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnifications.

MS 60-70: Uncirculated

http://www.ngccoin.com/coingrading/grading2.asp

Here are PCGS's standards:

MS/PR-67: Virtually as struck with minor imperfections, very well struck
MS/PR-68: Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed
MS/PR-69: Virtually as struck with minuscule imperfections, near full strike necessary
MS/PR-70: As struck, with full strike

http://www.pcgs.com/grades.chtml

So, my statement to this person was, then that would mean that almost EVERY single modern collectible coin minted would be a 70. The population figures shed some light to this. But, the 69's are far more in number. The person on the phone was incredibly friendly and respectable. But, his explanation didn't make sense to me.

The same holds true for the ultra cameo designation. It is obvious to me even given the improvements in quality from the Mint between a cameo and an ultra cameo (Heavy thick frosting, fully embedded completely and evenly in the design, sharply contrasting the fields).

As one can see from the PCGS standards, the grades are based on the strike of the coin.

Am I wrong in interpreting the Sheldon system of perfection for a perfect coin as one without numismatic flaws, whether those flws occur during the minting process or not?

PCGS seems to be a lot more conservative and careful about this. At least for grading perfect 70 coinage.

I will no longer trust NGC for graded perfect coins.

Any thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is why I don't buy into "modern" slabbed coins. The technology is there to produce MS69-70 coins all day and many are in the eyes of NGC and others.

My boss sends this stuff to NGC all the time. Frequently I look at them for my opinion as to what to send in. Last batch was 5 2008 reverse of 07 Silver Eagles. I personally saw flaws on all of them. 4 of the 5 came back as 70.
They all looked the same to me honestly. A few SMALL flaws which should peg them at MS69 tops.

It's a big money making game IMHO. Really, who can tell the difference between them if not in a humk of plastic?


I slab VERY few coins. The ones I do are older coins, mainly type, when the technology was less efficient to produce ultra high grade coins. It does matter to me there and one can see the difference.

Seen any MS70 Two Cent Pieces lately? Seen any MS70 Silver Eagles lately?

Why even slab this modern stuff other than to command an instant higher price?

clembo

 

That is true as proven by the census.

For 2007 Proof ASEs, NGC slabbed 49% as PR70DCAM, while PCGS slabbed only 17% as 70s (census populations as of February 2008).

 

I have a problem with these standards.

A coin gets a 70 if it has no "post-production imperfections" ? I disagree. That means coins with mint-made spots would be 70. Well, they aren't in my book.

It also means that all coins still in mint packaging should be 70s, because "production" should include the packaging process ! (This assumes they haven't been messed up after they left the mint, which is most of them.)

The grade of 70 should require all aspects of the coin be perfect at 5x, including the minting process. If it has any problems, for whatever reason, regardless of when they happened or who made 'em happen, it can't be a 70.

At least PCGS knocks down the grade for imperfect strike (mint imperfection, not post production).

 

Clembo, you are going to ruin my reputation for arguing with you. Again, I have to agree.

 

yeah guess what would happen if i sent my indian to ngc i think i would get a 67 at least

 

Spock I believe your coins would go up at least a point at NGC compared to PCGS .
rzage:smile:hatch::hammer:

 

It is getting kind of scary. I'll have to work on that.

Then send it in Spock. You have some beautiful coins.
If yours got a 67 or even 68 I doubt it would go 69 or 70. Of course yours is a REAL coin.

We have NGC boxes full of MS69 ASE's at work. Nothing but pretty silver in plastic to me.

clembo

 

Thank you for stating what I've always believed, that NGC and PCGS were equal when it came to grading coins until it came to the MS & PF 69/70 MODERN coins.

I do believe that NGC has succumbed to the big $$ when it comes to the # of high coins they deem MS/PF70s.

I only submit coins for authentication as real, not counterfeit key or semikey coins.

Bruce

 

yeah except i would loose my grading and encapsulation fees so i wont but i think i am getting to be famous as a collector now wont be long before people ask me to sign their auction catalogs now if i can find that 1804

 

"Am I wrong in interpreting the Sheldon system of perfection for a perfect coin as one without numismatic flaws, whether those flws occur during the minting process or not?"

Yes!

Dr Sheldon used the numbers 1 through 70 because they provided the multipliers he needed for his "whimsical" system of trying to equate price to grade. Further, his system was designed for early Large Cents ONLY, and since he graded five 1795 Large Cents at MS70, his "standards" have no bearing on what is being used today.

Off hand, I'd say your research into this matter has pretty much identified what is really at play here.

 

you havent seen them grade asian coins in general and indian coins in particular or you would have thrown your cap at them by now. whats worse pcgs has started to imitate them :headbang:

 

They might say it GD but its far from the truth i have seen many counterfeit indian coins in NGC slabs. As far as grading indian coins is concerned NGC doesnt know what its doing most of the time. One has to be an subject matter expert to figure it out. I agree PCGS undergrades those coins from time to time but thats better than over grading and slabbing fake coins. In fact a lot of dealers prefer NGC because they can get better grades and more money out of the buyers who dont even understand the Sheldon scale let alone the difference between grades and PCGS and NGC and if you are wondering why not use NNC or SGS as they give better grades well they are going there. NNC 67's are commanding better prices than NGC 65. Its sad but true.

 

What are you guys feelings on CAC ?
rzage

 

Another way for the collector to invest money in someones opinion and not coins

 

How come they'll only certify PCGS & NGC ? Why not ANACS ?
rzage

 

its their way of saying that other grading services are not worth their time. if they were serious they should grade all slabs. From what i heard the CAC sticker has really caught on and people dont buy bullion coins that dont have the sticker on it. Luckily it provides more opportunity for people who can actually grade as non CAC coins go for significantly less but the coin not the slab or the sticker placed on it