cathrine

I’m primarily a collector of Victorian copper and bronze. All of my high grade coins are currently graded by either NGC, PCGS, or CGS. I’ve read a number of articles appearing in various numismatic publications or online sources about how a certain grading company applies more or less strict standards compared with another specific grading company. As a collector of graded coins, I have my own notions of which grader applies higher or lower standards when assigning a grade. However, I haven’t seen any quantitative treatment of grading results, which are published by all of the above mentioned organizations on their websites. To make a long story shorter, I decided to take a stab at comparing some results of two grading companies. I selected NGC and PCGS for a comparative study because both: (1) Use a common numerical grading scale of 0 to 70, (2) Apply some degree of judgment in assessing the most predominant color of copper and bronze coins, and (3) Have a sufficiently large number of coins in their population census to make valid statistical comparisons. Since I’m primarily a halfpenny collector, I decided to test my opinions about NGC and PCGS on Victorian copper halfpennies. My comparison study was restricted to the uncirculated grades, which, for copper halfpennies spans a range of grades for both services from MS61 to MS66. The three coin colors are treated both individually and collectively. The data was collected from both websites on January 21. The NGC data set consists of 401 coins (283 brown, 115 red & brown, and 3 red), while the PCGS set contains 190 coins (112 brown, 72 red & brown, and 6 red). Color Results Since the coins submitted to both companies came from the same population of available coins, it’s easy to see that PCGS is more likely than NGC to consider a submitted coin as red & brown or red rather than brown and is also more likely to consider a coin to be red rather than red & brown. Looking at the percentages: NGC: 70.6 % Brown - 29.4 % red & brown or red PCGS: 59.0 % Brown - 41.0 % red & brown or red NGC: 29.4 % red & brown or red - 0.8 % red (i.e.,1 coin in 37 is red) PCGS: 41.0 % red & brown or red - 3.2 % red (i.e.,1 coin in 13 is red) 　 　 Grading Results Looking at both distributions of coin grades for all coins in the two sets: For NGC: 61 62 63 64 65 66 6 69 110 136 67 13 1.5% 17.2% 27.4% 33.9% 16.7% 3.2% For PCGS: 61 62 63 64 65 66 1 20 63 76 27 3 0.5% 10.5% 33.2% 40.0% 14.2% 1.6% The two distributions have remarkably close arithmetic mean values: NGC: 63.57 & PCGS: 63.62. However, the distribution of grades for NGC is slightly more spread out from the mean value than the PCGS distribution. The most likely grade for either grading service is a 64. Conclusions According to the results of this study for Victorian copper halfpennies, the two grading services are likely to give identical grading results; however, PCGS is more likely than NGC to give a more favorable color assessment.

I live on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA., so I don't have any experience with HMRC import fees. If a "statistically significant" amount of valid census data is available, a similar assessment can be made for grading and color. However, it must be kept in mind that statistical results do not "prove" the hypotheses drawn from them; they merely indicate, more or less strongly, such conclusions. Grading bias for a particular subset of coins withdrawn from the general population can be detected. However, the cause of the bias cannot be established. Was the bias induced by the grading skills of the submitter? Is the bias a product of a relationship between the submitter and the grading service? Is the bias caused by a different group of graders being employed by the grading service? Conclusions to such questions cannot be established from the type of data being analyzed in my study.

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to be the high bidder in Baldwin's Auction Number 90 for a Victorian copper halfpenny that I've been seeking to acquire for many years. It was lot 1787, Peck 1534, an 1851 halfpenny in extremely fine condition. A high grade, undamaged specimen of this rarity has been most elusive to find. It's interesting to note that all of the specimens that I've ever seen are 1/1 851. I have two 1851 uncirculated halfpennies with reverse B (Peck 1535) (one of the two Nicholson collection coins and the Cheshire collection coin); that die variety is much more common than Peck 1534 in high grade condition.

To quote the sales catalog for the Dr. Nicholson sale: Several carbon spots and a light fingerprint on the reverse, a central area on the obverse a little darker in tone than the periphery. Uncirculated with full lustre, extremely rare in this grade.,"

Hi Azda! This coin has never been graded by a third party grading service.

Here's another recent acquisition. It's an 1853/2 halfpenny in a high state of preservation, a scarce coin. Its pedigree is ex Dr. Basil Nicholson collection.

Bob, I was an internet bidder and took a stab at five coins: the 1849 farthing, and the 1864, 1865/3, 1871, and 1875H pennies. Perhaps we crossed swords on several of those besides the 1875H? I was runner-up on the 1864 and 1865/3 pennies; the prices were lofty, but the quality was high.

I've just acquired an 1875H Penny that's graded by NGC as MS 64 RB at the Stack's-Bowers ANA auction.

This coin was a real bargain, IF you knew about the auction that was held in New York on June 17, 2014. It was the Spink New York Sale 320. Unfortunately, I didn't know about that sale, so I bought the coin from an online dealer at a much higher price. So, if you want to kick yourself, have a look at the quality and rarity of lot nos. 1001-1082 and the winning bids for those coins on the Spink website. You and I should definitively have bought plane tickets to New York for that sale!

I've just acquired an 1860 BB/TB Penny that's graded by NGC as MS 64 RB.

Today, I looked through the coins for Heritage Galleries forthcoming auction of April 17-22, 2013 (CICF World & Ancient Coins Signature Auction - Chicago) on their website. I saw a listing for an 1860 Farthing - Mule TB/BB - NGC MS 64 RD. Upon closer inspection of the detailed photos included in the listing, I concluded that the coin illustrated is a very nice specimen of an ordinary 1860 TB/TB farthing. I sent a query to Heritage expressing my doubt about NGC's designation. They sent an immediate standard reply that acknowledged receipt of my message and promised an answer within a few days.

Today I received the following reply from Heritage Auctions: Hello Mr McGowan, Thank you for your observation. We have not actually cataloged this coin yet, but we generally try to double-check variety designations by the certification services as carefully as possible when we are writing our descriptions. Thank you, Michael Peplinski Numismatist Heritage Auctions

I looked through the Victorian Copper and Bronze in the latest London Coins auction. Lot 2034 is: "Halfpenny 1851 No Dots on Shield Reverse A Peck 1534 VF, the rarity of this piece somewhat under-rated, we note that there was no example in the Nicholson collection". Unfortunately, the photos of the reverse indicate otherwise (Reverse B, Peck 1535). I contacted London Coins and asked for a clarification. I received an answer from Mr. Paul Redford at London Coins stating that: "I have looked at the lot again and the coin is indeed Reverse B not Reverse A (Peck 1535 not 1534) We have inserted a saleroom notice to that effect." At last, an auction company with some integrity!

I'm sorry to disappoint Debbie, but I'm masculine not feminine, and "Cathrine" is the name of my older daughter. I've specialized in collecting Victorian copper and bronze for the past six or seven years. I enjoy reading and participating in the forum's discussions. I live in the USA, the state of Maine. The avatar coin is a favorite in my collection; I got it from the Heritage Auction of January 2009, lot 21414.

I browsed the online catalog for Stack's Bowers Auction #179, Session B, January 13th 2013. Lot Nos. 1345 & 1346 are touted as rare die varieties of the 1862 penny; 1345 is supposedly Freeman 41 (1/2 d. sized date), while 1346 is a "no signature on reverse" die variety (which I've never heard of). I'll e-mail the auctioneer and question his rationale.

I suppose, in one sense, you could describe the 'wide date' as a 'large date' (and vice versa). But the existing terms are perfectly adequate and more accurate, so though technically Stack's aren't wrong, it's irritating, I can see that.

So far I've received no reply from the auctioneer about my queries, but I don't expect to get any response. Why? Because in the past I didn't get any response to a similar query. Take a look at: http://www.mcsearch.info/record.html?id=401662. The same auctioneer offered an 1878 "Large Date" variety halfpenny, which was touted as having a "significant premium over the more common small date". As far as I know, there are two date varieties fro the 1878 halfpenny: (1) normal (Freeman's reverse O) and (2) wide date (Freeman's reverse N) There is no "small date" and "large date" die variety (unfortunately, NGC thinks so at the present time!). However, Stack's apparently disagreed or thought that my comment was not worthy of a reply. (I have a nice specimen of Freeman 334, acquired from London Coins, so I'm well acquainted with the difference between the two reverses.) I advised the auctioneer about the error of his description for the coin, but I never received any acknowledgement of my comment. I don't think this auctioneer is making fraudulent claims for his offerings, but I do think that he's making uninformed attributions for his offerings, and he's unwilling to admit to making mistakes. I wish we all could be so-o-o-o-o perfect!

I made a date typo; it should be January 11th. The link, https://ssl.bowersandmerena.com/auctions/AuctionLots.aspx?AuctionID=179&SessionID=330, should take you there.

I sent the following e-mails to the auctioneer: 1. For lot 1345: I don't think the coin illustrated is the halfpenny date size die variety of the 1862 penny. If you have a copy of the standard reference book "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", 1985, Michael J. Freeman, take a look at the pictures on page 33 for Freeman 39 and Freeman 41. If your illustration is lot 1345, your coin is the "normal numerals" variety (Freeman 39). By the way, you can confirm this conclusion by looking at the date for your lot 1346. Do you agree? 2. For lot 1346: I'm a specialty collector of Victorian copper and bronze coins of Great Britain. I have all of the standard coin references for such material. My problem with your listing for lot 1346 is that I have never heard of nor can I find any reference to a "no signature on reverse" die variety for Great Britain's 1862 penny. According to the reference, "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", 1985, Michael J. Freeman, there are two die varieties for the 1862 penny with normal sized numerals, Freeman Nos. 38 & 39. The reverses are identical, but the obverses differ. One of those differences is that F-38's obverse has the designer's signature, while F-39 does not. Since the obverse of the coin illustrated as lot 1346 does not have the designer's signature, lot 1346 is F-39, the most common die variety for this coin. Do you agree? Let's see if: (1) I get any answer from the auctioneer, and (2) the auctioneer withdraws the lots from the auction.

I live in the USA, so I don't have any comments on Heritage's UK shipping costs. I've been bidding in Heritage auctions for the past seven years and have been very pleased with their entire auction process. The material offered is first rate, the online photos are well focused, very detailed, and show correct coloration, the staff responds quickly to queries, the live bidding interface is intuitively easy to use, and your biding results are available online for verification. I wish that the other auction houses that I deal with would offer similar capabilities. I bid on twelve coins from Heritage on 11.09.12, winning nine of them. One coin, an 1858 small date penny (lot 27081), is the 1858/3 variety (if it really exists!), but notice of the die variety was not made by the NGC grading service or the Heritage cataloger. So, careful inspection of the merchandise prior to the auction can be fruitful, AND the photos are sufficiently detailed to permit such an inspection.