NGC - Good / Bad / anyone got any views?

[azda 973]

So to compare, here is another 1854 graded the same as my MS62, apparently eye appeal is one of the criteria of grading, i paid less for mine but in my opinion the one i have looks far superior, perhaps a biased opinion, but open to opinions

Edited June 20, 2016 by azda

[azda 973]

And the REV of mine

[jacinbox 36]

Now that's what I'd call mirrorlike fields

[coinkat 21]

While comparisons are fine, there remain subjective components that will influence which 1854 Shilling one may select. The picture of the other is not really helping with the analysis. Owning an 1854 Shilling within the MS spectrum is not an easy accomplishment.

[azda 973]

9 hours ago, coinkat said:

While comparisons are fine, there remain subjective components that will influence which 1854 Shilling one may select. The picture of the other is not really helping with the analysis. Owning an 1854 Shilling within the MS spectrum is not an easy accomplishment.

As you said coinkat, grading is always subjective, but in order to wind this up (from my side anyway) eye appeal is always in my mind when deciding to buy a coin or not, from both of the 1854 shillings i'd buy mine all day long and even if i wanted to buy another i still wouldn't go for the other as in my own opinion it doesn't look as good., maybe i've been spoilt, but as i mentioned previously on here, eye appeal is apparently one of the criteria used by TPGs when grading and therefor cannot see how both could arrive at MS62

Edited June 22, 2016 by azda

[coinkat 21]

Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of seeing these in hand which is not helpful. Let's start with the other NGC 62. Average strike with softer lustre that features what looks to be a die break on the obverse starting at the A and going into the lower bun of Victoria's hair. And there looks to be slight die break issues at the base of Victoria's neck which leads me to believe the coin is likely a later die production. The surfaces could be original with modest signs of cabinet friction. And 62 seems reasonable for the images we have to work with.

Azda's coin clearly looks to be an early strike given the slight PL surfaces with well struck devices- especially the reverse. From the image, it does look as if a 62 seems harsh. So what keeps this from a higher grade? The impression that the coin may not have original surfaces- it may have been dipped given its appearance. A coin with PL surfaces will usually magnify the slightest bag marks or other surface imperfections. While I am not seeing anything, surfaces that have a PL look can cut both ways in terms of the grade. And based on the grade, it seems probable that the state of the surfaces did not bolster the grade for Azda's coin as one mights expect. 

Both coins are attractive. Preference on these will largely depend on what a collector seeks. Here we have the same coin with contrasting strikes with a differing appearance. I would suggest that the majority of collectors would prefer Azda's coin, however, there are some that would be drawn to the other if it looks good in hand. So how did they both wind up in 62 holders? Again, that is where the subjectivity comes in that includes the range that exists even within the 62 grade or even at another grade level.

So what is my point? Not all coins were created equal even within the same grade and this comparison really magnifies this hypothesis.

I suspect some may find this to be rubbish- I am not trying to influence or change opinions

[brg5658 111]

On 6/20/2016 at 1:43 AM, azda said:

Do you have hammered coins @brg5658 this is where in my opinion the inconsistencies occur, i don't think NGC quite have the grasp of these as per the link i posted above, i've seen extremely high grades in hammered coinage but for the life of me cannot get past the fact that hammered coins can't ever be UNC because of the crudeness of striking.

@azda, I don't collect hammered coinage, so I can't attest to this.  I do know that a vast difference between the American grading system and the British system is that the Brits put a lot more emphasis on completeness of strike for assigning grades.  American grading puts a lot more emphasis on the state of preservation of the metal surfaces, oft (at least up to MS63) irrespective of the quality of the actual craftsmanship in striking.  A weakly struck but lustrous and truly uncirculated coin in the American grading system may very well get an MS63 TPG grade.  In the British system it seems the weakness of strike is treated the same or similar to a coin well-struck but worn down via circulation, thus may receive a gVF grade or something similar.  It's not an apples to apples comparison, or even a fair criticism given that the systems are simply completely different.

 

I will say that most of the grades for milled coinage assigned by NGC are reasonable in the scheme of subjective grading, and the American obsession with micro-grading.  I'm still personally a bit old school, and I tend to classify UNC coins in the American grading system as either:
MS60 (unc, but with lots of abrasions due to bagging - usually unattractive),
MS63 (unc with some small imperfections),
MS65 (unc, as full strike as can be expected, and nearly no abrasions), or
MS67 (basically perfect with but the smallest abrasion or 2).  

 

It is a bit humorous when a British collector tells me they think that a TPG got the grade wrong by 1 or 2 micro points in the MS range -- yet the Brits grade coins with very crude over-arching labels like EF, gEF, etc.  Thus my point above with the two overlapping bell curves.  I have seen coins graded by PCGS fluctuate 3-4 grade points in MS, whereas I believe NGC is more consistent in their assignment of MS grades (upon multiple submissions you will likely get very similar if not the same numerical grade).  I'd prefer consistency over artificial supposed "conservative" grading.  When I submit to NGC, an MS63 tells me something consistent about the coins state of preservation.  If I were to submit to PCGS, an MS63 grade may just tell me the main graders were on vacation; or the graders had a bad night the night before...the point being, PCGS seems to like to assign grades that encourage resubmission (i.e., more fees), and I'm simply not going to play that silly game.

 

I don't play the crack-out / resubmission games with TPGs.  I utilize TPGs some for their opinions on grade, but largely (and almost solely) for their guarantee of authenticity an the protection the slab affords for preservation of the coin.  There are many USA collectors who have similar opinions to me on the fluidity of assigned grades, and pay little attention to the micro-grading obsession of the American TPGs.  Unfortunately, if you're only looking at discussions on the PCGS or NGC forum postings, you'll get a highly biased group of obsessive collectors who for some reason think there is "one right answer" for the grade of a coin -- which there is NOT!

[brg5658 111]

On 6/17/2016 at 2:30 AM, azda said:

Here is my VF Shilling

It appears you recently sold this coin for £3,800 on 30 May via eBay?  So, it's not exactly "yours" anymore is it?  Is that VF guide for this coin? 

Edited June 29, 2016 by brg5658

[azda 973]

7 hours ago, brg5658 said:

It appears you recently sold this coin for £3,800 on 30 May via eBay?  So, it's not exactly "yours" anymore is it?  Is that VF guide for this coin? 

Do you require a name and address? 

[brg5658 111]

14 hours ago, azda said:

Do you require a name and address? 

My point was that even though you are a prolific hater of plastic, you seem to be profiting quite nicely from your plastic-entombed coins.

Nothing else really.  Just noticed that you sold that 1854 for a tidy sum, and was more congratulatory than fault-placing.  IMO it was a very nice coin!! 

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, nice coin and probably the correct price. I wonder how much the ?PCGS/NGC 64 would go for?