NGC Details Grading...now what?

[Jester 38]

Just want to say I've really enjoyed this conversation.  I hope my perspective has been interesting (at a minimum not a snooze-fest) and I've learned quite a bit from your input.

While I've never been of the opinion that the folks at NGC and PCGS are coin grading gods/goddesses, as I've seen and heard of a number of mistakes they've made and will likely continue making, I was unaware that they misattribute coins and varieties.  I will certainly have to view slabbed coin sales more critically looking for those opportunities.

Thanks to each of you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

[RLC35 288]

8 hours ago, jaggy said:

I have sent quite a few coins away to NGC for grading and had several come back with a details grade, usually hairline scratches. Sadly, in almost every case, the graders got it right. It was a lesson to me to be far more careful when buying raw coins which constitute the bulk of my purchases.

Sometimes, the thoughtful collector can take advantage of slabbing errors, which do happen, or can take advantage of those who buy the grade and not the coin. I bought a 1834 MS64 sixpence at Heritage. Per the photos, it looked like it had horrible scratches to the neck and the price reflected that. I took a chance that the scratches were on the slab and not the coin (otherwise it would/should never have got an MS64). Turned out that I was right!

I bought an MS65 1887 sixpence R/V misattributed by PCGS as a shilling with no error. Broke it out of the slab, sent it to NGC from whence it came back properly attributed and MS66. Big win!

Despite the above, and much as some of us like to deride the TPGs and their graders on here and to point out their mistakes and errors, when it comes to Details grades, the reality is that they get it right 99% of the time. And, even though the actual grade (for non-Details) is an inexact science, they generally get that more or less right too. Truth is, as collectors, we make buying mistakes and base decisions off of flattering photos too much of the time. And we don't much like it when we get it wrong. Easier to blame the TPG.

Having a few coins come back with Details has been for me an object lesson in 'Cave Emptor' and in causing me to tighten up my own grading standards. It has also emphasised the importance of trusted sources (e.g. dealers) when buying coins.

The variety doesn't go away just because it isn't marked on the slab.

-True, but I was just demonstrating the lack  detail by the slabbing companies.

I bought an MS65 1887 sixpence R/V misattributed by PCGS as a shilling with no error. Broke it out of the slab, sent it to NGC from whence it came back properly attributed and MS66. Big win!

- This happens all the time. Many already slabbed coins are re-submitted in an effort to get a better grade. Its called upgrading! 

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, RLC35 said:

The variety doesn't go away just because it isn't marked on the slab.

-True, but I was just demonstrating the lack  detail by the slabbing companies.

I bought an MS65 1887 sixpence R/V misattributed by PCGS as a shilling with no error. Broke it out of the slab, sent it to NGC from whence it came back properly attributed and MS66. Big win!

- This happens all the time. Many already slabbed coins are re-submitted in an effort to get a better grade. Its called upgrading! 

 

Which just proves, Bob, exactly how subjective, grading is. One expert person's opinion can easily differ from another expert person's opinion, and probably the same expert person's opinion can differ from one day to the next, affected by mood, perception, concentration, whether interrupted etc - a mass of variables can influence the final decision. On the Sheldon scale that could mean +/- up to maybe 2 points.    

Edited October 26, 2017 by 1949threepence

[VickySilver 775]

Fortunately the OP coins were not major investments so the "details" grade in the end not that significant. 

As far as "details" grade, I know of a proof 1838 Vick Sov that was rejected by PCGS as cleaned - it was IMO absolutely not, and this is a basic skill set that somehow eluded them. Some extremely respected UK experts examined it and I understand accepted it in trade, being glad to get it, agreeing with me about not only its rarity but the fact that it wasn't cleaned or significantly damaged.

Subsequently, and these are only anecdotes, they rejected a beautiful 1849 currency shilling with die prep wipes NOT on coin, a proof 1859 shilling with supposed egg filing (chamfering done at mint), a 1863/1 shilling (which I kept but was accepted by the same dealers as being pristine with only the most minute of hairlines and "finest Known" {whatever that means}). I could go on and on, but the point is that they make crucial errors with some frequency. 

As Rob pointed out, a bigger issue with higher priced issues is that the grading subjectivity seems to occasionally be influence by the submitter...

Overall, I still like the slabbing in that it protects the coins and though large make it relatively easy to store or present in an orderly fashion.

[PWA 1967 1,840]

Having slabbed over 80 million PCGS /NGC i suppose some are going to be wrong 

Edited October 27, 2017 by PWA 1967

[Rob 2,996]

4 hours ago, VickySilver said:

As Rob pointed out, a bigger issue with higher priced issues is that the grading subjectivity seems to occasionally be influence by the submitter...

Overall, I still like the slabbing in that it protects the coins and though large make it relatively easy to store or present in an orderly fashion.

Which might feed into why the 1791 gold halfpenny I used to own but sold on account of the heavy scuff on the cheek, resurfaced 6 months later slabbed proof 64 cameo. The only reasons I could see for this getting through was either the identity of the submitter, or they don't actually check very hard when you have a rarity/unique piece, because it is desirable on their part to say they have slabbed it. After all, PF64CAM sells better than Unc details. .

I can't disagree with the protection issue, but slabbing means storage requires upsizing - think of a full height wardrobe sized cabinet, and presentation becomes a tad more difficult when you need to use a telescope to see the coins laid out at the end of the line when laid out.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Rob

[VickySilver 775]

I think that I have seen so many copper and bronze issues that have been fingered (wow, that is now rude sounding with the Weinstein business) by hamfisted collectors and dealers that it has influenced me a bit....

IMO, the Millennium Sale pieces received the benefit(s) of the doubt shall we say and received pushes of 1-2 points. 

Here is one that the submitter was punished on (1951 matte proof half crown), PCGS #432498 - help on posting pictures please....

This coin received a 61! Wow, note as a side interest the original sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on reverse. A rare coin, this is IMO superior to the 1950 matte half crown sold by Goldbergs as a "65".

[zookeeperz 470]

48 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

I think that I have seen so many copper and bronze issues that have been fingered (wow, that is now rude sounding with the Weinstein business) by hamfisted collectors and dealers that it has influenced me a bit....

IMO, the Millennium Sale pieces received the benefit(s) of the doubt shall we say and received pushes of 1-2 points. 

Here is one that the submitter was punished on (1951 matte proof half crown), PCGS #432498 - help on posting pictures please....

This coin received a 61! Wow, note as a side interest the original sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on reverse. A rare coin, this is IMO superior to the 1950 matte half crown sold by Goldbergs as a "65".

Best I could do VS I am afraid. I think they have an anti-snap stealer or the thumb is so small but it might be ok 

[Jester 38]

1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

I think that I have seen so many copper and bronze issues that have been fingered (wow, that is now rude sounding with the Weinstein business) by hamfisted collectors and dealers that it has influenced me a bit....

IMO, the Millennium Sale pieces received the benefit(s) of the doubt shall we say and received pushes of 1-2 points. 

Here is one that the submitter was punished on (1951 matte proof half crown), PCGS #432498 - help on posting pictures please....

This coin received a 61! Wow, note as a side interest the original sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on reverse. A rare coin, this is IMO superior to the 1950 matte half crown sold by Goldbergs as a "65".

I think you may be missing a digit or two.  I plugged 432498 into the PCGS Registration Verification page and this is what came back...

[Nick 325]

Or if you want the max. resolution images...

[VickySilver 775]

Excellent.It was a coin number and NOT the verification ID #. Thats confusing....There are no contacts other that very minimal matte loss at G6 upper lip, and those are planchet lines with variable toning seen at bust of G. Notice on reverse the "blasting material" still adhering to the central devices. That is an original coin which probably ought to be regraded by them and sent in by Heritage or the likes with possible conservation - this to bring the big bucks!

[jaggy 528]

On 10/26/2017 at 10:23 AM, RLC35 said:

The variety doesn't go away just because it isn't marked on the slab.

-True, but I was just demonstrating the lack  detail by the slabbing companies.

I bought an MS65 1887 sixpence R/V misattributed by PCGS as a shilling with no error. Broke it out of the slab, sent it to NGC from whence it came back properly attributed and MS66. Big win!

- This happens all the time. Many already slabbed coins are re-submitted in an effort to get a better grade. Its called upgrading! 

 

You misunderstood my comment.

I did not submit the coin for "upgrading". I resubmitted it to get it correctly attributed as a sixpence (and not a shilling) and with mention of the R/V error which I got. The difference in grading was one point; a 65 became a 66. That is close enough to be within a fair margin of error from two reasonable graders.

But my more general point remains. In my opinion, the grading companies get it right 99% of the time.

[Jester 38]

18 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Excellent.It was a coin number and NOT the verification ID #. Thats confusing....There are no contacts other that very minimal matte loss at G6 upper lip, and those are planchet lines with variable toning seen at bust of G. Notice on reverse the "blasting material" still adhering to the central devices. That is an original coin which probably ought to be regraded by them and sent in by Heritage or the likes with possible conservation - this to bring the big bucks!

I think your Caps Lock got stuck there for a sec ...my apologies, I was trying to assist.

[VickySilver 775]

Oh, pardon me, didn't mean any harm. Much appreciated is your help and all the others. I don't understand why they have two different numbers anyway.

Sorry again for any misunderstanding.

Eric