How Are US TPGs with English Coins?

[Paulus 1,979]

I have a bunch of English coins I would like professionally graded, for various reasons, and I do not want to use CGS / LCGS

What are peoples' opinions on how US TPGs treat weak strikes vs wear, and mint wipes on 1902 matt proofs? Do they know what they are doing with these?

Here's an example, VS what would this get from a US tpg? @VickySilver

[azda 981]

They don't like mint wipes

[VickySilver 877]

Yes, they have taken down beautiful coins with excellent strikes like this to the 62 level. I tend to think they would go 64. I had posted, or rather for me an 1843 half sov that was best I've seen and struck to nearly medallic standards come away with a 64 because of minor friction.

 

A technical point and what has been referred to as technical grading: theoretically if a coin leaves the die even with soft strike but has NO post mint damage or handling that it would merit a "70". In practice it would be marked down but not as much as LCGS. As Dave says they are hard on this so-called PMD (post mint damage or handling) & that is why some hammered (IMO not their strong points as Rob has pointed out) coins get what appear to be unusually higher grades from US TPGs.

I have gotten used to their grading to some extent, but think there are some limitations. I had once shown an 1849 shilling with scintillating surfaces that were proof like with excellent devices, lustre, milling, etc. and this got only a "62" from PCGS. The apparent hairlines were obviously die polish lines that followed the usual criteria and clearly seen on 30x mag; I still don't agree with this and think it more likely a 65 PL (PCGS does not use PL on most coins). They also, as I have pointed out, seem to not be able to deal with matte proof coins & especially those of 1927, 1937, 1950-1953, but also with regards to the 1902 issue. I have seen them go tough and go soft with no (to me) hairlines but rather die polish as well & also with respect to the mentioned wipes: I have a matte 1902 5 Sov. that was given a "60" by ANACS (a lesser tier TPG) that I bought about 15 years ago because it was near bullion in price and also because I would have graded it a "63". As a side point, you may read in the PCGS forums that some of the older small size ANACS grading has a tendency to be quite conservative.

 

Overall, and please forgive the pre-coffee ramblings, I think Paulus that you would be well-served to expect something of a learning curve ( a bit expensive) but to keep these points in mind and to try to be your own harshest critic of your coins before you submit. I think the packing beyond reproach with excellent quality near optic plastics that will preserve the coin surfaces except from extreme heat and humidity. In reviewing non-matte late milled coinage it is a rare event that a coin graded "65" or above is not an excellent specimen, and would guess with experience that you would tend to agree with this point.

 

[Nonmortuus 927]

I am following this with interest as I have a few more coins I would like to entomb (for various reasons) but I am not sure whether to go LCGS after the recent changes. PCGS seems like the logical choice so if you do go down this route Paul I would very much like to hear about how you get on.

[jaggy 528]

For a number of reasons (which I won't go into here), I decided to start having my coins graded by NGC. Generally speaking, I have been pretty happy with the results. EF and GEF usually get 62-64 and UNC have been getting 63-66. for the last batch of 15 coins that I sent in, seven of them got 64 or better. Overall, 71% of the post 1816 coins I sent in got MS62 or better. I expect that percentage to improve as I get better at the process and as I start sending in my nicer coins.

For pre-1816 coins, all but one got scores in the AU50-MS62 range. I also expect that scoring to improve as I start sending in my better coins. I held off on my best coins till I was more comfortable with the process.

NGC don't like scratches and they don't like rim nicks. So before spending money on grading a really honest personal appraisal of the coins you are about to send is worthwhile. A few friction marks are generally okay so long as they don't look like cleaning (e.g. hairlines). From experience, they are a bit more lenient with marks on older coins. 

I have had a few disappointments but, when I look closely at the coin, I can usually see where they are coming from. The other big lesson for me is to be ultra careful in buying coins and especially from certain sources such as LC. I have had more disappointment with coins I bought at LC than any other source. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by jaggy

[Paulus 1,979]

Thanks for the really interesting replies so far

@Nordle11, could you move this to the TPG discussions section when you have a moment?

[Nordle11 564]

  On 11/16/2016 at 6:34 PM, Paulus said:

Thanks for the really interesting replies so far

@Nordle11, could you move this to the TPG discussions section when you have a moment?

of course

[azda 981]

And just as a side salad on coin buying, Rob gave me good advice a while back, don't think about what is good about the coin, (big, bright and shiny etc) try and find it's bad points and reasons you wouldn't buy it.........TPGs love tone also, so you do get grade points for that (which i do find strange) although, when buying coins, eye appeal to the beholder is also an important point...

 

Next year, i'm going to try a year with NGC and see how that goes, they have an office in Munich so i have no postage costs

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by azda

[coinkat 21]

Unfortunately there is no short answer. I see differences based on Monarchs and denominations. Edward VIII shillings and half crowns can be tough and inconsistent. And that inconsistency in part is based on the range in quality for both of these series. I will just suggest that it is more about the coin and appreciating which TPG will grade it most appropriately-not always an easy proposition.

[azda 981]

  On 11/17/2016 at 11:48 PM, coinkat said:

Unfortunately there is no short answer. I see differences based on Monarchs and denominations. Edward VIII shillings and half crowns can be tough and inconsistent. And that inconsistency in part is based on the range in quality for both of these series. I will just suggest that it is more about the coin and appreciating which TPG will grade it most appropriately-not always an easy proposition.

I would have thought these would be tough for anyone to even find let alone grade

[coinkat 21]

Edward VII -sorry for the typo

[Mynki 23]

  On 11/16/2016 at 2:56 PM, Nonmortuus said:

I am following this with interest as I have a few more coins I would like to entomb (for various reasons) but I am not sure whether to go LCGS after the recent changes. PCGS seems like the logical choice so if you do go down this route Paul I would very much like to hear about how you get on.

I guess you need to sit down and ask yourself if you think that LCGS will ever become a respected TPG? Do you trust the people behind it to build a trusted company? Each to their own, but after what has just happened with CGS I think I'd avoid them.

Or to look at it another way, can you tell me of a valid reason to use LCGS? I ask because right now, I'm struggling when there are respected TPG's who are far more likely to still be respected in the future.

All IMHO of course.

 

[Nonmortuus 927]

I am just worried about American companies grading British coins. Do they know all the varieties? Do they care about them? Will the take into consideration mint wipe marks on 1902 proofs etc etc. Pretty much the same concerns Paulus has.

[coinkat 21]

Unfortunately varieties are not a strength for TPG... They are better with wear and strike characteristics and identifying the distinction with their grade. However, the Sheldon scale is different. A lot has been written about trying to assign Sheldon numbers to the traditional British grading standard. I am not impressed with how this has been expressed. There are clear differences and one needs to look at the coin. And that grading evaluation  and comparison between standards has to be done on a coin by coin basis. As for the mint wiped 1902 matte proofs, these will likely grade in the PR61 to PR62 range.

 

[Mr T 189]

  On 11/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, Nonmortuus said:

Do they know all the varieties?

I very much doubt it - I think I've seen a slab that says toothed border for an 1860 or 1861 - probably about as deep as they get into it.

[Nick 329]

  On 11/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, Nonmortuus said:

Do they know all the varieties? Do they care about them?

No to both.  I've got a slabbed 1926 3d labelled as modified effigy, when it isn't.  It's not a tricky variety to spot.

However, on the upside, I got it for the price of the much more common ME threepence.

[Mynki 23]

  On 11/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, Nonmortuus said:

I am just worried about American companies grading British coins. Do they know all the varieties? Do they care about them? Will the take into consideration mint wipe marks on 1902 proofs etc etc. Pretty much the same concerns Paulus has.

Totally understand. I'm not questioning the competence or even integrity of the guys who used to grade for CGS. Really I'm questioning the reputation and integrity of LCGS. As has already been stated they're not a true third party grader as they're clearly not independent due to their links with London Coins.

The other concern I'd have is that CGS and now LCGS are not respected on the global stage in the way PCGS and NGC are etc. I have a few I want slabbed, they'll now be going to PCGS or NGC as LCGS have no credibility to me.

 

[azda 981]

  On 11/16/2016 at 2:52 AM, Paulus said:

I have a bunch of English coins I would like professionally graded, for various reasons, and I do not want to use CGS / LCGS

What are peoples' opinions on how US TPGs treat weak strikes vs wear, and mint wipes on 1902 matt proofs? Do they know what they are doing with these?

Here's an example, VS what would this get from a US tpg? @VickySilver

@Paulus this was my matte proof Sov, this got a 62 grade because it had mint wipe marks, in all honesty i was disappointed as i thought it was much better than others i'd seen in the same grade, so if you're thinking of sending in proofs just make sure they have no wipe marks

[jaggy 528]

  On 11/20/2016 at 11:33 AM, Mynki said:

Totally understand. I'm not questioning the competence or even integrity of the guys who used to grade for CGS. Really I'm questioning the reputation and integrity of LCGS. As has already been stated they're not a true third party grader as they're clearly not independent due to their links with London Coins.

The other concern I'd have is that CGS and now LCGS are not respected on the global stage in the way PCGS and NGC are etc. I have a few I want slabbed, they'll now be going to PCGS or NGC as LCGS have no credibility to me.

 

That was my thinking when I decided to standardise on NGC. The more so as I live in the USA. If and when the point comes that I decide to move my collection on (old age, total loss of interest, financial imperatives, etc.), the coins will need to be slabbed to realise their best value.

I think that TPG grading and slabbing is coming to the UK market and I do note a change in attitudes on here (including me) to it. I think that London Coins also saw that but, unfortunately for them, went about creating the business in completely the wrong way. That may be correctable but they have lost valuable time as a result.

My own experience with NGC is that their grading is pretty strict but also pretty fair. I can generally see why they arrived at a certain grade for a given coin once I take the emotion out of it. And, quite frankly, I can see why a coin (like the one above) would be marked down for mint wipes. The good news for me is that over 50% of the coins I have had graded so far have received MS64 or better which suggests that, for the most part, my buying has been good.

The other thing that my NGC experience has done is to make me much more careful when buying coins and especially non-slabbed. In my opinion, many auction photos 'flatter to deceive' and can hide things like hairline scratches. Now, when I look at the photo, any hint of scratch marks and I am not interested. For example, LCA lot 1399 is an 1877 sixpence and graded LCGS 80. But, when I look at the photo, it seems like there are scratches behind the neck so it is a no bid from me. Too much risk of the scratches being worse than the photo shows. Of course, if LCGS gave potential customers access to their photos then I might have changed that decision. 

Edited November 20, 2016 by jaggy

[jaggy 528]

  On 11/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, Nonmortuus said:

I am just worried about American companies grading British coins. Do they know all the varieties? Do they care about them? Will the take into consideration mint wipe marks on 1902 proofs etc etc. Pretty much the same concerns Paulus has.

When I send my coins into NGC, I tell them what I think the variety is. To date, they have agreed 100% with me. Some varieties (e.g. R/V, 8/7) they will put on the label. Others, e.g. different Davies numbers for the same date, then they tend not to.

[Mynki 23]

  On 11/20/2016 at 2:08 PM, jaggy said:

That was my thinking when I decided to standardise on NGC. The more so as I live in the USA. If and when the point comes that I decide to move my collection on (old age, total loss of interest, financial imperatives, etc.), the coins will need to be slabbed to realise their best value.

I think that TPG grading and slabbing is coming to the UK market and I do note a change in attitudes on here (including me) to it. I think that London Coins also saw that but, unfortunately for them, went about creating the business in completely the wrong way. That may be correctable but they have lost valuable time as a result.

 

I'm in total agreement. When I first started reading about TPG's on here and how it was as 'American thing' I thought at the time that it would catch on. After all, globalisation isn't going anywhere and so many things from the US eventually catch on over here it was pretty much guaranteed that interest in grading would increase.

It's a damned shame IMHO that we don't have a truly independent and respected UK based TPG specialising in UK coins though.

 

[Nonmortuus 927]

I know I have posted these elsewhere on the forums but here you go again. Two examples of the same coin type and year graded by CGS and NGC. I would argue that the CGS is a higher grade coin but they are graded roughly the same. Everyone on here seems to suggest that NGC are more strict on their grading but the below example seems to show they don't. Is this a one of? Generally are NGC stricter?

Graded CGS 82

 

Graded MS64 by NGC

[azda 981]

Top coin is the nicer of the 2, CGS 82 is as they state MS64-65, lets not forget that the American TPGs work to different principles than LCGS

[VickySilver 877]

No question the top is nicer. I have however seen some of the higher (L)CGS coins in higher grades to be OVERGRADED, those mostly modern and in the range of 85-92. At one point I posted specimen 1935 crowns, one raw, one PCGS65, one CGS65, and I think an NGC65. The CGS was definitely not up to the others, and had a worrisome verd spot growing to boot!

[Paulus 1,979]

  On 11/21/2016 at 1:41 PM, VickySilver said:

No question the top is nicer. I have however seen some of the higher (L)CGS coins in higher grades to be OVERGRADED, those mostly modern and in the range of 85-92. At one point I posted specimen 1935 crowns, one raw, one PCGS65, one CGS65, and I think an NGC65. The CGS was definitely not up to the others, and had a worrisome verd spot growing to boot!

A CGS 65 would only equate (approximately) to MS60-61