Comments on: 1952 Superbird Washington Quarter Loses NGC Attribution

By: Lagiadh

Lagiadh — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:13:06 +0000

Well, ever since that S.S. SUNK! mentioned by the author, I’ve never truly trusted these services for their original mission statements. They used to be about accurately grading fine examples of rare coins that had beat the test of time and remained in high grade.

Authentication of lower grade rarities was also a permissible service.

S.S. Central America! Why look at us wash barnacles and crab poop right off of these coins in a documentary that we shall send to you!

What? What did you just say? Did you just say that PCGS graded some of those 20 dollar gold pieces as Mint State? What?! How could they do such a thing?

They say those coins are not cleaned; they are “curated”. They are only bringing those coins back to their original state!

Oh? Well, then, I better go get my best MS63 Morgan with DMPL surfaces out of the safe. I’m going to slather some nose oil on the disturbance of Liberty’s hair and cheeks with light rubbing. She sure looks better and you can’t really see that bag mark so badly now. I curated my coin! Slab’er PCGS!

*Sigh*

I’ve preferred ICG for a while, their grading is consistent. And they do not know who’s sending in items for grading or even how many in any given day belongs to a single submitter. AND they put intercept technology in their holder.

When I submit, and this is a rare occasion, I give my business to ICG. Their fees are comparable, but you are far less likely to see them flout their own standards as it suits their need.

By: Michael Bugeja

Michael Bugeja — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:45:08 +0000

Robert: Thanks for your useful comments. (I replied about a half-hour ago, don’t see my post, and so am making sure you get a reply.) To summarize, you may know more than I about the history here than I. Your last comment seems reasonable when you consider all manner of grading companies, not just the top four, and their vast standards–from objective to deceptive–combined with simple supply and demand. In closing, I appreciate your focusing on coins here and adding to the discussion. Appreciatively, Michael

By: Robert T Jenkins

Robert T Jenkins — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:15:27 +0000

I thank you for the comments, would you please educate me about the formation/ demand for ICG? My observation my currently be skewed; HSN directly or indirectly created the company for exclucive grading of and therefore creditable selling of a pedigree coin(since FEES could not be procured at their desired schedule), once this foundation was in place they hired top graders away from PCGS and NGC. They had the money, inventory, distribution channel, and finally the pedigree to flood the market. Where do those graders work today?
I believe that two factors help create the current system; a devillishly diverse graded value system and simple supply and demand. THANK YOU for this forum. Robert T Jenkins

By: Michael Bugeja

Michael Bugeja — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:17:12 +0000

Apologies for typos in the above comment. It’s early in Iowa, 4 a.m.

This phrase should read … one can trust WHAT my dealer said–”NGC no longer attributes Superbird.”

Also, the typo IGC should read ICG, of course, for Independent Coin Graders.

In sum, PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and ICG get much right and, in the end, help the hobby. We can help them by critiquing services when those occasions arise, and you can read about that (and contribute to the cause) here.

Thanks.

By: Michael Bugeja

Michael Bugeja — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:06:16 +0000

Joe Ceremony makes a good point concerning trust. First of all, I trust my local coin shop owner thoroughly. I’m our area’s coin club president, and our dealer has been associated with us for decades. When he puts the right attribution on an “S” for a “Superbird” variety, and when I take pains to look up two types of attributions for that, so that NGC gets it right, and then disclose all this in a published column associated with my name, one can trust that what my dealer said–”NGC no longer attributes Superbird.” Even then, I researched the Heritage archives to verify that some NGC holders had the designation and others, not. While doing that, I found the news release cited in my column.

Let’s get back to trust. The lack of it in our business is what led to third-party graders in the first place. Some dealers and many more Internet sellers and consignors to this day inflate grades of raw coins to a ridiculous extent. Moreover, use of Internet hides flaws through bad pictures or even doctoring. And many third-party graders after the top-tier have additional trust issues not worth discussing here. So when one considers the PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and IGC, despite my demurs in this and other columns, they seems the best our business can do. And while money and bulk business are truly issues in need of exploring, overall, they are important to our hobby. But we can hold them more accountable as we build sets or use their service. That is why Coin Update is a good vehicle to bring these issues to light, in columns or comments like yours.

By: Joe ceremony

Joe ceremony — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:48:08 +0000

Seems to be what I would call preference in grading to bulk submissions.This indeed is very true and has become a large problem due to an extremely large amount of inaccurate grades being sold on the open market by authorized dealers of all grading services.What’s more is the ridiculous amount of first strike and early releases that are clearly late stage strike coins.The facts are clear and very easy to see with the naked eye.Yet people will still trust these companies to help them rip off others who are oblivious to the nature of coin grading and attributions.As long as there is a demand the supply will be there to be met.And these grading services will cater to those who prey on unknowing victims.It’s really very plain and simple just as the S may have been on the eagles chest.If you did not pay for the attribution.Then all you will get back is a simple graded coin.It really is usually a more accurate grade this way because there are no strings being pulled through bulk graders.So if Dr J sent the coins in the first time which I finding tough to believe.He would have probably had a more accurate grade that time.And now that he has had them regraded which I find harder to believe.He can go on and sell them knowing he is no more better then the Inaccurate grades he is selling.As to the “Superbird”.It just sounds like the submission was not put in for attribution.If it were and you had done it yourself.Perhaps you would not have had to pay so much just to see a mistake of someone else come back as a loss.Moral of all stories here is be smarter then the grading company your dealing with or you will lose.

By: Michael J.

Michael J. — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:00:34 +0000

Yo, dr. wannabee j,
I got your STONE TRUTH right here bro… One really shouldn’t criticize one’s spelling when one can’t seem to master the simplest of proper grammar rules – that of capitalization.

It goes to credibility, BRO.

By: dr. j

dr. j — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:57:29 +0000

hey robert- your comments would hold more sway if you will due us a big favor. please go back to 2nd grade english and lern the difrense between “due” and “do”. when you seek the services of a nice young prostitute, due you ask her to please, “due me, due me”.? just a thot. seriously, the guy is right. grading is all about the fees generated, and, what’s more, it’s fixed, just like point spreads. the big dealers get MUCH better grades than the common deck swabbing low life collectors do. i sent ngc 40 gold buffalos and got 20/20 69s and 70′s. believe it or not, to prove a point, i cracked ‘em ALL OUT, yeah, all 40. i resubmitted through a large new york dealer. how about 35 70′s and 5 69′s? believe it brothers, ’cause its the STONE TRUTH !

By: Tom Joad

Tom Joad — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:29:47 +0000

NGC is a joke. Can’t tell you how many times NGC coins I submitted for crossover to PCGS were rejected, especially when it came to Ultra-Cam designated NGC coins. It’s common to have an NGC coin go from say, PF67 Ultra to PR66 or even 65 CAM in a PCGS holder. So not only would NGC inflate the grade, their designations don’t pass PCGS muster. NGC is far more market grading-oriented than PCGS, which is more technical.

By: Robert T Jenkins

Robert T Jenkins — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:45:30 +0000

Sorry, people you are missing the point all large companies due one thing well; THEY GENERATE FEES. Banks, credit card companies, NGC, PCGS THE GOVERNMENT(taxes) are all the same fees, fees,fees! I’m sure if I pay enough in fees I’ll get a farsighted grader as well ; um lets see every 10th sliver eagle is a 69 35th a 70 or was that 40th? Hey chuck, “what fee schedule are these guys currently rated at”? Wow! I didn’t think anyone else used MNS’ fee plan, better make that last one a 70. Seated Halfs, WB #’s what, Barbers,THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO what? DAVID who? Please don’t even get me started on the S.S. SUNK! The word for the times is FEES!!!
THANK YOU Robert T Jenkins : That will be $24.50 ,credit card or paychum?