My local coin dealer is one of my best friends and, at times, business partner, as we buy and sell to each other in his shop or our coin club auctions.
But two things he said to me recently caused me to change how I collect when it comes to grades and holders. He doesn't know he had that influence, but he will when he reads this column.
The first thing: What he said had been said to me before at coin shops in Des Moines and Omaha--perhaps a dozen times in the past several years. The discussion this time revolved around an 1883-S Morgan Dollar in an older small ANACS holder, graded AU55 with a retail value of around $150-170.
He noted the ANACS holder and said he graded the coin about XF45, worth $50. He hesitated even about paying that.
I looked at the coin and, because it was mine, my bias put the grade at about uncirculated. Nonetheless, I sold him the coin for $50, thanked him, and then headed to my bank box to retrieve the rest of my ANACS Morgans.
The second thing: What he said had never been said to me before in any coin shop or by any collector. "You know, when it comes to ANACS, you don't have to crack open holders when you send to PCGS. Just send the coins in their holders to the company and pay the crossover grade. You can do the same thing with NGC."
"Won't they always grade lower because ANACS is a rival?" I asked.
"They're professionals and will grade according to their standards."
So I tested that by sending these ANACS graded coins to PCGS: 1891-CC MS62, 1892-S XF45, 1893-CC VF35, and 1899 MS64.
The only grade that came in lower was the 1892-S, downgraded to VF35 in a PCGS holder. Since then I have sent five more ANACS coins to PCGS as crossovers, not becaue ANACS isn't a fine grading company; it is. I was proud of those ANACS coins, and I'd recommend the company to anyone. Moreover, it is obvious that PCGS respects ANACS because it downgraded only that one coin.
Two things said, and two lessons learned:
1. Let's say, for argument's sake, that 1 in 8 ANACS coins are overgraded--something I actually believe. I also believe ANACS occasionally grades tougher than PCGS. But I have grown weary with dealers undercutting value because of the holder (same applies to IGC). Yes, I understand that customers might pay more for PCGS and NGC, so there is logic behind the undercutting.
2. Because PCGS does respect ANACS, now I send coins in its holders as crossovers, as long as those coins are not labeled with downgrading details, such as "cleaning" or "artificial color." Rather than cracking those holders open to submit the coins as raw, I can be relatively sure that my coins will receive a fair grade and not be put in a "genuine" PCGS holder, although I suspect occasionally that happens.
Does that mean I won't purchase coins in ANACS holders? Quite the contrary. I find that buyers who also compete in set registry competitions often overlook ANACS and IGC coins, so I bid on them, win them at discount, and send them to PCGS as crossovers.
I see at least $120.00 in FEES spent here, simply to have someone you don’t know validate your selection of a coin, you are already proud to own! Purchase the coin not the holder, sticker, or +/- notations on the holder.
This was an experiment that costs money, but may result in a profit. I believe this is the point of Mr. Bugeja’s report here. I have also submitted coins for crossover grading with PCGS because the coins can fetch much higher numismatic premiums if graded by PCGS. This is simply the truth.
Thank you Michael for sharing your results.
-Richard
Thank you, Richard, for understanding my situation; Robert, I don’t disagree with you. But because I bought the coin and not the holder in the past, and because I keep updating my collection, I just reached the point of acknowledging what Richard observes: PCGS fetches higher premiums. So I am just being a realist … and a journalist, too, testing the company and finding it, well, trustworthy in this service.
Have you submitted anything ANACS MS-65 or better to PCGS for crossover grading? How did that turn out for the other five coins you submitted to PCGS. Thanks for the interesting articles!
They all came back with the ANACS grade, but were older Morgans (as I am in a PCGS set registry). I held my breath on an MS55 1894-S because to my eye it had just made the grade; but it crossed.
I have been bidding on MS-65 IGC coins (always inspecting them first, of course) and trying to pay no more than $65. If I get one, I’ll send it in, and with the grading fee, that would be an MS65 in a PCGS holder for about $85!
For a future article, I am going to send in coins from different grading companies and see what happens.
Thank you, Joe, for reading Coingrader Capsule!
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the helpful reply and further info.
I was curious about NGC versus PCGS grading-wise. If it is possible to crossover ANACS coins to PCGS, NGC slab should be pretty straightforwardly crossed-over to PCGS, no? Do they have pretty much the same grading criteria for Morgan dollars? And it that true for more modern coins as well? For example, would it be feasible to cross high grade (MS-67 or 68) walking liberty halves, or high grade buffalo nickel proof from NGC to PCGS.
I am just getting into this stuff and it’s pretty fascinating.
Have you found the appropriate MS-65 IGC coin to try to get into PCGS slab yet?
Thanks again.
Hi, Joe–
Thanks for writing. You’d think that NGC should cross over to NGC. I think both are consistent graders, although on that score I believe PCGS is slightly better. I notice a distinct difference in how NGC grades for gold, almost a point above PCGS each time. NGC tends to grade more for numismatists; PCGS, for the market. In other words, NGC looks a little more closely at eye appeal and luster whereas PCGS looks more for strike and overall appeal on the marketplace.
If you have NGC coins, you might just not bother crossing over. Both are consistent, top-notch holders. The only reason I am crossing over a few Morgan dollars in NGC holders is to complete a set registry (PCGS doesn’t allo NGC coins whereas NGC allows PCGS coins in its registries).
I’m still bidding on those ICG coins MS65. Haven’t won one yet. When I do, I’ll see if it will cross and let you know here.
Thanks again!
It would be interesting to see if they would cross over any PF70 coin from any of the other top graders.
I’m increasingly convinced that grading is subjective, especially when one has “genuine” or “details” available. I just sent a perfect coin from the U.S. Mint to PCGS and got a “tooled” designation. I suspect all 70s are subject to PF or MS69.
The problem I have at the moment is that PCGS will not attribute the 1988 D RDV-006. Quite possibly because of the extreme rarity of the coin ? I cannot understand that, because the reverse either is the common one or it isn’t. I do know that CONECA can attribute the coin and submit to ANACS for grading. So do you want a more knowledgeable source grading extreme rarities or someone ignorant of it’s importance ?
I know where mine will go.
Thanks for contributing, Gary. I just don’t know why some coins are not graded or the proper error designation not included. I wrote about the latter in a previous Coingrader Capsule: http://news.coinupdate.com/1952-superbird-washington-quarter-loses-ngc-attribution/
This is an area where your article is both interesting and practical. I am new to the hobby and as a buyer I have leaned heavily toward PCGS holders because they seem to be the top company. I went to a Texas Numismatic coin show and ANACS was there receiving coins for grading and they were very busy. I submitted an error coin, 1999 D Jefferson nichol with a double die obverse which is not listed in any literature. I will do a cross over when it comes back. Great article, well written and very informative
Thank you so much, Glenn. I’m familiar with the Texas show as I am a graduate of Oklahoma State. ANACS does good work, especially in error coins. With much appreciation, Michael
How do you, if the coins are graded wrong? PCGS is part of the Collectors Universe traded on the NASDAQ: CLCT. They after gaining market share to monoplize the industry through any means necessary and this includes destroying the competition with propaganda.