Coin Update viewers always have fun seeing whether I can predict what slabs will cross over to PCGS. First, a disclaimer: We'd send crossovers to NGC if that top-tier company would revert back to its policy of considering crossovers from all slabs other than PCGS. Its current policy makes absolutely no sense because NGC allows its and PCGS coins in its set registries, whereas PCGS only allows its coins, so all NGC has managed to do is create more business for PCGS.
To see how we have been urging NGC to revert to its old policy, read this post.
Back to the topic at hand: On Nov. 29, we published this post, making crossover predictions on these coins and using these exact words to describe chances:
- I have had luck with small ANACS holders. This 1873 "Open 3" Indian head cent should cross over.
- About 50% of blue and yellow ANACS holders have crossed for me in the past. This red-brown 1904 Indian head cent should cross, too. We've included a yellow ANACS holder to compare its chances with the small holder above.
- Coins encased in older PCI coins usually come back a grade or two lower. This one is VF30. I predict VF20.
- This red cent is graded MS68. I've had better luck crossing over green PCI holders like the one above. I won this 1940 cent for $25. I doubt PCGS is going to cross this over because at that grade, it would be worth $11,500. Prediction? MS65-66.
- I've just had no luck whatsoever crossing over ICG coins to PCGS. So we're sending two in with this crossover submission. ICG grades this cent MS67. I purchased it for $35. At MS67, in a PCGS holder, the value would increase to close to $300. It will come back MS65 or 66.
- Here's an interesting case. At MS67, a small date 1960 cent is worth $3,500 in a PCGS holder. This one has a chance, but PCGS doesn't easily create arbitrage. It will inspect meticulously. My prediction is MS66. That drops the value by $3,465.
- Accugrade Coins generally do well with PCGS. To read about one of the oldest slabbing companies, click here. This is a very heavily toned coin. I'm optimistic that this will cross. PCGS usually is good about discerning real from artificial toning. If sent in without the ACG holder, the coin might be deemed artificially toned. Clearly, this coin toned in the slab perhaps over the past two decades.
Well, the 1921 Pilgrim did not cross because of questionable color. I had thought PCGS would realize the age of the Accugrade holder in considering "ANY" PCGS grade. It didn't. And this is why I am still upset--not at PCGS but at NGC--for not considering holdered coins by companies other than PCGS. My options now are to crack out the coin and send it to NGC, with a high chance of probability that it, too, will say artificial color because it won't get to see the holder in which it was housed for years.
Other than that, though, PCGS responded as I anticipated it would. Here is a screen shot of its grades on this crossover submission.
As you can see, the 1873 Open 3 Cent actually had its grade increased from VF20 to VF25. PCGS does increase crossovers when they merit that, and here again is another proof of that assertion.
As predicted, the 1904 coin crossed.
I predicted the PCI coin would be downgraded significantly. It did not cross.
The 1940 cent came back as predicted, MS66 Red.
The 1934 cent came back as predicted, MS66 Red.
The ICG coin, 1960 Small Date, really looked to me like the correct grade at MS67, which would have been worth $3500 in a PCGS holder. As predicted, PCGS doesn't like ICG coins and lowered the grade by two full points to MS65 Red.
I'm happy with PCGS. I'm irritated with NGC. Why on this last coin? If NGC considered crossovers from ICG, I would not have marked this slab "ANY" when submitting it to PCGS. I would have marked it "Crossover," with a Plan B to send it to NGC.
Oh, well. Maybe NGC will read this crossover column and reconsider what Coin Update News has been advocating now for more than a year--a change back to its old policy in the name of numismatics. (It claimed it changed the policy for "customer service" reasons because submitters became irritated when grades were lowered from other slabs.) Perhaps it will see the wisdom of competitor Don Willis who once told us that PCGS wants the best coins in its holders and has no plans whatsoever to stop considering coins for crossover consideration.
So we'll keep sending to PCGS and hope our viewers do, too, until NGC sees the light.
I love your articles Michael. True investigative reporting. Uncovering blatant randomness in the third-party coin grading industry and catching them in the act of being arbitrary and capricious.
This seems so biased, and only reinforces the opinion of those who say that the grading companies are unfair. Am I the only one who sees that? How can no coin from ICG crossover, unless there is some kind of vendetta being waged by PCGS against ICG? Especially given that PCI and other third-tier companies manage to slip one through now and then. This is proof that the “holder” is being graded, before the coin is ever evaluated. Even the worst sports team does not lose every game. As for your ability to predict what a professional grader will say about the other coins tells me that your ability to psychoanalyze the PCGS graders is better than their ability to grade a coin. Either that, or you are a former PCGS grader, and have been trained by them in forming your opinions.
And now we have CAC to deal with on top of all of this? So, CAC won’t even look at an ANACS-graded coin, yet 50% of them (on average) crossover to a PCGS holder?
Try this experiment, if you dare. Send some coins into PCGS and see if they crossover, then send the same coins into CAC if they do. If they receive the much-coveted “bean”, then it is a simple admission by CAC of their laziness to really “look at the coin” and “not the holder”. Or, are you afraid of ruffling their feathers, or of “biting the hand that feeds you”. If you get too good at this, you might end up persona non grata in the industry that provides you with your bread and butter. Whistleblowers are not appreciated by the people on which they blow the whistle. It just makes all of this seem like more cronyism than art or science.
What do you think about the fact (and it is a fact) that NGC grades far more modern commemoratives as 70s than PCGS? I’ve looked at many of these coins under a microscope, looking for the supposed “flaw”, which warrants a downgrade to 69. They just aren’t there. I think they set a percentage of what they want to be 70s, then count coins e.g. if they decide that they want 12% to be 70s, then every 8th coin gets the 70 grade, after a cursory look, of course. I dare anyone to prove me otherwise.
So many good observations, Steve. Thank you for writing. I can almost predict how PCGS will grade probably because I have sent many submissions. I have never had any luck, in many submissions, with ICG coins as crossovers. I’m going to try next ACG coins. (I have to secure them though because they are more difficult to find these days.) They are conservatively graded and full of tone. That can create arbitrage, and graders hesitate to do that.
I know what you mean about companies not appreciating some of my articles. Let’s leave it at that. Some are not too happy with Michael Zielinski, either, but he probably doesn’t realize that. He’s been as outspoken at times as me about covering the coin world and bringing to light some issues.
Believe me, the hand that feeds me has smacked me a few times–and erroneously, too, in that those companies end up doing what Zielinski and I have recommended anyway.
The NGC crossover fiasco still has me fuming. It was a dumb decision–driven by NGC submitters who didn’t understand why their coins didn’t cross; well, what about those who DO understand? I’ll keep on NGC’s case until they see that all they are doing is harming the coin trade and sending more business to PCGS.
NGC does slab more 70s than PCGS. Personally, I cannot tell the difference between most MS69 and MS70 Silver Eagles, for instance.
THANK YOU for writing and Happy 2013 to you and your family!