Since our series "Crossover, cross-under and cross-out" began this summer, no coin from third-tier grading services has successfully crossed over from its holder to one by PCGS.
Last week marked my first success of the year, with this PCI 1896 Morgan Dollar crossing over to what many consider to be the hobby's premier grading company PCGS.
I also will start testing crossovers to PCGS's rival, NGC, submitting them with my own raw coins to see how they fare. Some readers of this column believe NGC is superior to PCGS. At times it is, and at times not, as both companies are comparable. My view is PCGS is only slightly more reliable, but losing its edge by holdering too many "Genuine" coins--more on that in a future column.
As for the 1896 Morgan Dollar showcased here, I paid $85 for it and about $20 for re-slabbing at PCGS, which has placed a $230 retail value on its holdered coin. So paying $105 is a bargain. As I already have a nicer 1896 Morgan, I will try to sell this for $175-210, making a tidy profit in my coin booth at a local antiques mall.
Keep in mind that I am cherrypicking coins in third-tier holders with the goal of crossing over and that I could have located and purchased dozens of overgraded PCI examples.
Two points about that to ponder:
1. Consistency. The reputation of a grading company hinges not on the occasional over- or undergraded coin but on its consistency over time. Consistency is vital for many reasons. Those of us who know how to grade want to understand a company's standards before submitting raw coins to be slabbed. We may be able to overlook a few undergraded or mislabeled coins; but eventually we cannot support companies whose standards are haphazard or unacknowledged in the marketplace.
2. Grading Prowess. Your skill as a grader will allow you to cherrypick the best coins from third-party companies (rather than merely not patronizing them) with the goal of selecting coins that may cross over or retain a decent cross-under grade by PCGS or NGC or second-tier companies ANACS and ICG.
By the way, in my experience, old small ANACS holders almost always cross over successfully to PCGS. ICG does about two-thirds of the time. Both ANACS and ICG are reliable but somewhat inconsistent at times, prompting John Feigenbaum, president of David Lawrence Rare Coins (DLRC), to note in his recent CoinLink commentary that his company will stop offering ICG-, SEGS- and most ANACS-holdered coins.
For the record, I have never been able to cross over a SEGS coins to NGC or PCGS. They usually cross under or out. I've had decent success with PCI, though, which was purchased in 2008 by DLRC. Feigenbaum and his staff transformed the semi-reliable PCI into a world-class service under the name of Dominion Grading Service (DGS). Sad news to report there, though, as explained in this release, with DGS opting to close shop.
In the future I hope to cover that news more in depth in an interview with Feigenbaum who, I think, would agree with sentiment in this column: If you cannot grade, you shouldn't not play the crossover and cross-under game, or you will surely cross out.
Another awesome article, Michael! Well done! I very much enjoy your column and especially the current subject at hand. I’ve been playing the cross-over game with old ANACS slabs for some time now. It’s quickly becoming the only “cherrypicking” game in town, as VAM’s haven’t really taken off (and may never…) and most undergraded coins have been all sopped up. I also agree with your statement concerning how an in-depth understanding of coin grading is a must in order to play this game successfully.
However, as much as I enjoy this subject, I am very intrigued by your mention of an upcoming article on PCGS and their Genuine slabs. It seems to me they’ve developed a knee-jerk tendency to slap Genuine labels on coin holders. I have several theories on the recent rash of genuine holders, but I will patiently await for your article before I expand further on them.
Thanks again for yet another very interesting article!
TequilaDave at CoinSpace.org
A while back, I purchased a Morgan Dollar graded by Accugrade as MS66DMPL at a fraction of the price listed for the grade. I immediately acknowledged that this was a very special and well-struck piece. However, the coin’s deeply-mirrored fields were covered by fingerprints. I tried the crossover game with this coin at PCGS and received a final grade of MS63DMPL (3 full grades lower). This coin has a super 99% to full 100% sharp strike with superb surface preservation (apart from the obvious fingerprints). It is conceivable that this coin would have at least graded MS66DMPL to MS67DMPL with PCGS if the coin was completely void of these obtrusive fingerprints. This is a case in which the Eye Appeal grade severely impacted the grade of this coin, simply as a result of fingerprints that were caused from mishandling in the past. Who knows who provided the fingerprints, but it is very possible that these fingerprints originated from a mint worker inspecting this coin as one of the very first production coins from a fresh pair of dies. If I had less knowledge of numismatics in knowing the differences, I would equate this coin to a super deep cameo proof.
-Richard Stinchcomb
Thank you, TequilaDave! I agree 100% with everything you write concerning the knee-jerk reaction to slab as Genuine any questionable coin. Fact is, a substantial amount of coins fall into the questionable category from a light dipping, slider or bag marks. And not every coin has wonderful luster. Also, sometimes color is not artificial when spectacular but “genuine,” especially when one learns the patterns that certain coins possess. For instance, a 1970-S large date rainbow will rainbow in a circle. New Orleans mint marks from 1883-84–especially ones in those velvet or satin Littleton boxes–develop striking toning.
I wrote the article already and filed it titled “Genuinely concerned about PCGS.” I don’t know when Coin Update will run it. My intent is not to embarrass PCGS, as I submit mostly to that company; however, I do believe Genuine has become the default grade when graders should know (and do know) better.
I appreciate your interaction very much.
Richard,
Another enlightening comment! Thank you. Yes, a mint employee could have provided those fingerprints. Moreover, what would PCGS think if you gave that coin a light dipping and sent it back. A light dip used to be acceptable at PCGS. The issue here is akin to what TequilaDave has been saying about perfect coins in other holders excerpt old ANACS rapidly disappearing. At least PCGS assigned a grade! Overuse of Genuine at PCGS is bad for its business and numismatics in general, an issue upcoming in a future column.
This sentence in reply to TequilaDave should have read:
For instance, a 1970-S large date CENT will rainbow in a circle. MORGAN New Orleans mint marks from 1883-84–especially ones in those velvet or satin Littleton boxes–develop striking toning.
The “dipping” thing is totally unethical and not an option in my book. However, it would be an interesting coin to submit to NCS for conservation, have them walk it over to NGC (located within the same office) and see if NGC would grade it MS66DPL or higher within the regular NGC label. Then, I would like to submit the coin to PCGS after this conservation as a test just to see if the graders at PCGS would grade it or deem it as “GENUINE” due to cleaning.
-Richard Stinchcomb
Dipping, Richard, is not unethical. That said, a coin must be in a condition so that a light dipping won’t affect the surface or value. It also must be done by an expert, and I don’t recommend any reader here doing it because many things can go wrong.
See THE COIN COLLECTOR’S SURVIVAL MANUAL by Scott Travers, p. 152, interview with David Hall, founder of PCGS:
TRAVERS: What do you think about dipping?
HALL: I think that silver coins, in particular, can be dipped and you can’t tell whether they’re dipped or not. Now, they can be over-dipped, and the luster gets stripped away. Dipping is cumulative.
TRAVERS: How can someone tell if a coin will be able to take a dipping:
HALL: … Most coins have more to lose than gain by dipping. … Only if perhaps there’s a minor fingerprint–say, on a proof Walking Liberty half dollar–or a little bit of haze in the field. That coin could passibly–possibly–improve in appearance if it had a light dip.
This would definitely be a coin to try. The differences in the values based on grade with this particular coin is thousands of dollars. Yes, this process could help, but I will take your advice and leave it to those who consider themselves experts. One thing I do know is that such conservation and every cleaning method, even in the slightest extent, leaves traces. This may answer your question to why PCGS deems so many coins as “GENUINE” without assigning a numerical grade to them.
Michael, this would be a great experiment for someone willing and financially able to supply test subjects for a science project. I know PCGS and NGC have probably already performed such studies. Personally, I would like to see such studies documented and published for the entire numismatic industry. It is this information that the top grading companies don’t want you to know.
-Richard Stinchcomb
Good observations, Richard. In an upcoming column, I write about a gold bullion piece right out of the box that came back as tooled or damaged. There was a ding in the field. You’re right once more with a vital point: These days, even the slightest trace or conservation method brings a genuine. Finally, you’re point about documented studies is much needed. Had we such a study by an independent agency, we might help the industry maintain consistent standards. Thank you again for your insight.
I’m curious about crossing over DMPL’s. In an earlier article, you mention the problems of crossing an NGC DPL to a PCGS DMPL. I’ve a very pretty 1880-S MS65 DPL that I would like to have crossed over and was planning on dropping it off at the LB show later this month. However, after I read your article I began wondering if it wasn’t a waste of time, and more importantly, money. Here’s a link to some images of the coin
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p1umO4WWtSZmGG5lNsAUnOxbON0MA3FEzGkAdWRBhJpWH0fVaAt43okJWSjAjXFL32D0rOGskYIWfgV5b6HWmNA/1880-s%20ob-1.jpg?psid=1
And into the light for the mirror effect,
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pLKUypvphri-uH8EOOnF9kgWUbjJGreYM6cJgGkQe1iyF8b6tgXwBLahcYPnslr89D7SkvwDHPpa-FijEuzxoSA/1880-s%20ob2.jpg?psid=1
And for completness sake, the reverse,
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pPKteKsyrT2QRzb6xh_jCFCpi672up-r2sboUc9bUldoo4-7uchMeJbKeJ9XVqD5hl77198B-M42QDnaGJPjcfg/rev2.jpg?psid=1
So my question is this – have you learned what different criteria PCGS uses relative to NGC since the writing of your article?
TIA,
TD
Thanks, TequilaDave, for supplying the pix. I would not attempt to cross this item to PCGS. If you sent it in a holder, you’d get back DNC (Did Not Cross). Worse, if you cracked it open and sent it in, these days I’d wager you’d get a Genuine, either for “cleaned” or “damaged.” Why? There are slider marks on he reverse, and those have been coming back with Genuine labels.
I would have to see the coin in person, but I personally think this could have been graded MS64 DMPL or even MS63 DMPL, not only because of the reverse, but also because or a trace of bag mark on the cheek. You won the label wars with this acquisition. It is a beautiful coin.
Also, did you check this out for VAMS? It sure looks like a 1880-S VAM7: http://www.vamworld.com/1880-S+VAM-7