If ICCS Will Not Grade It Who Will 32 5cent Far 2?

Amen..Couldn't agree more Pacific.
There are a couple of valued members on this site that at every opportunity will try to bash ICCS. I find it very distasteful. If you don't like ICCS then don't use them.

For what it's worth, I took "ignorant" to mean "ignoring". I'm not sure why we need to get into this stuff.

J&M, NGC, PCGS all list the near and far 1926 separately but no separate listings on 1932 or any other George V nickel that I can see. Did @macdon pay for an attribution and didn't get one? Is ICCS clear on what they will attribute or not attribute? The answer to those questions determines my opinion on this. Otherwise I'm not sure why the attribution on a flip really matters - you got the grade, the people who are interested in this variety and are willing to pay $1000 more for it will certainly recognize it regardless of what's on the holder, won't they?

I don't know where to begin with so many good comments on my query. Yes, I did ask them to identify the 32 for me and I also asked them to do same for an obvious 50 MS 65 dollar that is a SWL and was graded by them in the past but no mention of it being it a SWL on holder but they sent that one back saying it was not a SWL , in the same lot I had a 53 dollar that was noted as a SWL - same short waterlines as the 50 ? go figure that one because I cant...

My 32 was identified as a far 2 by a experienced and respected dealer here in Moncton where I live, I do have the option of going elsewhere for grading but it seems we need to have the blessing of ICCS if we want to get a good price if and when a coin[s] are offered for sale and I'm sorry but I do not believe the" buy the coin not the holder." This is all about branding and if a coin is an ICCS holder it does have more value added incentives than other Canadian coins graded by some of the USA TPG. I would not purchase one of the Landon coins without ICCS grading and Moore was smart to use ICCS a good business decision. I don't mind buying PCG/NGC/ANACS and taking a chance on some of the others but when it comes to Canadian coins that cost in the thousands of dollars it better have ICCS, because I have lost thousands on learning this the hard way.

Thanks

Your not the only one this has happened to I had 7 coin's kicked back to me as vanilla coin's when all 7 were in the front of the Charlton Book as variety's. Lucky for me ICCS did give me a credit for the future use since I over paid them for my non variety coin's. I did speak to ICCS about this and was told that ICCS has the right to put or not put down on the yellow card at their discretion. This is done to protect ICCS and to protect coin collectors, so made up variety's don't harm the collecting world.
I believe it's just sloppy work and on the day my coin's and yours were sent in, who ever was grading them did not feel like taking the extra time to verify the variety. What ever the case may be, it makes ICCS look bad and as long as people keep sending them coin's to be graded nothing will change, because why should it. As long as they are not losing business and they are making money ICCS is happy

Pacific,
Re: My post and word in it, you objected to.
I posted the question AND I answered my own question in the next line.

Perhaps YOU actually did miss that.?
If you read so much into the question, then I suggest you not be selective and also read into the answer. The answer, "because they can" clearly speaks volumes.

It seems you have the need to go into the actual ICCS and owners history as such, telling us about what YOU think and how long you are associated with them. Is that relevant to the OP's post?
There was never any question about Brian and his people and or their integrity and success.
I have great respect for them all and respect and appreciate their experience and knowledge.
The issue was about their archaic and old fashioned, not costumer friendly and simply old way of doing business in this high tech world where everyone uses ( reasonably) high tech communication equipment. (simply, because they can!!).
The issue was NOT about anything else. Again, I have NO issue with Brian or Scott or their staff.
Not at all! Just with their old fashioned way of communicating.
And, I express my opinion about that anytime I want to do so, even if YOU do not like that!
You have your opinion and I have mine, and others have theirs.

Pacific,
You are offended by me using a certain word because your interpretation perhaps is different from mine?
Perhaps instead of jumping at me like you did, it might have been more polite, more accommodating, much nicer, and more appropriate, to first communicate in a friendly and amicable manor, asking for an explanation what exactly I meant.
Perhaps you did not understand my post and its meaning and you jumped to conclusions?
Perhaps I would have been able to, "explain it better" for you.
Did you actually consult Webster's dictionary, or a thesauruses, to check which of the many meanings YOU think I applied and YOU applied to the word "ignorant" which you objected to?
It might help you understand my question and my answer.

Your follow up post to Wiremen:
NOTE to YOU: I never bashed ICCS or its owners , their associates or families etc. I do not know if anyone on this forum ever did. These are your exaggerated words.
However, I have, and will continue to criticize their old and outdates ways of communicating with their clients.
I do not believe that there are any posts in this forum where anyone bashed ICCS or any other TPG for whatever reason. And if someone did and has respective personal reasons to do so, they have the right to do so, as long as their "bashing" is based on the plain truth! Again, it depends on how one interprets the word "bashing".
There are many posters here who have expressed strong opinions about personal experiences with ICCS and other TPG's.
The interpretation of these posts and what they want to read into them, is entirely up to each individual.

I think everyone knows I'm a strong supporter of ICCS.

The important issue when deciding to use them or not, in my opinion, is determining the geographical location you're planning to sell them.

I advise collectors if you're planning to sell them in Canada ONLY, then you must use ICCS.

Anywhere else in the world, I recommend PCGS, mainly because ICCS is not strongly recognized worldwide as it is here in Canada.

Of course, if you're a collector who never plans to sell your collection, then it really doesn't matter what TPG you choose, does it?

When I send a lot to ICCS that contains varieties , I highlight what I think it could be and point out the Charlton catalogue page number. Sometimes you win and sometimes there is a refund for the variety fee. This is fairly standard with all the grading services as far as I am aware. You pay for the further attribution in the form of an additional fee.
There are lots of varieties that ICCS and others will not attribute, yet they are known to exist. A possible future solution would be the reprinting of Zoell's works (I am sure Charlton owns the numbering rights) and then the Canadian TPG s could for an additional fee assign Zoell variety numbers.
What is important is that research is ongoing in the Canadian Series all the time and learned numismatists are discovering new varieties and reporting the findings. Just because it is NOT on the certificate of any grading service doesn't mean it is not there. The main purpose of a TPG is firstly authentication and secondly a Grade opinion. A lot of the so called varieties that are mentioned like the 1932 far and near 2 are relative new discoveries and the ratios between the two will change over time with further study.

i have some varieties in which ICCS has confirmed... such as 1965 5 cent LB and a 1985 far beads and a 1977 low 7. so they should have!