This Is Why One Should Stick With ICCS When Buying Canadian

To be fair, toning can affect the look of a coin alot, I have a toned BU 1953 half with a heavy cameo that a couple dealers called VF. I can not tell if there is ware but the toning can play tricks and make the appearance of rub on a coin. I will not venture a grade but I can say this is not an MS-64. Note all the chatter, it becomes more noticeable the longer you look at the coin.

I have a lot of modern Canadian silver coins, some of which I will be getting certified in the next few years (still in the sorting process now) do you suggest ICCS over others specifically for Canadian coins? And are they held at the same standard if I go to sell them down the road?

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the NGC grade on this coin. Not well struck. Here is an ICCS MS64 (In an old holder at that). http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1934-Canada-...141744144480

I am not so sure that NGC is that far off on this coin, and I am one for not liking Canadian coins in U.S. TPG holders. Many coins do cross and many others do not. That said this is a coin I would pass on and find another if I was a collector of this series. Remember it is imperative to buy the coin and not the holder in any purchase of a required piece.
These days with coins being rather expensive in higher grades, you cannot collect everything and the smart collector narrows it down to one or two series, ie. , George VI fifty cents or Victorian five cents silver as a couple of popular examples.
If a person was expert on the ten cents of George V ( which not to blow my own horn I am , currently holding a few dates in finest graded or available ) they would realize that sharply struck pieces from 1934 and 1935 are NOT readily available and some expertise and knowledge as well as looking at many coins is required to acquire one. Whereas one can easily acquire say a gem 1919 or 1936 without much difficulty. All you have to do is write a cheque. Other dates even so called commons are not that easy to acquire, a good example being 1917. I looked for years for a GEM eye appealing piece until I purchased both from the recent Landon Sale ( Both ICCS MS 66 ) .
This series from 1911- 1936 is easy to acquire in lower circ grades but a gem set with eye appeal is virtually impossible, and we are not even talking the 1936 DOT ,

TheCoinH.....

Your ICCS example is miles better than the NGC example.

Look at the large amount of wear on the reverse leaves and crown cross of the NGC coin and compare it to no wear on the ICCS coin.

Your ICCS example's obverse pic is not very clear to determine wear and surfaces but I would strongly suspect the ICCS coin's surfaces are very much pristine when compared to the NGC coin.

I will admit the ICCS coin may be an ms63, but no way is it an EF to AU (NGC coin).

To err is human; to forgive, divine. -- Alexander Pope

I disagree with the main intent (thread title) of your post. For every NGC coin you can produce like that, I can find an ICCS coin of equal calibre, or even worse, with unattributed problems. You can also find examples in PCGS, ANACS and CCCS holders. And yes, ICCS has been that far off...

Not one single grading company is perfect. None. Once you accept that fact, and learn to study and grade coins with your own eyes, in particular the expensive ones in mint state grades, then as a collector you have ability to make informed decisions on your purchases. Grading companies have levelled the playing field between collectors and dealers, and most of the time, they get it right... when they do get it wrong, those coins are either cherry-picked and resubmitted (if they were undergraded) or they languish in "coffins" as dealers call them...