A Couple Of NGC's - Too High ?

NGC graders had it in their hands with correct lighting and whatever magnification they might need.

With your alternative of looking at two photos for each coin, and not great photos, and deciding a grade.

Better photos would be necessary for me to doubt NGC's grading decisions, especially by so many points.

I'm neither Canadian, ICCS collector nor "long time" at grading, but as far as what images I've seen on various sites I'd say they're all pretty close in regard to the Sheldon scale. What I really have problems with, particularly from images on a screen, is deciding whether a coin is high AU or low MS. I'd have to trust a TPG over images. Take the 5 cent for example. I can understand where you think it's circulated, but there's so much gunk on the plastic I can't even see the full DEI as well as parts of the crown etc. I've learned to suspect the "tip of the mustache" as a false indicator of wear, and even the lower crown band, as opposed to weak strike. Everything I can see below the neck - collar, garland, ribbon, shoulder, etc - looks good as MS. There are no large distracting marks and the marks I see are tiny on an already tiny coin (let's face it, on my screen your image is probably 20x or more). It does suffer from unattractive blotchy toning but technical graders don't care.

Just my observations.

Edit - I'd have to agree with TerryT that the surfaces of the dollar have that AU "look".

That in itself is part of the problem with TPG's.

But without getting in to the whole TPG debate, all I can say is (colonial tokens only - as that is my experience) NGC tends to be any where from 5-10 points higher (than ICCS & PCGS)in many cases.
Knowing this when purchasing NGC graded tokens can lead to a lot less heartache & headache.

Personally I am not a TPG supporter, but if you are going to grade a Canadian piece my instinct would be to send it to who ever handles the majority of them - and that would be ICCS.

Don't shame the NGC graders too much, I also appear drunk at work every now and then and my secretary also acts like a monkey with a typewriter from time to time.

(/sarcasm)

Anyway, we all have an off day every now and then. I wouldn't grade the first coin MS, as there's too many dents and the fresh struck luster seems to have disappeared. AU it may get, probably. It also depends on the reverse.

The second coin looks like it may be uncirculated, and it appears there's a small damage on the plastic case. Also, the sport a 5 o'clock makes it easy to think something's weird. I' not sure what it is (metal issue?) but I don't see traces of wear on the obverse.

The third coin is a bit dirty, but otherwise looks in AU condition. It also seems to me that the plastic is scratched there.

I also need pics of the reverses to make a better judgement.

Not to oversimplify it, ICCS is field conscious. US TPGs are effigy conscious. ICCS is also very hard on NFLD coins so I would see that coin possibly graded at EF possibly AU50 with ICCS.

I can comment only on the Newfoundland coin, as that is where my interests lie.
Nice coin, but its definitely not AU55. The fields are relatively clean and I don't see much evidence that this coin was circulated for very long before it was tucked away for safe keeping. The problem I think is that the strike is a bit weak. There's no damage at all but the problem is that the coin does not have that exceptional strike clarity that is required for an EF grading (or better) that Newfoundland coins seem to require. There's no detail in the Kings garb or his hair. These things would need to be very detailed and stand out to earn a high grading.
I would consider it VF30. Of course, this is based on looking at the Obverse only.

It also brings up an interesting point about strike weakness and grading. In your opinion(s), how should it be treated? Should coins be downgraded on strike?