|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
Replies: 5 / Views: 1,976 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1283 Posts |
Has anyone ever performed an unbiased TPG analysis? Just like auto magazines compare compatible models. I would love to see one done. They could take a sample coin from various categories. Get a few different denominations, some modern, some old, some very old. Some of varying grades, some keys, some commons, etc. They could use the same 25 coins (or so) and send them in to PCGS, NGC, ANACS and ICG. Perhaps send each coin in three times to avoid anomalies. We then might be able to decipher, for example, if a certain grading company is more liberal with GEM BU grading.. or if another is tougher on modern coins than others as compared to the competition. You get the idea. It would also show us if companies like PCGS are living up to their reputation. My impression just from looking at pictures on ebay and Heritage is that ICG is under appriciated for high grade coins, but they seem a bit liberal with low grade. But that's just my non-scientific observation and I could be off. It would be a fascinating and very enlightening study. It would also be a somewhat expensive endeavor, but for a major numismatic publication I don't think it would be too costly. If it has been done I would LOVE to read the study. If it hasn't I think that's something our hobby is long overdue. Edited by USArmyParatrooper 06/14/2008 10:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6385 Posts |
Hi Trooper, Several years back Coin World published a study. Someone assembled a group of maybe 10 coins and over the course of nearly 1 year they sent the whole group out to 8 different TPGs. Each time they recorded the assigned grades, cracked out the coins, and submitted them raw to the next candidate. The companies as I recall were PCGS, NGC, ICG, ANACS, PCI, SEGS, Accugrade, and one other. The author developed a special value scale for the assigned grades, calculated the average result for each coin, and did a statistical analysis for each company. His analysis determine whether the grades assigned by each company were higher (generous grading) or lower (conservative grading) compared to the average. He also calculated a scatter value which indicates whether each company was consistent in grading, or whether their grades would vary from generous to conservative. The results were quite interesting. As I recall PCGS was the most conservative but was pretty inconsistent. NGC was nearly as conservative but significantly more consistent. Accugrade was both inconsistent and generous. The surprise winner was SEGS which was almost as conservative as PCGS and beat both PCGS and NGC in terms of consistency. The author obviously spent a fair amount of money getting all these coins graded over and over. I don't know whether Coin World subsidized the project. I would love to see a similar project performed. Any volunteers?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
860 Posts |
Hi, Measuring grade is like using a rubber tape measure; the grading levels all seem to alter with commercial demand, mostly of which I think is towards more generous. This is why PCGS oldest "rattlers" are more conservative than PCGS "OGL" old green label ( non-rattlers) which are more conservative than current PCGS which admits grades to market standards. With ANACs being sold several times and now in commercial hands rather than a non-profit organization, similar situation in my opinion. I have some of the ANACs photocertificates which predates any slabs ( they gave separate grades on obv/rev, and some of the AUs rivals MS60 today.
Also consistancy can be an indication of the number of graders rather than a measurement of accuracy. If you only have a couple of graders, you should be more consistant than if you have 20-50 graders, even with a great reference collection to compare with. I like the big 4, PCGS,NGC,ICG,ANACs, as I feel they will be close in grading and will confirm that the coin is authentic.
But as had been said very often, Buy the coin, not the slab, where "slab" should refer to both the company and the grade. A person might feel they are not experienced enough to tell a MS64 from an MS63, or MS65, but if presented with 2 slabs, each marked MS64, they have a good chance of selecting which coin they want to buy.
Jim
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1283 Posts |
Great responses, both of you. And yes I am very surprised by the SEGS results. I've always stayed away from them, believing them to be a somewhere between boiler room and and reputable. One of my dealers showed me a SEGS Shield nickel which we all agreed was a nice AU. It was marked MS-63. I'm willing to give them another look. I see points on both sides of the hardliners, those who insist on buying raw and those who insist on certified. For coins less than $300 I'm happy to purchase raw (in person) from a dealer I know and trust. For buying on the internet and for high end coins I always "buy the coin AND the slab", as per my signature. They must be certified by one of the big four AND I must agree with the grade and be satisfied with the eye appeal. That severely limits my choices but in the end I at least get the warm fuzzy.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:One of my dealers showed me a SEGS Shield nickel which we all agreed was a nice AU. It was marked MS-63. And by selecting the coin to prove your point you can do the same thing with an ICG, ANACS, NGC or PCGS slab as well. The thing is did you look at SEVERAL pieces picked at random, from different submissions, and were they all well over graded? If not you may be looked at a skewed representation.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1283 Posts |
Condor, no he didn't. But he did tell me "that's typical" (from his experience) and I take him at his word. I'm not saying he's the holy grail or anything but he has been around a while. Different people have different perceptions, I guess.
Call me a follower, but I just don't get the same warm fuzzy with SEGS as I do with the big four. I'm half decent at grading coins, and if need be, I can always reference lots of photos on Heritage. But things like counterfeits or subtle cleaning, I suck at detecting.
|
| |
Replies: 5 / Views: 1,976 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

- 1938 Jefferson Nickel: Which DDO, Tdo, Qdo?
- 1917-Ba Uruguay Peso, NGC MS-64+, Grundy Collection
- Half Dollar Type Set
- Commems Collection: What If? Phantom 1963 New Rochelle, NY 275th Anniversary
- 1894 Death Of Carl August Gold Medal, PCGS SP-63
- This Coin Was In A Bag Of World Coins Hoping It Is Real
- 1997 P Roosevelt Dime DDO DDR ?
- India Mughal Empire Coins Dating Help.
- 1859 Indian Penny Semi Key Date?
- Latest Pick Up ID Help Please.
- 1999 Lincoln Cent Off Center
- John - Ilger On Lund Penny
- 1960 D Lincoln Memorial Cent - Clashed Dies - Adc-1c-1960-D(Sd)-17
- Got Any Big Notes? Like Big In Size Not As In Denomination
- 2015 "canada/Usa First Special Force" Gold Commemorative: Die Cracks And Cud, Progression Set?
- 1961 Lincoln Memorial Cent Mint Error - In-Collar Uniface Strike
- When Hunting Nickels, Which Common Dates Do You Keep?
- 1994 D Penny Is This Normal On Lincoln Near Jaw?
- 40th Birthday 1934 Peace Dollar Surprise
- 717-741 Ad Byzantine Leo III The Isaurian, With Constantine V, NGC Ch Au, Strike 5/5, Surface 2/5
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.25 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |