| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,817 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
Although I often defend the US TPGs and their grading, I also think transparency is good for the hobby.  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Your results also demonstrate something I've known for a while.
Canadian grading standards are different than US standards.
They're generally tougher.
Note that many of the ICCS grades are lower than the NGC grades.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
You have 8 that shows than NGC had details grades. But I'm not seeing that translate to similar details grades with ICCS, except for two that detailed as cleaned.
Am I missing something? Or did ICCS strait grade 6 of those 8?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1461 Posts |
1. This is mostly true on the EF/AU range. I'll compile a list of MS coins that one would have done much better with ICCS.
2. The grading standards may be tougher on grade in those ranges but very lax on problem coins that neither ICCS/NGC would ever numerically grade. This is especially true for MS coins.
3. ICCS is lousy grading soft strikes. Either by choice or otherwise. This is where I notice the biggest discrepancy in grading between ICCS and US TPGs. The 1935 nickel listed here is the best example of that.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Excellent points and essential for our understanding.
I'd love to see some of those coins, too.
It's interesting that you can narrow down the translations so exactly. That's great information to have for anyone thinking of translating as you have done.
I very much appreciate your work in the preparation of those comparisons.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3184 Posts |
OP, you sent these raw to NGC right?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
1. Any and all "details" on both are marked (eg; 1885 and 1876 as cleaned). Strait grade for the rest.
2. The coins were sent to NGC in ICCS holder but they are treated as raw.
3. All of these coins are viewable on me website.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9866 Posts |
Thanks for sharing TCH.
Thanks especially for being transparent.
The book value of the coins which ICCS had graded as circulated was increased by about $1550.
The 1885 notwithstanding because I see you still have it for sale in the ICCS holder.
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
The 1885 was initially sent to NGC then ICCS (Twice VF30/AU50). There are numerous reasons why I holder many coins in NGC (and sometimes PCGS) holders. The least of them is to bump up the value. Most Canadian collectors still want ICCS holders and based on the frequent rhetoric (at times valid but in many cases exaggerated) will automatically discount NGC holders. And that's ok. The Canadian market is suffering and my interest is to sell more into the US market which is where most of the disposable income is right now. PCGS/NGC holdered coins far outsell anything in ICCS holders going south. Not to mention the amount of junk coins seen in 3 letter ICCS holders (not to mention the likelihood of counterfeits based on my personal experience). I understand some opposition to grading companies but in this new day and age of online buying/selling grading offer a certain baseline. In the end the age old "buy the coin" theory always wins. There are some business realities when you own a coin shop. That's one of them. To add, in the end it's irrelevant who grades the coins. The consistency however matters a lot. Lastly, the book values are way out of whack with the market reality. Irrelevant of the holder.
Edited by TheCoinHunter
05/30/2018 12:17 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
288 Posts |
Just to confirm, did ICCS first call the 1885 VF30 and then AU50 cleaned?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
ICCS VF-30 Cleaned -> NGC "Body bagged" ICCS -> AU-50 Cleaned
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,817 |
|
Posted 05/27/2018 11:39 am
