| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 3,174 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1613 Posts |
I have a coin which I intend on having graded to confirm an FS designation. Although 90% of my large and growing collection is of the circulated condition, I have bought several slabbed coins due to rarity and/or the high rate of known counterfeits. The 1889 DDR Seated Liberty dime in question will be my first submission. Weighing whether or not to become a member of the top two firms or pay a local dealer to submit it for me. Opting for the former I began researching each of them individually. The results were somewhat surprising, at least from what I read. PCGS and NGC are the top two graders. Both require a membership for submission. Both will encapsulate and provide a details grade of coins which were cleaned (within reason). Which by the way, mine may have been. I am not 100% certain otherwise. Aside from the above being known beforehand, the shocking part was that an independent article claims that both under-grade the higher end specimens in order to artificially rate rarity within such grades. This in turn controls prices based solely on availability within the top tier grades. PCGS owns the auction house Great Collections. The ANA owns NGC. So I have to wonder. Is it all about profit or about a true grade? Consider the comparison numbers in say, MS67, with the two. PCGS may have 25 while NGC has 47. Coincidence? More people preferring one over the other? Yet I am not really beating them up here. Every one of my graded coins are in PCGS holders. The grades are well within my own consensus. ANACS, the oldest grading firm, seems to be more consistent within their grading. I'd rate them right up there with the top two personally, lacking only in the type of holders they use. However, there is no membership fee. $19 to grade it on a fifteen day return and another $9 for the variety search. So this is the company I chose. Finally, the grading firm which truly shocked me, IGC. They will not grade a coin which has been cleaned, altered or damaged. Their graders and employees are not permitted to buy or sell coins, period. If caught they are immediately terminated. I find this a very good thing in the world of grading because it truly eliminates bias when assigning a grade. It either is an MS67 or it is not. And to my knowledge there is no "plus" grading to inflate said grades price. The one thing about PCGS and NGC which irritates me. Granted it means within the grade, but again, that tick or flaw in luster makes it a lower grade. ANA member - PAN Member - BCCS Member There are no problems only solutions - the late, great John Lennon
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
Quote:
PCGS owns the auction house Great Collections. Can you provide a source for this? PCGS is owned by Collector's Universe; GC's site claims they're owned by Ian Russell. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7939 Posts |
Quote:
So I have to wonder. Is it all about profit or about a true grade? They are businesses. It should be about profit. If their assessment of how to increase profit is to either inflate or deflate grades, this would be a powerful incentive. But doesn't their product inherently prevent this, as there are extant graded coins from 25 years ago? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1316 Posts |
Source for this too, please. NGC has long been the official grader of the ANA. NGC is under a private parent entity called Certified Collectibles Group along with PMG, and there likely are some close relationships in the ownership of CCG and the board of the ANA due to numismatics at that level being somewhat few and consequently tight nit, but that's not owning them. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
What ever source you were reading just immediately forget everything you read from them and don't bother to look at anything they write. There is SO much misinformation and flat out inaccuracies in what you read unfortunately. I will do some line by line corrections but wanted to get a quick post in because it will take a bit to correct all the bad information you read
Edited by basebal21
12/25/2018 5:15 pm
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24154 Posts |
Ian Russell owns GC, I've met him.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
the shocking part was that an independent article claims that both under-grade the higher end specimens in order to artificially rate rarity within such grades. This is generally a claim by people that are upset their coins didn't grade well enough. Neither artificially protect the populations, the problem is just that most people cannot grade and most have never seen a truly top pop and how stunning it has to be. Without starting a huge thread on how things are graded the bottom line is neither artificially manipulates grades. Quote:
PCGS owns the auction house Great Collections. PCGS does NOT own GC. GC ADVERTISES through PCGS but that's it. PCGS is a publicly traded company and as such is required to release financials which would include disclosing ownership of GC. Their stock would be through the roof if they owned an auction house. The ANA does NOT own NGC. NGC is privately owned. NGC pays the ANA to call themselves the official grader of the ANA, just like someone saying they're the official beer of MLB. It's just a marketing decision they made and deemed to be worth the cost Quote:
ANACS, the oldest grading firm, seems to be more consistent within their grading. I'd rate them right up there with the top two personally, Oldest in name only. They basically swapped with ICG a few years ago and have had several complete changes of ownership where it was basically a brand new company on more than one occasion. I rate them 4th out of the 4 major grading companies. Quote:
Finally, the grading firm which truly shocked me, IGC. They will not grade a coin which has been cleaned, altered or damaged This is incorrect, they will details grade coins just like they all will. Quote:
And to my knowledge there is no "plus" grading to inflate said grades price. ICG uses "plus" grading just like everyone else. Edited by basebal21
12/25/2018 5:16 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7939 Posts |
 Good post. In case it sheds further light, my research results on corporate hierarchy and relationships .. I cannot comment on the reputation of grading services. Grateful for anyone else who picks up on something that's been missed. Most importantly - no disagreement with basebal21's conclusions on ownership. 1.On ANA and NGC: a. ANA is a non-profit. https://www.money.org/about-ana . From a coprporate governance viewpoint, it's hard to own a for-profit like NGC when you are a non-profit. b. NGC is a privately owned for-profit company (as basebal21 pointed out) and appears to be part of a holding company called CCG https://www.collectiblesgroup.com/about-us/I find no relationship betweem CCG and any other TPG2. On PCGS and Great Collections a. PCGS is owned by the publicly traded company Collectors Universe which also owns the premier sports memorabilia grading company PSA http://investors.(150827) Not Allowed - Auto Removed/ I confirm basebal21 on there being no evidence that PCGS owns Great Collections. b. Great Collections is a privately owned company, with no apparent relationship to either ANA,NGC or PCGS. 3. ANACS a. While ANACS started as a branch of ANA, it has not had an affiliation with ANA since 1990, and is currently owned by Driving Force LLC, Englewood, CO.. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
In case it sheds further light, my research results on corporate hierarchy and relationships Unless something has changed the relationship that is there is that the owners of Heritage own a significant non voting portion of NGC. There's a reason why they pair together like they do. Salzberg owns the controlling interest I believe, could be wrong but I have seen that reported before and would make sense. Scott Tavaras book I think was the first to report it, or where a lot of people quote it anyway. Anyway I would like to know the source of the significant misinformation that the OP unfortunately was exposed to so that people know not to pay any attention to anything they write Edited by basebal21
12/25/2018 11:01 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7939 Posts |
Quote:
Unless something has changed the relationship that is there is that the owners of Heritage own a significant non voting portion of NGC. As best I can tell, NGC is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCG. I can't find anything on the ownership of CCG, which is a Florida registered LLC, and not a publicly traded company. So I'm not sure how "non-voting" would pertain (maybe "arm's length" is a better term, if I understand your meaning?) The only name on the Certified Collectible Group LLC annual filings is Mark Salzberg's, but that doesn't mean anything, since LLCs are notorious for being black holes in terms of information like this. They (CCG) do go out of their way on their website to talk about independence and transparency: These services share a common approach that is rooted in complete independence and objectivity. CCG companies do not buy or sell collectibles, and their full-time graders are prohibited from commercial trading to prevent conflicts of interest. But privately held companies do not always have the same accountability mechanisms that publicly traded companies tend to have. You could say whatever you want on your website, then behave in a way that is not completely consistent with those statements. With no board and no shareholders to hold your feet to the fire ... So, maybe that's common knowledge in the numismatics industry about principals at Heritage having an ownership stake in CCG, but I can't track it down through web searching (granted, my skills are not the best). Good discussion. Edited by tdziemia
12/26/2018 09:15 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
All of the above information is OK I guess if you are a slab collector. When ever and if ever I purchase a slabbed coin, I break it out and put the coin in an Album. So regardless of who owns what, for me it makes no difference since the slabs all end up in the garbage.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7939 Posts |
I'm more or less in the same boat. I've never bought a slabbed coin on purpose. I only own 3 because I wanted the coin and it happened to be slabbed.
What I find interesting about the discussion is that I think these companies depend strongly on collectors' perception of their integrity. If you believe one company is not as "independent" or honest as another, that might skew your choice. And as we see here, collectors talk to each other.
Of course, maybe our business is peanuts, and they don't really depend on the type of collectors who show up here. Maybe all they really need to be successful is good salesman who can steer the large collections their way.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1613 Posts |
Thanks for correcting me on a few things. Although ownership was inaccurate, they are none the less interlinked. The point I was trying to get across was this. The 1948 Franklin half dollar being a great example. Of a total 1,438 submissions, PCGS has graded 13 in MS66 , with none higher. NGC graded 41 in MS66 with one being the highest in 67, out of 1,327 submitted. Very similar submission numbers, more than triple within the grade. Why? Does one company have better graders than the other? This is what was meant in the original post. So, no I do not believe everything I read. The sheer difference in graded populations leads me to wonder if there is not at least some truth there. Again, thanks so much for the replies and critique. ANA member - PAN Member - BCCS Member There are no problems only solutions - the late, great John Lennon
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks for correcting me on a few things. Although ownership was inaccurate, they are none the less interlinked. They aren't interlinked though at all that was the point. NGC pays the ANA for a meaningless endorsement that anyone could have purchased if they were the high bidder that's it. Steve Ivy and Jim Halperin own about a quarter of NGC with non voting shares according to Scott Travers book https://www.amazon.com/Collectors-S...p/0375723390 but Slazberg owns a controlling share of the voting shares so he is the big boss where what he says goes and no one can do anything about it. They didn't ever have to disclose their ownership being a private company but they did as they have nothing to hide. In that sense there is a financial link, but not with the ANA. PCGS and Great Collections have very little interest in each other. GC sells PCGS, they sell other companies too. PCGS coins get sold at GC, they get sold a lot of other places too. Of course the success of one can help the other which is true in countless industries, but neither needs the other. Any collector selling a PCGS coin on ebay is just as "interlinked" to them as GC is. I probably am being nit picky here but there is SOOOOOOO much bad information about the TPGs out there such as the articles you read that we have to be picky so someone doesn't just read a sentence or two and think there's some conspiracy. Interlinked wasn't the right word. GC is an advertiser of PCGS, NGC is an advertiser of the ANA. Quote:he point I was trying to get across was this. The 1948 Franklin half dollar being a great example. Of a total 1,438 submissions, PCGS has graded 13 in MS66 , with none higher. NGC graded 41 in MS66 with one being the highest in 67, out of 1,327 submitted. Very similar submission numbers, more than triple within the grade. Why? Does one company have better graders than the other? PCGS is tighter in the higher grades. They won't just technically grade a coin in the top pop without the eye appeal being there. The EAC grading book even mentioned that if you don't want to believe me, but this is a completely different discussion about how they grade and why ect. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Very similar submission numbers, more than triple within the grade. Why? Does one company have better graders than the other? They grade to different standards. There is no one official set of standards they everyone is mandated to use when grading. And standards tend to change somewhat over time. Often being a little looser during up markets and a little tighter during down markets. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7939 Posts |
As discussed on this other thread http://goccf.com/t/335557&whichpage=3we need to be careful in making generalizations when comparing the two big TPGs. I took the point raised by the OP about which grader is "easier" in the sense of giving a higher percentage of the top grades, and applied it to the same 6 coins that were looked at on the other thread. In most cases, PCGS awarded a higher proportion of top grades: 1877 IHC:NGC MS66 - 0.2% of submissions PCGS MS66 - 0.14% NGC has awarded a higher proportion of top grades1909S VDB Lincoln:NGC MS66 - 1.1% of submissions PCGS MS66 - 1.8% NGC MS67 and up - 2 coins PCGS MS67 and up - 17 coins PCGS has awarded a higher proportion of top grades1889 MorganNGC MS66 - 0.4% of submissions PCGS MS66 - 1.1% NGC MS67 and up - 3 coins PCGS MS67 and up - 7 coins PCGS has awarded a higher proportion of top grades1891CC MorganNGC MS66 - 0.09% of submissions PCGS MS66 - 0.23% of submissions NGC MS67 and up - 1 coin PCGS MS67 and up - 1 coin PCGS has awarded a higher proportion of top grades1904S MorganNGC MS66 - 0.26% of submissions PCGS MS66 - 0.41% of submissions NGC MS67 and up - 1 coin PCGS MS67 and up - 2 coins PCGS has awarded a higher proportion of top grades1924 $20 GoldNGC MS67 - 0.060% of submissions PCGS MS67 - 0.061% of submissions NGC MS68 - 3 coins PCGS MS68 - 1 coins Equivalent proportions of top gradesEdited by tdziemia
12/29/2018 10:16 pm
|
| |
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,174 |
Posted 12/25/2018 1:35 pm
