Page 1 of 1

TPG Competency

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:27 am
by rjd65
This is my first message on this website even though I have been a member for some time. I thought I would delve into the topic of TPG, two of which NGC and PGCS are well known. In our world of financial engineering, data manipulation and blatant fraud and general lawlessness by both governments (public sector) and corporations (private sector) I think we all need to take pause and reflect on how asset prices and price discovery has been utterly deformed by Central Bank and Government Policy and the pressures that have been brought to bare to constantly push the envelope upwards on what an asset is worth in the hopes of making people `feel`richer. Numismatic items are obviously assets and their value is determined by a range of factors - condition being the primary one (relatively rarity aside). Over the next while I am going to post links to TPG coins that have been IMEO misgraded (IMO fraudulently misgraded). I have contacted these companies and question some of their grading assessments but unfortunately never get a reply. I wonder why :?: For now those new to the hobby should follow this hard rule; BUY THE COIN NOT THE HOLDER. The reason for this clear with the following example; ... EBIDX%3AIT
In this case, based on the bidding thus far, it seems the bidders are in fact buying the coin. Here is another example of a fraudulently graded coin; ... 7675.l2557
This coin has no business being in an MS holder. In fact true MS Victorian, Edwardian and George V 50 Cent coins are quite rare. Many contained in MS holders are in fact not so. I had the opportunity to view the contents of a time capsule hidden in 1888 and opened in the late 1980s (55 yrs earlier than planned). Amongst other things it contained an 1872H 50Cents, 1880H 5 Cents, 1881H 10 Cents and two 1887 Pennies. The 1872 was quite worn and I deemed it a Fine (after 15 yrs of circulation) but I could only see the reverse. Remember this coin would have seen heavy use as the only other 50 cent mintage year in the interim was 1881H. The 1880 coins were both VF and the pennies were MS (red - brown) - no surprise on those. My point is, it takes very little circulation to render a coin of this era an AU. 50 Cents was a good chunk of money back then (probably equivalent to at least $25 today) and therefore few were saved as bank issued MS for posterity. I would offer this assessment when it comes to NGC graded Canadian coins. Half of all AU or MS Canadian coins (especially the 50 Cent denomination) are overgraded by one full grading level. If they call it an AU it invariably is actually an EF (but could even be slightly lower). BTW, there is a huge difference between a VF and EF coin and another huge difference between EF and AU. It is not a linear progression based on the current construct of the accepted grading scale. That is why you see a tripling in price between each level (VF-EF-AU) and also why there is such pressure to inflate a coins condition beyond its true condition - which in fact is not subjective if you have the correct benchmarks to strictly adhere to (weak strikes aside for which those coins are known). NGC, PCGS, ICCS, CCCS, ANACS need to get back to basics and get some ethics.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:25 pm
by Shylo
So many topics you've touched upon ....

#1 ICCS grades a coin a whole lot different than PCGS, NGC or ANACS
#2 with ANY grade you're usually only getting an "opinion" (PCGS does guarantee their grade however within 10K dollars)

#3 over the years certain companies have changed their grade styles much of which has as much to do with market conditions as it does with experience and quality control. So you also have to become educated as to which grading companies were conservative during which eras and what their holders looked like at the time..

#4 Your main point... buy the coin and not the holder.. is absolutely on point!

Can TPG's be "influenced" to slide their grades ..... perhaps...

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:16 am
by rjd65
Thanks for your input Shylo. Your point #3 is the main problem with TPG now. They 'market' grade, which I strongly believe is just plain wrong and unethical. This was not the norm in the past which is why the era of the holder is important.

Here is another 'market' graded coin - and a very poor 'opinion' by PCGS; ... SwtJZXXDY0

IMO (but more fact) this coin just barely meets the standard of a VF30. I would be more comfortable calling it a VF25 (VF20 us the next level downwards for ICCS/CCCS but this may be assessing it too harshly)

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:39 am
by rjd65
As promised, some more examples of TPG overgraded coins. Enjoy. ... U7vHY7k_aA

Remark: coin is F12 (but no higher than Choice Fine F15) ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Very similar to previous 1871. Pics not the best but coins looks F15 (too much wear to be VF20). But NGC grader that assessed this one did a much better job than the previous one above. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Coin is VF20 (could be VF25) ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Coin is a dipped/cleaned EF40 ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: I have to be picky here - normally I don't get too choked up about a 1/2 point miss but with the higher end coins a 1/2 pt variance is significant. Coin has been dipped and has too much wear to be AU+ plus numerous scratches in field. This coin is EF45 - AU50. Sorry ICCS but you were a bit too liberal with this coin. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Coin is VG (could be VG10) ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Unsure why PCGS saw fit to give this an EF45. Looks more like a VF30 (perhaps VF35). I am sure some of you are saying to yourselves how can I grade a coin based on a picture. Interestingly a pic actually reveals flaws/wear much more apparently. In most cased, unless the picture is very poor, you can place the coin at the correct level (VG, F, VF, EF etc). In order to give it the '+' you would normally have to have it in hand.

Final one for today ... Sw1ZBUxP36

Remark: Really PCGS? Not enough detail on obverse crown/hair and much too much wear on reverse leaves to be EF+. Coin is VF30 (but no higher than VF35). Coin is priced as if truly an EF+ and therefore will not sell at current ask.

BTW I realize that what I am doing is probably not going to sit well with dealers who are attempting to maximize their profit and simply refuse to acknowledge there is a serious problem in the grading world. All I can say is; it is time to face reality stop being stubborn and get some ethics back into the hobby. Coins that are clearly misgraded (whether too high or too low - BTW in all my years of collecting I have only come across one coin that was graded too low and that was only by 1/2 point. Coin was EF45 not EF40. I find it very telling how a majority of the errors are to the high side. You would think that, if incompetency was the issue, there would be a significant number of coins graded too low as well) should be broken out of their holders and the bar code returned to the TPG to be removed from their system - I know, a cold day in hell before that happens.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:40 am
by Bill in Burl
I think that most are evidence of "grading creep" that has occurred over the last 10 years. The lesser-known TPG's are the worst, but ICCS got real bad with it and then got more toward the conservative end again. I actually agreed with almost half of those grades, based on "wear" only.... computer screens make silver coins with high-point rub appear to be wear and it's not. I've never been a fan of + grades.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:10 am
by rjd65
I alluded to this one (epic even for NGC) in my first thread above; ... SwzJ5XZCjO

Remark: Although coin seems to have nice luster, the wear is apparent. In this case the computer pic actually helps discern the true nature of the overall wear. Nothing is bold and crisp (as per MS) on this coin. The date and lettering is 'soft' and rounded. The edges are also rounded and dinged and the fields non MS like. Eight beads are apparent on the band making coin at least EF. IMEO coin is AU50 at most.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:18 am
by rjd65
A decently graded coin in a older PCGS holder. Coin definitely not AU but better than VF. ... SwAPlXhn6W

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:33 pm
by rjd65 ... SwTapV4Id9

Remark: Obv is better than Rev. Obv is VF, Rev is F+. Would not have an issue with an overall TPG of VF20. VF30 is out of the question.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:40 pm
by rjd65 ... SwAKxWU3mt

Remark: PCGS in an older holder. This coin is F12 (barely).

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:50 am
by rjd65
Lets start the week off with a couple PCGS graded 1904 CDN 50 Cents - a rather scarce issue. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Reverse is Fine. Obverse is close to VF but not quite there. Overall this coin is at least Fine but not good enough to be VF. Coin is F15. ... SwA4dWJVn5

Remark: A coin that is AU+ must, at first glance, appear to be MS with virtually no wear - taking into account tarnishing, a possible lack of MS luster and of course a weak strike - this is hard requirement for AU+. This coin has noticeable wear on every high point on both sides of the coin (moustache/beard/hair, crown, robe, leaves (especially)), lettering is not 'crisp' and edge is 'rounded' and has a few small dings. It is not AU even by any warped sense of grading factors. However coin certainly meets requirements for EF40. May have enough original luster to be EF45. At $4000 the seller will be waiting a very long time for a buyer.

Re: TPG Competency

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:40 am
by rjd65
For this week lets switch to the 10 cent denomination. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: This one is graded very reasonably. Without having it in hand I would be inclined to go EF40 by pics alone.

These next two leave a bit to be desired. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: This coin is no better than the 1872 above. In fact it could be slightly more worn, yet it received an AU grade. This coin was well struck at production time. Far too many significant high points of wear overall to be AU. Coin is EF40 at most. ... EBIDX%3AIT

Remark: Not a F12. Coin is VG8.