Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coinoisseur

1893 Half Pond - MS63

Recommended Posts

coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

Hello Everyone

 

Just to let everyone know that the NGC POP report is not 100% correct. This 1893 Half Pond MS63, is captured as a 1893 1 Pond MS63 on the POP report. The next best 1893 Half Pond is only a AU50. I intend to have this rectified, but under no circumstances will the coin be posted to them to have this fixed. If they do not accept the photos I send them, then the POP report can remain as it is.... INCORRECT

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

NGC - poor denomination descriptions

 

Thanks Anthony -

 

As a matter of interest - I was searching for the 1893 One Pound on NGC's Population report and just realized how extremely confusing their (NGC's) denomination descriptions (abbreviations) for South African coins are. Especially for those that do not visit their site on a regular basis.

 

Take for instance a Kruger Pond as an example. A Pond is also called a Pound and a Sovereign - Afrikaans speaking people like me wrongly accept that English speaking people will use the denomination "Pound" or "Sovereign" when referring to a Kruger Pond.

 

So when I searched the NGC population report for a Kruger Sovereign/Pound/Pond or whatever it is called by whoever, I find the following alternatives/choices/possibilities to click on:-

 

1KR

1OP

1S

Pound

1Sov

Pond

 

etc. etc.

 

Now only one of the above is the correct abbreviation for ZAR Kruger Ponde (Ponds?) and I think I only struck it lucky after the third or fourth attempt (click)

 

Maybe NGC must ask for some help from the SA Numismatic society(s) for help to make our SA coin denomination abbreviations on their site VERY EASY to understand without ANY possible CONFUSION.

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZARGold    10
ZARGold

What an ABSOLUTE GEM of a coin Anthony !

I agree,you must keep this one safe,very safe !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50    10
geejay50

This coin belongs to someone else. Anthony is just highlighting an issue.

 

Geejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

The post is NOT about who owns the coin but rather that NGC suck at their administration, and their inconsistance grading, and they are not preprared to rectify any problems as them deem what they do is the gospel. The issue here is that NGC stats cannot be taken for granted. The owner of the coin is a very private person and this is the way he wants it.

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Hi Anthony, George

 

This is a VERY serious issue when you consider the impact a "graded" coin has on its "investment" value, especially when it is extremely rare

 

As a numismatist it has always been the history behind a coin and the enjoyment of reflecting on it that has been my driving force not a slabbed piece all dressed up like a Tony Barlow doll with nowhere to go...

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither    10
jwither

There are many coins that are not included in the NGC census, not just those from South Africa. And its also unreasonable to expect that there would be no errors.

 

I do agree though, that they could just use the same serial number and move the coin in the population report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×