@Zoins asked: "Quick question for the crowd. Is describing a coin only as "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC" meaningful? It might be meaningful to a dealer, but to me, describing it with the pedigree, e.g. the Dr. Robert J. Loewinger plate coin (along with the other info) seems more meaningful than only a grade.
Who? Just showing my ignorance as I never heard of him. This works just fine for me: "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC."
@Insider2 said: @Zoins asked: "Quick question for the crowd. Is describing a coin only as "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC" meaningful? It might be meaningful to a dealer, but to me, describing it with the pedigree, e.g. the Dr. Robert J. Loewinger plate coin (along with the other info) seems more meaningful than only a grade.
Who? Just showing my ignorance as I never heard of him. This works just fine for me: "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC."
The other example was the "5C 1913 PCGS PR66 CAC" used to describe the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty nickel. I know what the Eliasberg specimen and other specimens are. I wonder if all 5 need to be addressed by their grade and sticker now?
@specialist said:
Lowenger had early gold-early PR gold. But many of his coins were NOT impressive and many had been ugh doctored. His coins probably were never talked about for that reason. I recall him as a cheap buyer too
If your building something high quality and really special, the world knows you are out there (maybe not by name).
🤔 I can see someone wanting to disassociate the coin with its pedigree if the pedigree indicates unimpressive, doctored coins. That being said, it’s good info to know as well.
I do not recall the 1887 $10 being in Lowengers set. Maybe the same auction.
Names really are meaningless unless they are back up by some thing impressive. Eliasberg was 2 coins shy of completing his set, Gen Gardner had quality and completeness, Norweb had pure quality, even PPittman how remarkable quality PR sets and other coins. Remember Kustais's $10+$20 gold? Most of it was garbage and redone. You don't hear his name with any prominence.
I thought Laura was referring to the Loewinger coin because this is the only PCGS PR66 at the moment, but what may have happened is that she bought a coin for Simpson that was subsequently upgraded to PR66+. My searches haven't been able to find a PR66 other than the Loewinger coin.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I think there are still lots of possibilities to build condition census type collections. One nice thing about collecting by series is that your collection is looked at as a whole---not just individual coins. Therefore, you can have a collection without any top pops but as whole it may be the a top 3 pop. I think there are lots of opportunities out there for collectors who use some imagination and time to put together collections that are the best or near the best.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I’m not at all concerned about that. Many collectors participate in the set registry, knowing full well that they won’t have a top rated set. And many others don’t participate or care about the registry.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I’m not at all concerned about that. Many collectors participate in the set registry, knowing full well that they won’t have a top rated set. And many others don’t participate or care about the registry.
And to extend this thought, as younger collectors grow up and have more means to purchase nice coins, top sets may be sold off or passed down. Just because one “can’t have” the top set today doesn’t mean they can’t have the top set 5, 10 or 20 years down the road.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I think there are still lots of possibilities to build condition census type collections. One nice thing about collecting by series is that your collection is looked at as a whole---not just individual coins. Therefore, you can have a collection without any top pops but as whole it may be the a top 3 pop. I think there are lots of opportunities out there for collectors who use some imagination and time to put together collections that are the best or near the best.
A key part of Laura’s post is that there are not a lot of opportunities, so perhaps more information is needed on whether there are or are not opportunities.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I’m not at all concerned about that. Many collectors participate in the set registry, knowing full well that they won’t have a top rated set. And many others don’t participate or care about the registry.
The jist of Laura’s article is that she’s trying to get people away from the idea of building a top set. So, in a sense, the next tier of collectors will need to start thinking like everyone else. She’s indicated that this has prevented people from picking up collecting, so I hope she’s successful.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I agree. It’s tough to get real motivated to build the 6th or so best set. I think that is part of why microvarieties have grown in popularity.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I agree. It’s tough to get real motivated to build the 6th or so best set. I think that is part of why microvarieties have grown in popularity.
Laura is advocating building lesser ranked sets now and I wish her the best. Agree going to varieties can help. Other approaches include going International or with Box of 20 approach. With varieties and International, you can still compete in the Set Registry.
@savitale said:
I agree. It’s tough to get real motivated to build the 6th or so best set. I think that is part of why microvarieties have grown in popularity.
This sentiment confuses me. I'll never be the number one runner in the world, yet I still run to have fun and try to improve. Being literally the best at a particular endeavor is an impossibly high bar.
Isn't the point of most hobbies to have fun? It would seem enjoying yourself and putting in your best realistic effort in building a collection would be the goal. If everything in a life is a measuring contest, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.
@savitale said:
I agree. It’s tough to get real motivated to build the 6th or so best set. I think that is part of why microvarieties have grown in popularity.
This sentiment confuses me. I'll never be the number one runner in the world, yet I still run to have fun and try to improve. Being literally the best at a particular endeavor is an impossibly high bar.
Isn't the point of most hobbies to have fun? It would seem enjoying yourself and putting in your best realistic effort in building a collection would be the goal. If everything in a life is a measuring contest, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Many of Laura’s customers could have built top ranked sets in the past, and part of her role as a dealer was to help clients build top ranked sets. Not everyone can build top ranked sets, but part of Legend’s business was to do just that.
No, Legend builds sets that are NOT in the top tier.
Legend LOVES coins and HATES people who take advantage of others. I am one of the dealers who actually knows what I am doing. I just do not want to see the public get ripped off.
I have seen too many top tier sets that are just plastic. I know down the ladder regular folk can't afford a bad hit-nor do they deserve one. Just the top sets are also proof of my abilities-you'll never hear about the others.
@specialist said:
No, Legend builds sets that are NOT in the top tier.
Sure you do that, but you also post about how many #1 sets you’ve helped build and how nobody has helped build more if I recall correctly.
Legend LOVES coins and HATES people who take advantage of others. I am one of the dealers who actually knows what I am doing. I just do not want to see the public get ripped off.
I have seen too many top tier sets that are just plastic. I know down the ladder regular folk can't afford a bad hit-nor do they deserve one. Just the top sets are also proof of my abilities-you'll never hear about the others.
I agree you won’t let being #1 stand in the way of quality coins, but the love of #1 ranked sets (with quality coins) comes across in your Hot Topics and forum posts, most recently in how you describe Gerry Forsythe’s collection.
@specialist said:
Maybe because Tyrant has no ego and quietly assembled his collection. I know the person, he is very nice and is still mad at me for beating him on the $10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC a few years ago!
His foreign coins are supposed to be beyond incredible.
His foreign are great and he has many incredible ancients as well, but I've outbid him on pieces he should have bought. And, a handful of duplicates that I've sold have found their way into his collection which raised my eyebrows a bit.
There isn't a parallel to Laura/Legends' curatorial advisory approach in non-US which could be why the top end there is a bit more of a minefield at times.
Learn about our world's shared history told through the first millennium of coinage: Colosseo Collection
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I disagree. Sure, the big collectors have some influence, but it’s nowhere near the amount of influence that professional numismatists have. For example, how many of us would have heard of Simpson if Legend wasn’t out there talking about him?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I disagree. Sure, the big collectors have some influence, but it’s nowhere near the amount of influence that professional numismatists have. For example, how many of us would have heard of Simpson if Legend wasn’t out there talking about him?
I also disagree but I think the reason for shifting "from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years" wasn't caused by big time collectors or by most professional numismatists, but by the Internet and digital photography. The Internet showed that rare coins were common and what truly rare coins are. Digital photography allowed us to share and enjoy the beauty of coins, turning them into individual works of art. For me, the people that took advantage of the Internet and digital photography the most with respect to coins was PCGS TrueView and Anaconda / Brandon @poorguy . I also recall lots of people also used @blu62vette early on for their photos. Visiting the Anaconda website was like visiting no other in its day. The below is Brandon's original photo's of Ron Sirna's Morgan, "the Sirna Moose" from when he was at Anaconda with the logo from his latest company, Best of Yesterday Collectibles. This is now in the Sunnywood-Simpson collection, but I still remember when Ron was posting this coin himself.
Regarding Pogue, my understanding is that many of his coins didn't have online photos until they were sold and you could only see them by visiting him in person, in which case, I imagine the impact to broader collecting trends would be limited.
Another reason numeric grades have lessened in importance is that pure investors are less prevalent these days. The remaining pool of buyers are therefore mostly collectors. And compared to investors, collectors tend to rely less heavily on third-party grades, and they have a greater appreciation for eye appeal.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I think there are still lots of possibilities to build condition census type collections. One nice thing about collecting by series is that your collection is looked at as a whole---not just individual coins. Therefore, you can have a collection without any top pops but as whole it may be the a top 3 pop. I think there are lots of opportunities out there for collectors who use some imagination and time to put together collections that are the best or near the best.
A key part of Laura’s post is that there are not a lot of opportunities, so perhaps more information is needed on whether there are or are not opportunities.
I think it is possible to put together a world class collection. Here are some random thoughts and this is not for everyone. My main point is I think world class sets can still be built. First, I think someone should focus on what is out of favor or less popular. Those coins have less competition and usually trade for less money. Further, be open to opportunities. You may not be interested in a series but if a collection is auctioned off with world class coins available, consider collecting those coins. Also, time is on your side. Maybe one can't in the next year complete a world class collection but over the next ten years things change. Pick up what you can, when you can and at the end of ten years you will be surprised at what you have built.
Building a top set isn't easy but it shouldn't be! I do still think it is possible.
For our own auctions (Legend Rare Coin Auctions) we charge our regular customers ZERO for representation! Other auctions we charge our standard rate, !
What is the definition of Legend's regular cutomer?
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
I would also add that if people only collected by type instead of date/mint mark, there would be more than enough nice coins to go around in most series.
...finally, the grand idea of socialism makes its way into numismatics...Thanks professor
@MrEureka said:
Another reason numeric grades have lessened in importance is that pure investors are less prevalent these days. The remaining pool of buyers are therefore mostly collectors. And compared to investors, collectors tend to rely less heavily on third-party grades, and they have a greater appreciation for eye appeal.
Define "collector." Many so called "collectors" I have encountered are nothing more than opportunistic flippers who may have a passing curiosity in numismatics. These individuals are just as likely as the investor type to rely on the label IMHO. The collectors that are regular posters on this forum are atypical of the larger collecting community in that they tend to be (1) more serious and (2) more knowledgeable and/or at least know enough to know how to find the desired answers.
@specialist said:
Legend LOVES coins and HATES people who take advantage of others. I am one of the dealers who actually knows what I am doing. I just do not want to see the public get ripped off.
Then respectfully, why did you lobby so hard to purge the duplicate submissions in the Coin Facts image archive? The images were educational about the grading process and the stability of grading. Many non-duplicate images were also destroyed. It seems to me that the transparency and knowledge offered by those now obscured images would help prevent the public from being ripped off. I'm glad that PCGS found a partial solution/workaround, but there are still many images that I wish would be brought back.
@jmski52 said:
Why do I care what the top 3 money-spenders buy, or don't buy? Someone's gotta do it.
I would also add that if people only collected by type instead of date/mint mark, there would be more than enough nice coins to go around in most series.
...finally, the grand idea of socialism makes its way into numismatics...Thanks professor
LOL. It's not about socialism. It's the idea that the entire price structure of the coin market is fragile. It is driven by faux rarity and ego. S-VDB cents and 16-D dimes are NOT rare. Condition census rarities are faux rarities driven by the need to "win" the registry game.
If due to choice, not government mandate, type collecting became the focus of most collectors, the prices for condition census rarities and "key dates" would collapse.
@specialist said:
Legend LOVES coins and HATES people who take advantage of others. I am one of the dealers who actually knows what I am doing. I just do not want to see the public get ripped off.
Then respectfully, why did you lobby so hard to purge the duplicate submissions in the Coin Facts image archive? The images were educational about the grading process and the stability of grading. Many non-duplicate images were also destroyed. It seems to me that the transparency and knowledge offered by those now obscured images would help prevent the public from being ripped off. I'm glad that PCGS found a partial solution/workaround, but there are still many images that I wish would be brought back.
Comments
@Zoins asked: "Quick question for the crowd. Is describing a coin only as "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC" meaningful? It might be meaningful to a dealer, but to me, describing it with the pedigree, e.g. the Dr. Robert J. Loewinger plate coin (along with the other info) seems more meaningful than only a grade.
Who? Just showing my ignorance as I never heard of him. This works just fine for me: "$10 1887 PCGS PR66 CAC."
The other example was the "5C 1913 PCGS PR66 CAC" used to describe the Eliasberg 1913 Liberty nickel. I know what the Eliasberg specimen and other specimens are. I wonder if all 5 need to be addressed by their grade and sticker now?
🤔 I can see someone wanting to disassociate the coin with its pedigree if the pedigree indicates unimpressive, doctored coins. That being said, it’s good info to know as well.
I've heard of Eliasberg before. That name alone probably added a "push" to the grade of some coins he owned.
I do not recall the 1887 $10 being in Lowengers set. Maybe the same auction.
Names really are meaningless unless they are back up by some thing impressive. Eliasberg was 2 coins shy of completing his set, Gen Gardner had quality and completeness, Norweb had pure quality, even PPittman how remarkable quality PR sets and other coins. Remember Kustais's $10+$20 gold? Most of it was garbage and redone. You don't hear his name with any prominence.
The funny thing is that further searching shows that this coin doesn't exist at the moment
PCGS only has 2 coins in 66/66+ and neither verify at CAC right now:
I thought Laura was referring to the Loewinger coin because this is the only PCGS PR66 at the moment, but what may have happened is that she bought a coin for Simpson that was subsequently upgraded to PR66+. My searches haven't been able to find a PR66 other than the Loewinger coin.
You should care because, like it or not, the biggest buyers set the tone and influence the market. Why has the market preference strongly shifted from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years? Because people like Pogue (& others) would not compromise on eye appeal and were more than willing to skip the rarest coins if they didn't measure up.
I'm more concerned about people 4-100. Laura's post indicates that people may not start collecting if they cannot build a #1/2/3 registry set and it is getting hard to impossible to do.
I think there are still lots of possibilities to build condition census type collections. One nice thing about collecting by series is that your collection is looked at as a whole---not just individual coins. Therefore, you can have a collection without any top pops but as whole it may be the a top 3 pop. I think there are lots of opportunities out there for collectors who use some imagination and time to put together collections that are the best or near the best.
I’m not at all concerned about that. Many collectors participate in the set registry, knowing full well that they won’t have a top rated set. And many others don’t participate or care about the registry.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And to extend this thought, as younger collectors grow up and have more means to purchase nice coins, top sets may be sold off or passed down. Just because one “can’t have” the top set today doesn’t mean they can’t have the top set 5, 10 or 20 years down the road.
A key part of Laura’s post is that there are not a lot of opportunities, so perhaps more information is needed on whether there are or are not opportunities.
The jist of Laura’s article is that she’s trying to get people away from the idea of building a top set. So, in a sense, the next tier of collectors will need to start thinking like everyone else. She’s indicated that this has prevented people from picking up collecting, so I hope she’s successful.
My read of Laura's acquired wisdom is that quality best preserves value.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Pretty meaningless thought but how people talk about coins here reminds me of trading options.
For Example, an April 16th, 2015 $30.00 Call Option on Yahoo would be listed as "YHOO150416C00030000".
"$101887PCGSPR66CAC"
Kind of humorous in a way that it has come to this.
Ugh Doctored?
One day, the "dew" will be off the rose....
I agree. It’s tough to get real motivated to build the 6th or so best set. I think that is part of why microvarieties have grown in popularity.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Laura is advocating building lesser ranked sets now and I wish her the best. Agree going to varieties can help. Other approaches include going International or with Box of 20 approach. With varieties and International, you can still compete in the Set Registry.
This sentiment confuses me. I'll never be the number one runner in the world, yet I still run to have fun and try to improve. Being literally the best at a particular endeavor is an impossibly high bar.
Isn't the point of most hobbies to have fun? It would seem enjoying yourself and putting in your best realistic effort in building a collection would be the goal. If everything in a life is a measuring contest, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Many of Laura’s customers could have built top ranked sets in the past, and part of her role as a dealer was to help clients build top ranked sets. Not everyone can build top ranked sets, but part of Legend’s business was to do just that.
No, Legend builds sets that are NOT in the top tier.
Legend LOVES coins and HATES people who take advantage of others. I am one of the dealers who actually knows what I am doing. I just do not want to see the public get ripped off.
I have seen too many top tier sets that are just plastic. I know down the ladder regular folk can't afford a bad hit-nor do they deserve one. Just the top sets are also proof of my abilities-you'll never hear about the others.
Sure you do that, but you also post about how many #1 sets you’ve helped build and how nobody has helped build more if I recall correctly.
I agree you won’t let being #1 stand in the way of quality coins, but the love of #1 ranked sets (with quality coins) comes across in your Hot Topics and forum posts, most recently in how you describe Gerry Forsythe’s collection.
His foreign are great and he has many incredible ancients as well, but I've outbid him on pieces he should have bought. And, a handful of duplicates that I've sold have found their way into his collection which raised my eyebrows a bit.
There isn't a parallel to Laura/Legends' curatorial advisory approach in non-US which could be why the top end there is a bit more of a minefield at times.
I disagree. Sure, the big collectors have some influence, but it’s nowhere near the amount of influence that professional numismatists have. For example, how many of us would have heard of Simpson if Legend wasn’t out there talking about him?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I also disagree but I think the reason for shifting "from rarity & numerical grade toward eye appeal in the last 20 years" wasn't caused by big time collectors or by most professional numismatists, but by the Internet and digital photography. The Internet showed that rare coins were common and what truly rare coins are. Digital photography allowed us to share and enjoy the beauty of coins, turning them into individual works of art. For me, the people that took advantage of the Internet and digital photography the most with respect to coins was PCGS TrueView and Anaconda / Brandon @poorguy . I also recall lots of people also used @blu62vette early on for their photos. Visiting the Anaconda website was like visiting no other in its day. The below is Brandon's original photo's of Ron Sirna's Morgan, "the Sirna Moose" from when he was at Anaconda with the logo from his latest company, Best of Yesterday Collectibles. This is now in the Sunnywood-Simpson collection, but I still remember when Ron was posting this coin himself.
Regarding Pogue, my understanding is that many of his coins didn't have online photos until they were sold and you could only see them by visiting him in person, in which case, I imagine the impact to broader collecting trends would be limited.
Another reason numeric grades have lessened in importance is that pure investors are less prevalent these days. The remaining pool of buyers are therefore mostly collectors. And compared to investors, collectors tend to rely less heavily on third-party grades, and they have a greater appreciation for eye appeal.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think it is possible to put together a world class collection. Here are some random thoughts and this is not for everyone. My main point is I think world class sets can still be built. First, I think someone should focus on what is out of favor or less popular. Those coins have less competition and usually trade for less money. Further, be open to opportunities. You may not be interested in a series but if a collection is auctioned off with world class coins available, consider collecting those coins. Also, time is on your side. Maybe one can't in the next year complete a world class collection but over the next ten years things change. Pick up what you can, when you can and at the end of ten years you will be surprised at what you have built.
Building a top set isn't easy but it shouldn't be! I do still think it is possible.
Think of all the collection building choices Gates would have considering what he could buy.
For our own auctions (Legend Rare Coin Auctions) we charge our regular customers ZERO for representation! Other auctions we charge our standard rate, !
What is the definition of Legend's regular cutomer?
...finally, the grand idea of socialism makes its way into numismatics...Thanks professor
Define "collector." Many so called "collectors" I have encountered are nothing more than opportunistic flippers who may have a passing curiosity in numismatics. These individuals are just as likely as the investor type to rely on the label IMHO. The collectors that are regular posters on this forum are atypical of the larger collecting community in that they tend to be (1) more serious and (2) more knowledgeable and/or at least know enough to know how to find the desired answers.
Then respectfully, why did you lobby so hard to purge the duplicate submissions in the Coin Facts image archive? The images were educational about the grading process and the stability of grading. Many non-duplicate images were also destroyed. It seems to me that the transparency and knowledge offered by those now obscured images would help prevent the public from being ripped off. I'm glad that PCGS found a partial solution/workaround, but there are still many images that I wish would be brought back.
LOL. It's not about socialism. It's the idea that the entire price structure of the coin market is fragile. It is driven by faux rarity and ego. S-VDB cents and 16-D dimes are NOT rare. Condition census rarities are faux rarities driven by the need to "win" the registry game.
If due to choice, not government mandate, type collecting became the focus of most collectors, the prices for condition census rarities and "key dates" would collapse.
Agree this is strange and hard to put together.