Superior posts another set??????

DMWJR · June 23, 2002 5:04AM

A new set has emerged out of the blue in the Matte Proof Lincoln collections. This one immediately finding its way to the number 2 slot. It is called the "SDC Collection" and the e-mail address is Steve Deeds of Superior Galleries. Anybody know if it is his personal set or whether he is creating a number two set for future auction?

SDC Collection

merz2 · June 23, 2002 6:06AM

Doug
I'm impressed.That is some set.I'm sure it is only there for promotional purposes.It'll be sold soon and gone.I talked to Andy of Angel Dees about this very subject.Steve was the one who suggested to John K to put his MS Set on the Registry before it was sold.Steve is right in his thinking as far as I'm concerned.Collectors of high grade coins watch the Registry Sets.I know I do and you do.The number of threads with links to new sets tells us that.I'm also sure that coins are bought or bid on when they do go up on auction.It is like the threads on the PCGS Registry Forum,telling of Registry Quality coins for sale.

Spooly · June 23, 2002 6:22AM

I wondered how long it's going to take before all the dealers figure out to list their coins for sale on the registry? Why not just put the prices in the Comments Section? Wow and all this time I thought the Registry was for "collectors". Not auction houses and dealers to Hype their coins before a auction! Silly me

The last sets listed by Superior..... were just left in the Registry for 2 weeks after the auction! I mean what's the point in deleting them? Superior already made it money right? (BJ made them delete them!)

If this is Steve Deeds collection.... Congrats to him! It's a great Set!

If it's a "hype" set to make more money in his auctions... shame on him!

DMWJR · June 23, 2002 7:40AM

I just got an e-mail from Steve Deeds:

"They will all be sold by Superior Galleries in New York city at the Official ANA sale August 2, 3 & 4. Steve"

Looks like the Registry is about to be commercialized. I don't know if I can stand it -- seeing collections ahead of mine that are not really "collections." Should there be a time requirement on sets??? I'll bet if they had to keep the set up for one year they wouldn't do it.

Just my MPL .02

merz2 · June 23, 2002 8:10AM

DMWJR & Spooly
I agree that the Registry is for collectors!!! A dealer or Auction House has no business on the Registry Page.These are for collections and not coins put together by Dealers/Auction Houses for sale.Steve has crossed the line.IMHO,PCGS needs to remove this set immediately.Unless Steve can prove this is a set put together by a collector.We collectors can't hope to compete with large Dealers/Auction Houses in putting together these high grade coins.The only other scenerio is if it is Steve's personal set.Which I doubt seriously.All of us need to make our feelings known on this subject.I for one will be E-mailing BJ,Rick M,and David Hall.I hope the rest of you do also. One last note and I'll get off the subject,these sets for sale or auction should not be included in the all time finest Registry Sets by any stretch of the imagination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spooly · June 23, 2002 8:12AM

Does Steve own all these coins? Are all of these coins consignments to Superior? Are these coins from different collectors? Did Superior just "bundle" them to make one set.

Dog97 · June 23, 2002 8:49AM

Kinda like leasing huh? Is that legal?

fletch2645 · June 23, 2002 9:05AM

It just doesn't seem right.

CarlWohlforth · June 23, 2002 9:18AM

I guess an auction house or big dealer could put together a top set easily using other people's coins! I agree the Registry should be for collectors.

The next step would be creating a set out of inventory. A large dealer might have some inventory. Rick Tomaska probably could register some nice sets out of inventory. I wouldn't do this and I don't think this would be the intent of the registry.

I would be more tolerant of a collector who had a top set for a long time, then registered it before selling. That would be a collectors set. Registering would be a way to document the set.

littlewicher · June 23, 2002 9:20AM

It doesn't create real competition, it just sees who has a bigger bankroll. Lets see here, collector, or a large business. Well, more then likely, the large business will have more money then the average person competing in the registry set. What is Steve's email address again? I think that I need to have a serious talk with him.

Steve · June 23, 2002 9:40AM

Let me jump in here with my perspective. I am just a Lincoln Cent collector who has collected the best set of coins I could afford. They are not "top pop". In fact, they are not even close. BUT, they are my pride and joy. I don't worry because some big time dealer comes onto the set registry to hype a put together Matte Lincoln set that he hopes to sell for $10 or $15 thousand or more. I don't worry because he knocks me down from 5th to 6th place. I know that if everyone who has Matte Proof collections entered them, I would be even lower. Instead of worrying about what others do, I just feel real good about what I do. Recently, I won an 1909VDB Matte Proof at the Central States auction. It is in a ANACS PF63RB holder. Unfortunately for me, PCGS won't cross it because it has a very small spot above Lincoln's head. I knew when I bid that PCGS probably wouldn't let me get it into the registry. But, after eight years of trying I finally got the last and rarest Lincoln made. It has all the key diagnostics from Albright's 1983 ANA article and I just feel great to now own all 9 of the Matte Proof Lincolns. THAT is why I collect. To all of you who can afford to have nicer collections, I congratulate you. But, to me, the purpose of this registry and this board should be to let each collector display his or her coins and be proud of them. Steve

Gerry · June 23, 2002 9:45AM

This is definitely a situation in which a collector has built a very nice set of Lincoln matte proofs over a long period of time, and now wishes to sell his collection. I understand that he has not wanted to list it in the registry, simply because he had no interest in the registry while he was collecting. However, at Superior's suggestion he now agreed to have his set listed, perhaps to document it, but mostly because he understands that registering the set maximizes exposure and therefore maximizes the dollars he'll get at auction.

First of all, it is not clear to me how much benefit there really is from registering the set, but that was his considered judgment and it is not for me to argue with it. I'm sure it won't hurt the sale.

However, does anyone here think that it is inappropriate for him to register his set before he sells it because he has not done so earlier?

Spooly · June 23, 2002 9:57AM

If this set is from "one" collector, that is fine. More power to him! Hope he gets a good price for his coins!

merz2 · June 23, 2002 10:48AM

Gerry
You seem to be going on the assumption it belongs to a collector.Do you know something we don't ? I have no problem if it is in fact a collectors coins,that Superior is putting into the Registry to promote the sale.That is after all beneficial to all collectors that may be interested in his coins.The problem stems from,Superior putting them in.This causes the belief that it isn't a collectors coins.If this a collectors coins,he should have put them in the Registry.It would have saved all the bad feelings and spectulation.

I've been informed that this collection is just that.It belongs to a private collector.Steve posted it for him.If he had at least said that in the comments,it would have saved all this.

DeepCoin · June 23, 2002 9:10PM

I have no problem with the set being listed before being sold. However, we are back at the leasing issue. The set should be attributed to whoever the owner is, NOT Superior or one of their employees. Let Superior put it in, but also let the client be identified. That way it is truely a collector's set and not inventory up for sale. Also, if it is up for public sale, the set should be deleted the next day.

DIMEMAN · June 24, 2002 2:35AM

I agree with everyone above. A collector can wait until a set is finished before he registeres it. I don't know why he would choose. to do so. But by no means should the registry be used by dealers as any kind of marketing tool!!!!!!!!

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DMWJR · June 24, 2002 3:12AM

Ditto, Ditto, and . . . . . did I say "Ditto?"

psxchelly · June 24, 2002 3:50AM

I hate to burst all of your bubbles... but no one will do anyhting about it. PCGS is a business. As long as they drum up business no one cares...

now on the other hand, if PCGS can call Mr. Lecce and ask about the ownership of his coins, PCGS should call Superior and ask who owns the coins that are listed to be 100% fair to everyone. Because if Superior does not own the coins, which it doesnt sound like they do (i could be wrong) They should not list the set. The owner should list the set.

BJ · June 24, 2002 5:01AM

Let me dispel the rumors. I just got off the phone with Steve Deeds at Superior. The proof Lincoln set that Steve registered is owned by one collector. Obviously, as the auctioneer, Steve is going to do everything he can to promote the sale of this set and suggested to SDC that he register the proof Lincolns. The consignor was unaware that we had added the matte proof set composite to the registry, otherwise he would have registered it a while back. SDC has two other sets registered, proof Buffalo nickels and proof Barber halves, that have been in the registry for quite some time.

You may disagree with Superior's motives and not like the fact that they are using the registry to promote their sale, but they have indeed registered a legitimate set and one that is worth recognizing.

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to email me directly. Thanks.

Spooly · June 24, 2002 5:09AM

Thanks BJ, It's fine with me if this a set from "One" collector. We just need to be vigilant to make sure no one starts to list "inventory" or "bundled" sets. With the money these coins bring.... it's just a matter of time before someone gets greedy.

Thanks for checking this out!

BNE · June 24, 2002 5:21AM

And at least the set is identified in a low-key, non-promotional fashion. I would start getting concerned if the set was named after the auctioneer or dealer, and if the "comments" section hyped an upcoming sale. That would be gauche, and a violation of the unwritten rules of these sets, if not the written ones.

It does allow a dealer or auction house to direct an interested party to the registry, if the person wants to know "what's in the set." I don't have a problem with this, and helps publicize the registry (in the unlikely event bidders on these kinds of coins don't already know about it).

Spooly is right, vigilance is the price of freedom!

wondercoin · June 24, 2002 5:36AM

Eric: I know where you are coming from. I have not registered a set (or even a coin) since I registered my #1 MS Roosie Dime personal collection in 1999.

BUT, it appears it isn't just auction houses or dealers that are using the Registry as a tool to advertise and sell a set. Collectors are now posting sets for the sole purpose of selling the sets. Indeed, some of the sets might even be labeled "Set For Sale". And, is there really anything wrong with that? Should collectors be banned from posting a set with the intention of selling the set? Should collectors be prohibited for posting a set with the name "set for sale" or something along those lines? Interesting question.

Wondercoin.

tompkins · June 24, 2002 6:05AM

Two points that seem relevant (at least they seem relevant to me):

1. Dealers register sets on behalf of clients frequently. For whatever reason, some people don't want to be personally identified with their sets.

2. People register sets and use the registry to further their sales frequently---look at the BST board and, chances are that you will see one or more ads that start "#x Registry set . . ."

So, in this case, both have happened at the same time. It appears (according to BJ's post) that this set is owned by a single consigner (who I will presume is a collector rather than a dealer, but I'm not sure that even matters). So, to me, this is no different that if I consigned by number 4 (and rapidly falling) state quarter set to a dealer to sell, leaving it registered, until it sold.

As to remaining in the all-time finest list: this is clearly a collection that is owned by a single person, and, as such, it belongs in the all-time finest list. It hasn't been listed in the registry for long, but that doesn't mean it hasn't existed. It is certainly as appropriate as some of the "estimated" collections that predate formal grading. I share some concerns of listing sets that are merely comprised of coins held in transient inventory by a dealer, but this is not one of those --- at least, based on what I read here.

Pete

littlewicher · June 24, 2002 7:39AM

BJ, I have a question, how do you know that Steve is not lying to you? Can he prove to you that he is not lying? Until so, I don't think that the set has the right to be registered.