Why is "consecutively numbered" a selling point?
3stars
Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭✭✭
I see this a lot - sellers using "consecutively numbered holders" as a selling point. All it means is that the coins were on the same order. It doesn't mean the coins were together before the submission or even from the same source.
Previous transactions: Wondercoin, goldman86, dmarks, Type2
4
Comments
I think it appeals to certain people with a particular OCD.
If you want to buy a (slabbed) original proof set. . .
When buying a set such as a four coin gold eagle set, consecutive numbers tell you that you have a true set, not one that was pieced together by a seller. I have a pet peeve about different style holders being offered as "sets."
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
@derryb has a point.... However, for many collectors, it is just another 'collecting' point to be noticed/discussed/desired. Cheers, RickO
Why is freshness a selling point? It’s all a marketing game.
How would one know whether the coins in question were sent in raw or not? Just because they are consecutively numbered on the holder does not mean they were removed from a set, just that they were graded at the same time. Unless, Pcgs offers a special holder for coins removed from a set. Just curious.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
In theory but someone could easily crack out a bunch and resubmit to get the same effect. Not that it would create any added value but it’s certainly possible.
You don't know that for sure though. It could be a Frankenstein set submitted at the same time
You mean people piece together sets? 😁
🤥
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
.
wouldn't just submitting any of 4 coins or any number of coins, yield consecutive cert #s?
I see this with classic commemoratives sometimes. P, D, S year sets. And if the coins have similiar toning that's another plus they might be the original group of coins sold together.I find that worth a premium.
Yes but they will have been submitted and graded as a set. Or, you could settle for this:
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
This.
I had a great 3 pc BTW set that had awesome toning and was in early generation green holders with consecutive serial numbers. I sold it for a huge profit when I bought a vacation home. Why so high? Because the old holder suggested the coins had not been messed with for well over a decade and the consecutive serial number suggest they were together for a long time too.
In retrospect, I wish I had never sold it as I have never seen another quite like it. But we ultimately moved into our vacation home when we retired so I have a piece of paradise in North Carolina.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Yet it often does mean that the coins were together and from the same source.
This is my only consecutively numbered pair — strikingly similar mirrors, frost and toning on these siblings.
I was going to type this but you saved me the trouble.
I've sold lots of consecutively numbered PDS commems. The ones in old PCGS or NGC holders bring strong premiums.
If it helps to find a buyer anything can be a selling point, widgets need marketing sometimes.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
If you had a good eye you could find individual P,D,S coins that look about the same and send them in at the same time for consecutive numbers, and they would look like they were together but actually weren't.
My guess is that if the three BTW’s which displayed “awesome toning”, were well matched and in early generation green holders that were not consecutively numbered, they would have brought a virtually identical price. To most knowledgeable buyers, the old holders and awesome, matched toning would be far more important than the consecutive numbers.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's a pleasure to see those knockout coins again!
You could put something together that looks similar (if you had enough patience) and get them in brand-new consecutive holders, but that's not what brings premiums.
Commem sets like what @AlanSki is posting--visually matched sets in 20-30 year-old holders--people will pay a premium for that.
Doesn't mean some didn't do that same thing 30 years ago.
Because many collectors have more dollars than sense.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
So if someone was to offer an 1881-S Morgan in every different holder and with every different insert that PCGS has ever issued you wouldn't consider that as a set? I would.
In most cases, just another "hook" IMO.
Oh, I agree, but the chances of getting an original set with wildly divergent numbers is not good. At least this way you'll have plausible deniability.
One can go to their bank and hopefully buy/order a strap of any denomination of NEW bills and they will be consecutively numbered.
I remember offering a strap of 50 $2 bills on eBay. One of the bidders turned out to be a bunch of bored old ladies who bid on stuff on eBay, but never intended to buy anything if they were high bidder.
Sure. And so...? You would still have a perfectly matched set. Frankenstein set or not.
We aren't talking about matched sets, we're talking about consecutive numbers on the label...
Anything can be a selling point. Once in a while, those points are legitimate.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I have seventy of these PDS commem sets in my collection, and while it is necessary for the coins to match sufficiently in toning and color to suggest they were put away together many years ago, it's also nice when they are in consecutively numbered holders or from the same submission lot. Neither is absolute proof that the coins have been together since issue as none of us purchased them at the time of striking.
These, I believe, are Cameonut's old friends:
Sometimes it helps to know how the coins were issued: these are in consecutively numbered old fatty NGC MS65 holders
Commems and Early Type
It’s a banknote term.
Makes sense with banknotes, it would be wildly impossible to find consecutive notes in the wild once they are separated from their strap. Not so much so for what are basically order numbers on slabs.
You were talking about both. People said that consecutive numbers made people feel like it was an original set. You responded that you could submit a Frankenstein set and get consecutive numbers. I simply pointed out that you still have a matched set if that had happened.
Now, we're all caught up!
I've never seen this
Am I looking for coins in all the wrong places?!
Great question and threat topic. I don't have an answer. I'm still trying to figure out why some collectors pay extra for tarnish.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I have seen this, and fell for it about 13 years ago. I was told I purchased a pristine, recently graded 1937 proof set (all coins 65)--the coins were consecutively numbered on the inserts. Nine months later, the red cent began to turn. Two years later, the silver coins had spots. I later found out that the dealer had enough coins to assemble a complete proof set, had them dipped, the cent recolored, and then sent in for grading. All I have to do to disabuse myself of feelings of intelligence is look at those coins.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
What about consecutively numbered COAs? That means the coins with them were struck one right after another, right?
I think the only positive is that it shows that all "X" number of coins were submitted at the same time, and the grades they got are what they still are.
No resubmissions
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
LOL. Sure, why not? And First Strike means it was one of the first 300,000 struck, right?
How can you be sure they weren't all cracked out and resubmitted together?
It's the same concept, right? All coins are graded at once, and you can't submit that lone MS65 fifty times until you get the bump to go with the MS66's.
Sequential serial numbers on say, a group of high grade Sutler tokens, shows me they were submitted at the same time as a group and they weren't cherrypicked for resubs.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Whatever your supposition, the possibility of that one final resubmission erases any previous basis for it.
It's a racket.
On a much higher level than what stung @Sonorandesertrat, I've worked it with assembled proof sets of original coins in the Barber and Seated series. It's actually a secondary gain of little import when I acquire "consecularity" on such a resub. $360 for a regrade on an entire 1892 proof set (1c-5c-10c--25c-50c-$1) can be worth it for one "plus" on one larger coin in an already high-grade set, congruently toned or not.
Some OCD holder buyers will look at the numbers and convince themselves the grouping is "original". Darwin and Adam Smith wish them a peaceful demise.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. How does sending for grading a group of coins (high grade Sutler tokens, perhaps?) preclude the possibility that they were cherrypicked over time from various sources, cracked out and then resubmitted all together?
While I am only half-Vulcan and @MFeld is fully human, I think we both agree with Spock @MasonG that your thinking is not ......... ?
Of course, it does make you wonder why anyone would pay a premium for a fully original set relative to a Frankenstein set?
Because you'd have to do that with the entire group over and over to get the desired results, (ie. MS65 on each) for them to remain sequentially numbered.
Probably not going to happen.
I dont care about seq numbered sets, either. I'm just stating why it could entice a collector
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The goal is "consecutively numbered holders" in order to prove the coins are "a true set". Where does having identical grades come into it?