I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Don't put $300 on black 22 then. People gamble (and lose) all the time. Maybe $300 is 0.0001% of their net worth and means little to them. So many reasons...
I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Don't put $300 on black 22 then. People gamble (and lose) all the time. Maybe $300 is 0.0001% of their net worth and means little to them. So many reasons...
Don't worry, I don't. But the payout on that Black 22 is not crazy, so I have no issue with it. Generally a 1 in 38 chance to receive a 35 to 1 payout.
OTOH, if you had a 1 in 70 shot to receive that 35 to 1 payout, I'd be saying exactly what I am saying here. That's actually how the lottery works, with similar odds, but at least the money goes to fund government spending that would otherwise be funded by taxes.
Might not mean anything to a millionaire who enjoys watching little metal balls spinning around a black and red wheel, but I'd be saying it anyway, just in case anyone does not understand true odds, house edges, and getting screwed.
@124Spider said:
The imponderable about all of this is that some people seem to think that one can "win" an internet argument about things that don't matter even a little bit.
Carry on....
Very true.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, and don't for a second think I am going to change anyone's mind. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people already agree with me.
I'm just not leaving what I consider to be disingenuous, hypocritical posts supporting a numismatic product the poster does not support with his own hard earned dollars go without a response.
I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Just haven't seen that. Apparently because the prospect of being criticized is just too much for some to take. OTOH, those who did not participate have absolutely no problem being criticized. Again and again and again and again.
They keep posting, I'll keep responding. Until someone gets tired or the thread runs its course. Which it has already done several times, but some choose not to leave it alone. So we carry on.
I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Don't put $300 on black 22 then. People gamble (and lose) all the time. Maybe $300 is 0.0001% of their net worth and means little to them. So many reasons...
Don't worry, I don't. But the payout on that Black 22 is not crazy, so I have no issue with it. Generally a 1 in 38 chance to receive a 35 to 1 payout.
OTOH, if you had a 1 in 70 shot to receive that 35 to 1 payout, I'd be saying exactly what I am saying here. That's actually how the lottery works, with similar odds, but at least the money goes to fund government spending that would otherwise be funded by taxes.
Might not mean anything to a millionaire who enjoys watching little metal balls spinning around a black and red wheel, but I'd be saying it anyway, just in case anyone does not understand true odds, house edges, and getting screwed.
So you're OK with people having a 97.4% of losing everything with nothing to show for it (0% return), but not OK with someone getting a 50% return on a gamble?
@124Spider said:
The imponderable about all of this is that some people seem to think that one can "win" an internet argument about things that don't matter even a little bit.
Carry on....
Very true.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, and don't for a second think I am going to change anyone's mind. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people already agree with me.
I'm just not leaving what I consider to be disingenuous, hypocritical posts supporting a numismatic product the poster does not support with his own hard earned dollars go without a response.
I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Just haven't seen that. Apparently because the prospect of being criticized is just too much for some to take. OTOH, those who did not participate have absolutely no problem being criticized. Again and again and again and again.
They keep posting, I'll keep responding. Until someone gets tired or the thread runs its course. Which it has already done several times, but some choose not to leave it alone. So we carry on.
I'd actually be taking a very different approach if someone who actually participated came on here to explain how they received $300 worth of "fun" to go along with the $300 worth of bullion that was contained in their $600 VB, as some on here speculated is clearly the case.
Don't put $300 on black 22 then. People gamble (and lose) all the time. Maybe $300 is 0.0001% of their net worth and means little to them. So many reasons...
Don't worry, I don't. But the payout on that Black 22 is not crazy, so I have no issue with it. Generally a 1 in 38 chance to receive a 35 to 1 payout.
OTOH, if you had a 1 in 70 shot to receive that 35 to 1 payout, I'd be saying exactly what I am saying here. That's actually how the lottery works, with similar odds, but at least the money goes to fund government spending that would otherwise be funded by taxes.
Might not mean anything to a millionaire who enjoys watching little metal balls spinning around a black and red wheel, but I'd be saying it anyway, just in case anyone does not understand true odds, house edges, and getting screwed.
So you're OK with people having a 97.4% of losing everything with nothing to show for it (0% return), but not OK with someone getting a 50% return on a gamble?
Yup. Because if they play 38 times, repeatedly, they are only likely to lose 5.26% per cycle. As opposed to the lottery, where they are likely to lose 50%. Or VB, where the number is somewhere between the two, but seemingly far in excess of 20%.
Having an 80%+ chance of losing 50%+, a 0.125% chance of making 3800%, and a <20% chance of either making or losing something in between is, economically, really far worse that a 97.4% chance of losing 100% and a 2.6% chance of making 3500%. Assuming, of course, that you have a sufficient bankroll to play enough times. If not, it really does not make a lot of sense to play anything at all.
Did you know that 78.9% of all statistics in online comments are made up?
Did not know that, and that is good to know! (edit: But how can I trust your 78.9%).
They say 65% of all statistics are made up right there on the spot. 82.4% of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not. Now I don't know what you believe, but I do know there's no doubt I need another double shot of something 90 proof I've got too much to think about. -Todd Snyder Statistician's Blues
Having done a catch-up reading this thread, for some reason I'm reminded of those folks who come in playing show and tell and brag "Well, I only let him make $x on this because I know what they're REALLY worth!" LMAO. Too many people get lost in the weeds railing on about how much someone makes on something. For instance, I think that most TV sellers charge too much for items they're selling... but they're still doing millions a year in sales, so someone apparently likes them. I think the US Mint offerings are by and large somewhat overpriced for what one gets... but people still invariably buy them out of the latest flavor of the month hot issues and crow about being one of the lucky recipients. If you build it, they will come.
I guess what I am getting at is this... Of course VB makes money on these; that's why they were created... and the people incessantly arguing back and forth about it here are by and large NOT their intended market demo for them and were never intended to be, nor do most of the posters here even have (or intend to have) any skin in the game. I tend to disagree with the way VB is being handled and don't think they are a particularly good deal...but I do not begrudge them a profit, just as I don't begrudge the Mint, the TV guys or any other dealer a profit. Call it a lottery, sweepstakes, grab bag, whatever. Who cares? If enough people lose money and/or become disillusioned with their results after a few tries and don't return for seconds or thirds, then the problem takes care of itself.
I am sure that this second round will also sell out... Not because it's a great deal, not because it's an "investment", but because there will always be the group of people who adopt the philosophy of "you can't win if you don't play" and things like this, box breaks, raffles, grab bags, mystery boxes, lotteries etc. cater to that mindset. If you like VB, great. If you don't, you won't be buying it anyway so it really shouldn't make any difference to you. If you're complaining here on a forum populated by people who more likely than not aren't going to participate, you're not really saving anyone from themselves...and the people who do choose to participate frankly don't need or want anyone to save them.
@jmlanzaf said:
$300,000 is a made up number. Show your work, please.
$300 (widely reported numbers seem to be between $250 and $350) * 800 = $240,000 + $40,000 for your Big Coins = $280,000. Plus another $20,000 because I was feeling generous, and thought it would be prudent to round up. Probably pretty damn close to the actual number. Now show yours.
@jmlanzaf said:
$300,000 is a made up number. Show your work, please.
$300 (widely reported numbers seem to be between $250 and $350) * 800 = $240,000 + $40,000 for your Big Coins = $280,000. Plus another $20,000 because I was feeling generous, and thought it would be prudent to round up. Probably pretty damn close to the actual number. Now show yours.
You've ignored all the better coins. The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500. You took the lowest value boxes and multiplied by 800 and then only accounted for the 4v or 5 big trophy coins when there were left of $5 gold.
I apologize to you and the entire forum for taking 10 minutes off my ignore off you.
@jmlanzaf said:
$300,000 is a made up number. Show your work, please.
$300 (widely reported numbers seem to be between $250 and $350) * 800 = $240,000 + $40,000 for your Big Coins = $280,000. Plus another $20,000 because I was feeling generous, and thought it would be prudent to round up. Probably pretty damn close to the actual number. Now show yours.
You've ignored all the better coins. The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500. You took the lowest value boxes and multiplied by 800 and then only accounted for the 4v or 5 big trophy coins when there were left of $5 gold.
I apologize to you and the entire forum for taking 10 minutes off my ignore off you.
Carry on... alone.
No problem, but, in all fairness, I did allocate $20K to better coins. After all, there really aren't all that many of them. Plus, $40K buys way more than just the top 4 or 5 coins, doesn't it?
What do you think 1/10 oz. gold bullion coins are worth, anyway? They are what bring $300 boxes up to $350 or maybe $400! The people excited to see them as their "Big Coin" were not winners, no matter what they might think.
Also, clearly I am not alone, since I managed to command 10 minutes of your valuable time! Thank you for playing. 🤣
@jmlanzaf said:
The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500.
According to an article on Coinweek:
Number of coins: 2,400
Number of boxes: 800
Total price guide value: $578,675
Mean coin value: $241
Price per box: $595
Total price for 800 boxes: $476,000
Each box contains one common, one uncommon, and one rare coin.
Mean common value: $65
Mean uncommon value: $126
Mean rare value: $532
Mean value of three-coin box: $723
Value as percent of price: 122%
Assume street value is 80% of price guide.
Mean common value: $52
Mean uncommon value: $101
Mean rare value: $425
Mean value of three-coin box: $579
Value as percent of price: 97%
@jmlanzaf said:
The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500.
According to an article on Coinweek:
Number of coins: 2,400
Number of boxes: 800
Total price guide value: $578,675
Mean coin value: $241
Price per box: $595
Total price for 800 boxes: $476,000
Each box contains one common, one uncommon, and one rare coin.
Mean common value: $65
Mean uncommon value: $126
Mean rare value: $532
Mean value of three-coin box: $723
Value as percent of price: 122%
Assume street value is 80% of price guide.
Mean common value: $52
Mean uncommon value: $101
Mean rare value: $425
Mean value of three-coin box: $579
Value as percent of price: 97%
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Thanks for solving the quandary. So, how many will you now be buying, given all the "fun" and the newly revealed excellent value? I'm still in for none.
Believe me, if those numbers were anywhere close to reality, buyers would be raving, everyone would be thrilled, and VERY few people would have boxes worth $300, or less, when the mean value is $579 and less than $100 of that would be devoted to funding the winners.
Basically, the vast majority of losers would be worth more than $450, street, not around $300. That $150, times 800, represents the BS in the Coinweek marketing statement, and the basis of everyone's complaint. It's also around $120K in excess profit that fanboys are denying exists, but people selling pulls on eBay for $49 know damn well does, because they are the ones who paid. Not me, or you.
@jmlanzaf said:
The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500.
According to an article on Coinweek:
Number of coins: 2,400
Number of boxes: 800
Total price guide value: $578,675
Mean coin value: $241
Price per box: $595
Total price for 800 boxes: $476,000
Each box contains one common, one uncommon, and one rare coin.
Mean common value: $65
Mean uncommon value: $126
Mean rare value: $532
Mean value of three-coin box: $723
Value as percent of price: 122%
Assume street value is 80% of price guide.
Mean common value: $52
Mean uncommon value: $101
Mean rare value: $425
Mean value of three-coin box: $579
Value as percent of price: 97%
Thank you for numbers. Not that anyone will care. People can hate the concept and not want to buy one. You can even hate the concept and consider it an illegal lottery. But people shouldn't need to just make up alleged facts to prove a point...unless you feel your opinion can't stand on its own merits.
@jmlanzaf said:
The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500.
According to an article on Coinweek:
Number of coins: 2,400
Number of boxes: 800
Total price guide value: $578,675
Mean coin value: $241
Price per box: $595
Total price for 800 boxes: $476,000
Each box contains one common, one uncommon, and one rare coin.
Mean common value: $65
Mean uncommon value: $126
Mean rare value: $532
Mean value of three-coin box: $723
Value as percent of price: 122%
Assume street value is 80% of price guide.
Mean common value: $52
Mean uncommon value: $101
Mean rare value: $425
Mean value of three-coin box: $579
Value as percent of price: 97%
Thank you for numbers. Not that anyone will care. People can hate the concept and not want to buy one. You can even hate the concept and consider it an illegal lottery. But people shouldn't need to just make up alleged facts to prove a point...unless you feel your opinion can't stand on its own merits.
With all due respect, the "alleged facts" are what Coinweek is publishing, untested and unchallenged. If I was running an advertising platform masquerading as a respected publication, I'd make a effort to validate so-called "facts" that I publish.
A list of coins in the boxes is publicly available. So are actual retail transaction prices for each and every one of those coins, on eBay, GC, various dealer websites, etc.
No need for Coinweek to be lazy and publish a press release under the guise of an article, other than that's what they do. And for anyone to then quote from it here, as though the players in this forum are so unsophisticated as to not recognize the difference between "facts" in an "article" and a marketing press release.
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology. I didn't even see who he is, and didn't malign him in any way. I just pointed out that Coinweek publishes puff pieces, with and without compensation, and takes no responsibility for anything it publishes. If you want to imply that what he writes is Pulitzer worthy investigative journalism because you know him personally, as he used an inflated price guide to determine inflated retail values, that's your business.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing an "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said pre-release about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB? Or did he do it as a public service, like I am here?
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing that "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB?
No, he was not paid by VB. He's a freelance writer who has written for Coinweek for many years.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing that "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB?
No, he was not paid by VB. He's a freelance writer who has written for Coinweek for many years.
Interesting, and I'm very surprised you opened this door. Thank you for being honest.
If he wasn't paid by VB, who paid him to do all that work researching and writing that "article"? Coinweek?
Where did he get the idea to use an inflated price guide to do his research, prominently publish the resulting fiction, and then to apply a random haircut to guesstimate "street values"? Coinweek? VB? Why not just go to the street and get values? With the miracle of the internet, the "street" is at all of our fingertips 24/7.
I honestly meant no offense to anyone, and there was no need to make it personal by claiming I was insulting the author of an article I did not mention by name, simply because I claim the piece is nothing more than marketing fluff. Which it is. A Q&A published two weeks before release, designed to stimulate demand. Which it no doubt did.
Where is the follow-up article reporting on all the complaints voiced on the interest after people opened their boxes and realized they didn't average anywhere 122% of retail value, or 97% of street value? It's been over a month. Nobody in the community wants to pay a freelancer for that piece of journalism? Hmm.
Coinweek is an advertising platform. Its advertisers are the numismatic community. I don't expect them to bite the hands that feed them. I also don't expect any serious person to cite to them, in a case like this, for "proof" or "disproof" of anything critical about anyone in the community.
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing that "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB?
No, he was not paid by VB. He's a freelance writer who has written for Coinweek for many years.
I think we've learned a lot here...none of it about VB, Coinweek, or your friend.
@NJCoin said:
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing that "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB?
No, he was not paid by VB. He's a freelance writer who has written for Coinweek for many years.
I think we've learned a lot here...none of it about VB, Coinweek, or your friend.
Imagine if an actual news source added that disclaimer to its work. No shade on the author. He was paid to do a job, by whoever, and he did it. Good for him. I don't begrudge anyone a living, including this guy. Representing his work as anything other than what it is, OTOH, is something else entirely.
If he was paid by Coinweek, they explicitly do not stand behind his work. If he was paid by someone else, there's that, and Coinweek also explicitly does not stand behind his work. It was not journalism, or an "article." It was numismatic marketing in the form of a Q&A in support of VB before its launch.
@spacehayduke said:
Oh Hello,
We are VaultBox. We will sell you a set of coins for 2 times the price of their retail value. In rare cases, the set of coins you receive will have retail value that is more than what you pay. In extremely rare cases, like say, 3 in 800, we will sell you a set of coins for much much less than retail value. That is, if we don't give these to our influencers, or do a presale and show videos of what the presale had in it which are the high value coins, alas. In that case, these rarer coins with very large values won't make it our offering we are presenting to you. So you are going to get coins at 1/2 the price in retail value than the price we sell them to you probably and we think you will like that and come back for more. But wait, if you don't like that, we will buy these coins back from you once you see them. Of course, our offering will be wholesale, 30-40% less than retail, so that you end up paying 3 times the price of their worth for this set of coins. But that is okay, because you might have a chance at making out big on this, even if that chance is much less than our claim of shipping out boxes with random values (don't forget our influencers and presale). We can't possibly have enough influencers, and we saved a couple coins worth more than the price of our set we are selling to you, so that someone hopefully can report back a boondoggle of a score who is just a Joe on the street, not an infuencer! So you are going to love this right? And come back again and again for more!
Thank you dear customer,
Best, VB
Here is a link to daCoinGeek on Youtube. He took his 4 lowball boxes - see the table with VB instant offers and the values, and sold them on ebay and only ended up losing about $350 on 4 boxes totaling $2380. Hmm...........
Bottom line is that VB better give better value if they truly want folks to buy in for the long run......... This is very different than trading card wax packs, which don't cost $595 per.......................................
Trading card mystery boxes go up to $10,000. Even card breaks are several thousand. Please research first.
We had the spreadsheet worked out in the other closed thread. The average value per box was around $500 against a sticker price of $595. That is hardly excessive pricing. The DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE is uneven because of the prize coins. That is a very different situation than "over-charging".
Take out the top 10% of the red slabbed VB coins and what is the average price of a VB? $500, no chance.............. Sure you can claim that is very different from overcharging but you seem to be missing the point here that the majority get screwed. Why is that so difficult to understand?
@jmlanzaf said:
No one should play and/or the entertainment provider should not be allowed to provide it.
I personally have no problem with anyone wanting to play as long as everyone playing has an equal chance to get screwed or get one of the big coins. Evidence shows that is NOT the case with VB.........................
We had the spreadsheet worked out in the other closed thread. The average value per box was around $500 against a sticker price of $595. That is hardly excessive pricing. The DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE is uneven because of the prize coins. That is a very different situation than "over-charging".
Take out the top 10% of the red slabbed VB coins and what is the average price of a VB? $500, no chance.............. Sure you can claim that is very different from overcharging but you seem to be missing the point here that the majority get screwed. Why is that so difficult to understand?
It's worse. Because they were using inflated values for the pool, the screwing was far worse than people were led to believe it would be. I'm pretty sure that's the core of most people's complaints.
Not simply that they played a lottery and lost. But that the average retail value of a box is not actually close to $600, including the value of the red cores. Which is not what VB represented upfront, and which would not be unreasonable to expect, given that $600 would include a reasonable retail markup on their cost of acquisition, grading, boxing, etc.
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price in the article, it would suggest their valuation is actually reasonable. That results in a MEAN BOX VALUE OF $579 against a purchase price of $595. Tell me again about "overcharging".
Here's the numbers:
Coin type year grade NGC guide eBay
ASE 1987 9.9 65 45
ASE 1988 9.9 65 58
ASE 1989 9.9 65 50
ASE 1990 9.9 100 62
ASE 1991 9.9 125 50
ASE 1992 9.9 90 53
ASE 1993 9.9 85 55
ASE 1995 9.9 125 60
ASE 1997 9.9 70 55
ASE 1998 9.9 75 55
ASE 1999 9.9 75 55
ASE 2000 9.9 85 55
ASE 2001 9.9 65 50
ASE 2002 9.9 65 50
ASE 2003 9.9 70 48
ASE 2004 9.9 65 45
ASE 2005 9.9 65 45
ASE 2006 9.9 65 45
ASE 2007 9.9 55 45
ASE 2008 9.9 55 45
ASE 2009 9.9 50 45
ASE 2010 9.9 50 45
ASE 2011 9.9 50 45
ASE 2012 9.9 40 45
ASE 2013 9.9 40 45
ASE 2014 9.9 45 45
ASE 2015 9.9 50 45
ASE 2016 9.9 45 45
ASE 2017 9.9 45 45
ASE 2018 9.9 45 45
ASE 2019 9.9 45 45
ASE 2020 9.9 45 45
ASE 2021 9.9 45 45
ASE 2022 9.9 50 45
ASE 2023 9.9 50 45
2225 1701
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price in the article, it would suggest their valuation is actually reasonable. That results in a MEAN BOX VALUE OF $579 against a purchase price of $595. Tell me again about "overcharging".
Research? You think people want facts? How precious.
We had the spreadsheet worked out in the other closed thread. The average value per box was around $500 against a sticker price of $595. That is hardly excessive pricing. The DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE is uneven because of the prize coins. That is a very different situation than "over-charging".
Take out the top 10% of the red slabbed VB coins and what is the average price of a VB? $500, no chance.............. Sure you can claim that is very different from overcharging but you seem to be missing the point here that the majority get screwed. Why is that so difficult to understand?
The majority don't win the lottery. That is the nature of lotteries. Why is THAT so difficult to understand? If everyone gets the same thing in every box, that is nice and fair. It is also NOT the point of a mystery box where you play BECAUSE YOU CAN WIN.
I UNDERSTAND that most people don't win. Have I ever said otherwise? But that is not the same as "overcharging" which usually implies that there are obscene profits being made by the vendor NOT that my next door neighbor got a more valuable box.
NO ONE GETS SCREWED. They play the game. They win or lose. The KNOW that going in. If I buy a lottery ticket and lose, I did NOT get screwed. I simply lost the game. A game I KNEW the rules of when I sat down to play.
We had the spreadsheet worked out in the other closed thread. The average value per box was around $500 against a sticker price of $595. That is hardly excessive pricing. The DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE is uneven because of the prize coins. That is a very different situation than "over-charging".
Take out the top 10% of the red slabbed VB coins and what is the average price of a VB? $500, no chance.............. Sure you can claim that is very different from overcharging but you seem to be missing the point here that the majority get screwed. Why is that so difficult to understand?
It's worse. Because they were using inflated values for the pool, the screwing was far worse than people were led to believe it would be. I'm pretty sure that's the core of most people's complaints.
Not simply that they played a lottery and lost. But that the average retail value of a box is not actually close to $600, including the value of the red cores. Which is not what VB represented upfront, and which would not be unreasonable to expect, given that $600 would include a reasonable retail markup on their cost of acquisition, grading, boxing, etc.
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Stop making things up. See my spreadsheet. See the Coinweek article.
If you want to make an affirmative declaration supply FACTS.
You can hate VB without making up LIES to support your hatred.
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price in the article, it would suggest their valuation is actually reasonable. That results in a MEAN BOX VALUE OF $579 against a purchase price of $595. Tell me again about "overcharging".
Here's the numbers:
Coin type year grade NGC guide eBay
ASE 1987 9.9 65 45
ASE 1988 9.9 65 58
ASE 1989 9.9 65 50
ASE 1990 9.9 100 62
ASE 1991 9.9 125 50
ASE 1992 9.9 90 53
ASE 1993 9.9 85 55
ASE 1995 9.9 125 60
ASE 1997 9.9 70 55
ASE 1998 9.9 75 55
ASE 1999 9.9 75 55
ASE 2000 9.9 85 55
ASE 2001 9.9 65 50
ASE 2002 9.9 65 50
ASE 2003 9.9 70 48
ASE 2004 9.9 65 45
ASE 2005 9.9 65 45
ASE 2006 9.9 65 45
ASE 2007 9.9 55 45
ASE 2008 9.9 55 45
ASE 2009 9.9 50 45
ASE 2010 9.9 50 45
ASE 2011 9.9 50 45
ASE 2012 9.9 40 45
ASE 2013 9.9 40 45
ASE 2014 9.9 45 45
ASE 2015 9.9 50 45
ASE 2016 9.9 45 45
ASE 2017 9.9 45 45
ASE 2018 9.9 45 45
ASE 2019 9.9 45 45
ASE 2020 9.9 45 45
ASE 2021 9.9 45 45
ASE 2022 9.9 50 45
ASE 2023 9.9 50 45
2225 1701
0.764494382
That's a start, and thank you for taking the time. I care, apparently as do you.
Why limit the analysis to only the least valuable coins, and then extrapolating from them? Why not a reasonable sample from all three groups, just to see whether the 30% overvaluation (2225/1701) increases, decreases or stays the same as the coin values increase?
FWIW, even the list you posted shows that higher priced coins have a much greater over valuation than the lower priced ones (125/50 or 60 vs 40, 45 and 50/45). Nice try! Cherry pick valuations, and then accuse others of lying to make a point. 🤣
@spacehayduke said:
Oh Hello,
We are VaultBox. We will sell you a set of coins for 2 times the price of their retail value. In rare cases, the set of coins you receive will have retail value that is more than what you pay. In extremely rare cases, like say, 3 in 800, we will sell you a set of coins for much much less than retail value. That is, if we don't give these to our influencers, or do a presale and show videos of what the presale had in it which are the high value coins, alas. In that case, these rarer coins with very large values won't make it our offering we are presenting to you. So you are going to get coins at 1/2 the price in retail value than the price we sell them to you probably and we think you will like that and come back for more. But wait, if you don't like that, we will buy these coins back from you once you see them. Of course, our offering will be wholesale, 30-40% less than retail, so that you end up paying 3 times the price of their worth for this set of coins. But that is okay, because you might have a chance at making out big on this, even if that chance is much less than our claim of shipping out boxes with random values (don't forget our influencers and presale). We can't possibly have enough influencers, and we saved a couple coins worth more than the price of our set we are selling to you, so that someone hopefully can report back a boondoggle of a score who is just a Joe on the street, not an infuencer! So you are going to love this right? And come back again and again for more!
Thank you dear customer,
Best, VB
Here is a link to daCoinGeek on Youtube. He took his 4 lowball boxes - see the table with VB instant offers and the values, and sold them on ebay and only ended up losing about $350 on 4 boxes totaling $2380. Hmm...........
Bottom line is that VB better give better value if they truly want folks to buy in for the long run......... This is very different than trading card wax packs, which don't cost $595 per.......................................
Trading card mystery boxes go up to $10,000. Even card breaks are several thousand. Please research first.
So? Many don't, please research first:
Of course there are cheaper ones. That is BEYOND IRRELEVANT. My response was to someone who said VB is more expensive than trading card boxes which is not true. In fact, I wrote "...go up to $10,000..." I didn't claim they all cost $10,000.
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price @Project Numismatics said:
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
They do so show up equally which is why I did the analysis that way. There's 20 of each.
The value of the higher value coins was less likely to be inflated, in my opinion. In fact, the coins shown represent 30% of all coins in the boxes and almost 10% of the value. There is little argument over the $40,000 valuation of the trophy coins, so that is another 10% of the valuation. The proof Eagles are about 70% of NGC guide on ebay which is roughly soothe 10% of total valuation. I'm quite confident that the Coinweekb article is in the ballpark and the total value of the coins is $400k+ against a risk price of $480k. But my doing my work is not going to prevent people from continuing to make up numbers and lying about the valuation.
The analysis was done before by Coinweek as well as a couple of forum members. I really don't feel the need to justify it to you or anyone else. If you care, you can do the math yourself. The NGC price guide, eBay, and the list of VB contents are all publicly available.
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
It's not a contest. The 3 of us have been ignoring NJ for the most part. He's arguing with no one. I made the mistake of taking him off ignore today. I will not repeat that mistake.
Everyone hates this thread, but they keep coming back. They then stir the pot and complain that people respond. A pox upon all your houses.
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
No voting for judges! That would just create a nightmare keeping this thread alive even longer!🤣😯
I am shocked the ultimate judge (aka Moderator) hasn't closed this thread weeks ago after it stopped being about coins🤔
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price @Project Numismatics said:
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
They do so show up equally which is why I did the analysis that way. There's 20 of each.
The value of the higher value coins was less likely to be inflated, in my opinion. In fact, the coins shown represent 30% of all coins in the boxes and almost 10% of the value. There is little argument over the $40,000 valuation of the trophy coins, so that is another 10% of the valuation. The proof Eagles are about 70% of NGC guide on ebay which is roughly soothe 10% of total valuation. I'm quite confident that the Coinweekb article is in the ballpark and the total value of the coins is $400k+ against a risk price of $480k. But my doing my work is not going to prevent people from continuing to make up numbers and lying about the valuation.
The analysis was done before by Coinweek as well as a couple of forum members. I really don't feel the need to justify it to you or anyone else. If you care, you can do the math yourself. The NGC price guide, eBay, and the list of VB contents are all publicly available.
The flaw in your analysis is that you only looked at 10% of the total value. You don’t have to justify it, but it lacks credibility if you ignore 90% of the value.
I’m just looking for the numbers - which coinworld didn’t provide either - they made an 80% of guide assumption, but without data, it’s just an assumption.
It doesn’t matter to me what the end result is, but I am legitimately curious what the expected value of a vaultbox is and I haven’t seen any calculation based on what the coins can actually be sold for.
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
It's not a contest. The 3 of us have been ignoring NJ for the most part. He's arguing with no one. I made the mistake of taking him off ignore today. I will not repeat that mistake.
Everyone hates this thread, but they keep coming back. They then stir the pot and complain that people respond. **A pox upon all your houses. **
A compulsion to get the last word, and to start a new conversation every time something stirs in VB World, is why this thread lives and new threads will spring up whenever there is anything new to report.
“A compulsion to get the last word…”
Just because I like statistics, as of 10:15 Pacific + - 2% margin of error
number of posts: @WQuarterFreddie 21 posts @MasonG 33 posts @jmlanzaf 76 posts @NJCoin 96 posts
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
No voting for judges! That would just create a nightmare keeping this thread alive even longer!🤣😯
I am shocked the ultimate judge (aka Moderator) hasn't closed this thread weeks ago after it stopped being about coins🤔
No worries. It's a near certainty that you'll just start another one if and when this one gets shut down.
Instead of being shocked, why not just control yourself and not start a new thread whenever VB does something new? Pretty much anything that can be said has already been said. People profess annoyance because everyone does not agree with whatever it is they are saying, yet no one stops. Including you.
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price @Project Numismatics said:
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
They do so show up equally which is why I did the analysis that way. There's 20 of each.
The value of the higher value coins was less likely to be inflated, in my opinion. In fact, the coins shown represent 30% of all coins in the boxes and almost 10% of the value. There is little argument over the $40,000 valuation of the trophy coins, so that is another 10% of the valuation. The proof Eagles are about 70% of NGC guide on ebay which is roughly soothe 10% of total valuation. I'm quite confident that the Coinweekb article is in the ballpark and the total value of the coins is $400k+ against a risk price of $480k. But my doing my work is not going to prevent people from continuing to make up numbers and lying about the valuation.
The analysis was done before by Coinweek as well as a couple of forum members. I really don't feel the need to justify it to you or anyone else. If you care, you can do the math yourself. The NGC price guide, eBay, and the list of VB contents are all publicly available.
The flaw in your analysis is that you only looked at 10% of the total value. You don’t have to justify it, but it lacks credibility if you ignore 90% of the value.
I’m just looking for the numbers - which coinworld didn’t provide either - they made an 80% of guide assumption, but without data, it’s just an assumption.
It doesn’t matter to me what the end result is, but I am legitimately curious what the expected value of a vaultbox is and I haven’t seen any calculation based on what the coins can actually be sold for.
Not Coin World, which actually has some journalistic credibility. Coinweek, which is an advertising platform that does not stand behind its own content. Coin World would never publish an advertisement masquerading as an article like that.
@NJCoin said:
Not Coin World, which actually has some journalistic credibility. Coinweek, which is an advertising platform that does not stand behind its own content. Coin World would never publish an advertisement masquerading as an article like that.
@NJCoin said:
Not Coin World, which actually has some journalistic credibility. Coinweek, which is an advertising platform that does not stand behind its own content. Coin World would never publish an advertisement masquerading as an article like that.
@jmlanzaf said:
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price @Project Numismatics said:
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
They do so show up equally which is why I did the analysis that way. There's 20 of each.
The value of the higher value coins was less likely to be inflated, in my opinion. In fact, the coins shown represent 30% of all coins in the boxes and almost 10% of the value. There is little argument over the $40,000 valuation of the trophy coins, so that is another 10% of the valuation. The proof Eagles are about 70% of NGC guide on ebay which is roughly soothe 10% of total valuation. I'm quite confident that the Coinweekb article is in the ballpark and the total value of the coins is $400k+ against a risk price of $480k. But my doing my work is not going to prevent people from continuing to make up numbers and lying about the valuation.
The analysis was done before by Coinweek as well as a couple of forum members. I really don't feel the need to justify it to you or anyone else. If you care, you can do the math yourself. The NGC price guide, eBay, and the list of VB contents are all publicly available.
The flaw in your analysis is that you only looked at 10% of the total value. You don’t have to justify it, but it lacks credibility if you ignore 90% of the value.
I’m just looking for the numbers - which coinworld didn’t provide either - they made an 80% of guide assumption, but without data, it’s just an assumption.
It doesn’t matter to me what the end result is, but I am legitimately curious what the expected value of a vaultbox is and I haven’t seen any calculation based on what the coins can actually be sold for.
As I said, you can do the work.
At current market prices of the VB slabs, the actual market value is above cost. VB slabs are selling for far more then the generic NGC 69s that I used in the spreadsheet.
At current market prices of the VB slabs, the actual market value is above cost. VB slabs are selling for far more then the generic NGC 69s that I used in the spreadsheet.
You're playing Whack-A-Mole. You could demonstrate value to everyone's satisfaction and it'll just end up being something else next. Some people have concluded that VaultBox is bad and they're working their way back from that.
Comments
Don't put $300 on black 22 then. People gamble (and lose) all the time. Maybe $300 is 0.0001% of their net worth and means little to them. So many reasons...
Don't worry, I don't. But the payout on that Black 22 is not crazy, so I have no issue with it. Generally a 1 in 38 chance to receive a 35 to 1 payout.
OTOH, if you had a 1 in 70 shot to receive that 35 to 1 payout, I'd be saying exactly what I am saying here. That's actually how the lottery works, with similar odds, but at least the money goes to fund government spending that would otherwise be funded by taxes.
Might not mean anything to a millionaire who enjoys watching little metal balls spinning around a black and red wheel, but I'd be saying it anyway, just in case anyone does not understand true odds, house edges, and getting screwed.
Don't put $300 on black 22 then> @NJCoin said:
So you're OK with people having a 97.4% of losing everything with nothing to show for it (0% return), but not OK with someone getting a 50% return on a gamble?
Yup. Because if they play 38 times, repeatedly, they are only likely to lose 5.26% per cycle. As opposed to the lottery, where they are likely to lose 50%. Or VB, where the number is somewhere between the two, but seemingly far in excess of 20%.
Having an 80%+ chance of losing 50%+, a 0.125% chance of making 3800%, and a <20% chance of either making or losing something in between is, economically, really far worse that a 97.4% chance of losing 100% and a 2.6% chance of making 3500%. Assuming, of course, that you have a sufficient bankroll to play enough times. If not, it really does not make a lot of sense to play anything at all.
They say 65% of all statistics are made up right there on the spot. 82.4% of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not. Now I don't know what you believe, but I do know there's no doubt I need another double shot of something 90 proof I've got too much to think about. -Todd Snyder Statistician's Blues
Philippians 4:4-7
$300,000 is a made up number. Show your work, please.
Having done a catch-up reading this thread, for some reason I'm reminded of those folks who come in playing show and tell and brag "Well, I only let him make $x on this because I know what they're REALLY worth!" LMAO. Too many people get lost in the weeds railing on about how much someone makes on something. For instance, I think that most TV sellers charge too much for items they're selling... but they're still doing millions a year in sales, so someone apparently likes them. I think the US Mint offerings are by and large somewhat overpriced for what one gets... but people still invariably buy them out of the latest flavor of the month hot issues and crow about being one of the lucky recipients. If you build it, they will come.
I guess what I am getting at is this... Of course VB makes money on these; that's why they were created... and the people incessantly arguing back and forth about it here are by and large NOT their intended market demo for them and were never intended to be, nor do most of the posters here even have (or intend to have) any skin in the game. I tend to disagree with the way VB is being handled and don't think they are a particularly good deal...but I do not begrudge them a profit, just as I don't begrudge the Mint, the TV guys or any other dealer a profit. Call it a lottery, sweepstakes, grab bag, whatever. Who cares? If enough people lose money and/or become disillusioned with their results after a few tries and don't return for seconds or thirds, then the problem takes care of itself.
I am sure that this second round will also sell out... Not because it's a great deal, not because it's an "investment", but because there will always be the group of people who adopt the philosophy of "you can't win if you don't play" and things like this, box breaks, raffles, grab bags, mystery boxes, lotteries etc. cater to that mindset. If you like VB, great. If you don't, you won't be buying it anyway so it really shouldn't make any difference to you. If you're complaining here on a forum populated by people who more likely than not aren't going to participate, you're not really saving anyone from themselves...and the people who do choose to participate frankly don't need or want anyone to save them.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
$300 (widely reported numbers seem to be between $250 and $350) * 800 = $240,000 + $40,000 for your Big Coins = $280,000. Plus another $20,000 because I was feeling generous, and thought it would be prudent to round up. Probably pretty damn close to the actual number. Now show yours.
You've ignored all the better coins. The spreadsheet on the other thread looked at the actual values and came to around $500. You took the lowest value boxes and multiplied by 800 and then only accounted for the 4v or 5 big trophy coins when there were left of $5 gold.
I apologize to you and the entire forum for taking 10 minutes off my ignore off you.
Carry on... alone.
No problem, but, in all fairness, I did allocate $20K to better coins. After all, there really aren't all that many of them. Plus, $40K buys way more than just the top 4 or 5 coins, doesn't it?
What do you think 1/10 oz. gold bullion coins are worth, anyway? They are what bring $300 boxes up to $350 or maybe $400! The people excited to see them as their "Big Coin" were not winners, no matter what they might think.
Also, clearly I am not alone, since I managed to command 10 minutes of your valuable time! Thank you for playing. 🤣
According to an article on Coinweek:
Number of coins: 2,400
Number of boxes: 800
Total price guide value: $578,675
Mean coin value: $241
Price per box: $595
Total price for 800 boxes: $476,000
Each box contains one common, one uncommon, and one rare coin.
Mean common value: $65
Mean uncommon value: $126
Mean rare value: $532
Mean value of three-coin box: $723
Value as percent of price: 122%
Assume street value is 80% of price guide.
Mean common value: $52
Mean uncommon value: $101
Mean rare value: $425
Mean value of three-coin box: $579
Value as percent of price: 97%
Problem solved. Coinweek said it, no doubt based on information provided by VB, so we're all good now. The fact that Coinweek just regurgitates information provided by a retailer tells you all you need to know about the quality of the "reporting" that goes into their "articles."
Thanks for solving the quandary. So, how many will you now be buying, given all the "fun" and the newly revealed excellent value? I'm still in for none.
Believe me, if those numbers were anywhere close to reality, buyers would be raving, everyone would be thrilled, and VERY few people would have boxes worth $300, or less, when the mean value is $579 and less than $100 of that would be devoted to funding the winners.
Basically, the vast majority of losers would be worth more than $450, street, not around $300. That $150, times 800, represents the BS in the Coinweek marketing statement, and the basis of everyone's complaint. It's also around $120K in excess profit that fanboys are denying exists, but people selling pulls on eBay for $49 know damn well does, because they are the ones who paid. Not me, or you.
Thank you for numbers. Not that anyone will care. People can hate the concept and not want to buy one. You can even hate the concept and consider it an illegal lottery. But people shouldn't need to just make up alleged facts to prove a point...unless you feel your opinion can't stand on its own merits.
With all due respect, the "alleged facts" are what Coinweek is publishing, untested and unchallenged. If I was running an advertising platform masquerading as a respected publication, I'd make a effort to validate so-called "facts" that I publish.
A list of coins in the boxes is publicly available. So are actual retail transaction prices for each and every one of those coins, on eBay, GC, various dealer websites, etc.
No need for Coinweek to be lazy and publish a press release under the guise of an article, other than that's what they do. And for anyone to then quote from it here, as though the players in this forum are so unsophisticated as to not recognize the difference between "facts" in an "article" and a marketing press release.
"2023 © DISCLAIMER: All content within CoinWeek.com is presented for informational purposes only, with no guarantee of accuracy. All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management."
Coinweek doesn't vouch for its content. You sure you want to? 🤣🤣🤣
Completely untrue and I'll thank you to apologize for maligning the author of the article whom I know personally.
The spreadsheet started with the list of coins as published by VB, but all of the price guide lookups and estimations were the personal work of the author.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Well, I don't know him, so I have no allegiance and I owe him nothing. Including an apology. I didn't even see who he is, and didn't malign him in any way. I just pointed out that Coinweek publishes puff pieces, with and without compensation, and takes no responsibility for anything it publishes. If you want to imply that what he writes is Pulitzer worthy investigative journalism because you know him personally, as he used an inflated price guide to determine inflated retail values, that's your business.
I would, however, love to know who compensated him for writing an "article," that very closely tracks everything VB said pre-release about Series 1, and why he would represent price guide data that has no relationship to actual retail value as retail value.
Why not pull from actual retail transactions? What was the financial motivation, if any, to overstate the retail value of the boxes? Did Coinweek pay him to write that "article," or was he paid in any way by VB? Or did he do it as a public service, like I am here?
No, he was not paid by VB. He's a freelance writer who has written for Coinweek for many years.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Interesting, and I'm very surprised you opened this door. Thank you for being honest.
If he wasn't paid by VB, who paid him to do all that work researching and writing that "article"? Coinweek?
Where did he get the idea to use an inflated price guide to do his research, prominently publish the resulting fiction, and then to apply a random haircut to guesstimate "street values"? Coinweek? VB? Why not just go to the street and get values? With the miracle of the internet, the "street" is at all of our fingertips 24/7.
I honestly meant no offense to anyone, and there was no need to make it personal by claiming I was insulting the author of an article I did not mention by name, simply because I claim the piece is nothing more than marketing fluff. Which it is. A Q&A published two weeks before release, designed to stimulate demand. Which it no doubt did.
Where is the follow-up article reporting on all the complaints voiced on the interest after people opened their boxes and realized they didn't average anywhere 122% of retail value, or 97% of street value? It's been over a month. Nobody in the community wants to pay a freelancer for that piece of journalism? Hmm.
Coinweek is an advertising platform. Its advertisers are the numismatic community. I don't expect them to bite the hands that feed them. I also don't expect any serious person to cite to them, in a case like this, for "proof" or "disproof" of anything critical about anyone in the community.
I think we've learned a lot here...none of it about VB, Coinweek, or your friend.
Are you people getting paid by the word? 🤔
.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What? That Coinweek is not the New York Times?
"2023 © DISCLAIMER: All content within CoinWeek.com is presented for informational purposes only, with no guarantee of accuracy. All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management."
Imagine if an actual news source added that disclaimer to its work. No shade on the author. He was paid to do a job, by whoever, and he did it. Good for him. I don't begrudge anyone a living, including this guy. Representing his work as anything other than what it is, OTOH, is something else entirely.
If he was paid by Coinweek, they explicitly do not stand behind his work. If he was paid by someone else, there's that, and Coinweek also explicitly does not stand behind his work. It was not journalism, or an "article." It was numismatic marketing in the form of a Q&A in support of VB before its launch.
I wish! 🤣
So? Many don't, please research first:
https://www.amazon.com/Topps-1987-Baseball-Box-Including/dp/B007Z7KYAW/ref=sr_1_4_mod_primary_new?keywords=wax+packs+baseball+cards&qid=1678154620&sbo=RZvfv//HxDF+O5021pAnSA==&sr=8-4
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Take out the top 10% of the red slabbed VB coins and what is the average price of a VB? $500, no chance.............. Sure you can claim that is very different from overcharging but you seem to be missing the point here that the majority get screwed. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I personally have no problem with anyone wanting to play as long as everyone playing has an equal chance to get screwed or get one of the big coins. Evidence shows that is NOT the case with VB.........................
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
It's worse. Because they were using inflated values for the pool, the screwing was far worse than people were led to believe it would be. I'm pretty sure that's the core of most people's complaints.
Not simply that they played a lottery and lost. But that the average retail value of a box is not actually close to $600, including the value of the red cores. Which is not what VB represented upfront, and which would not be unreasonable to expect, given that $600 would include a reasonable retail markup on their cost of acquisition, grading, boxing, etc.
I did some research - even though no one cares. I took the bottom end coins, the 9.9 Mint State ASE's and summed the NGC price guide and looked at median eBay sale prices. These coins are the cheapest ones in the boxes and represent a total of 700 coins (out of 2400 total).
The total NGC price guide for the 35 different ASE's was $2225. The total median eBay sales price for the same coins was $1701. That is 76% of the NGC price guide. Since the Coinweek article was using 80% of the guide price in the article, it would suggest their valuation is actually reasonable. That results in a MEAN BOX VALUE OF $579 against a purchase price of $595. Tell me again about "overcharging".
Here's the numbers:
Coin type year grade NGC guide eBay
ASE 1987 9.9 65 45
ASE 1988 9.9 65 58
ASE 1989 9.9 65 50
ASE 1990 9.9 100 62
ASE 1991 9.9 125 50
ASE 1992 9.9 90 53
ASE 1993 9.9 85 55
ASE 1995 9.9 125 60
ASE 1997 9.9 70 55
ASE 1998 9.9 75 55
ASE 1999 9.9 75 55
ASE 2000 9.9 85 55
ASE 2001 9.9 65 50
ASE 2002 9.9 65 50
ASE 2003 9.9 70 48
ASE 2004 9.9 65 45
ASE 2005 9.9 65 45
ASE 2006 9.9 65 45
ASE 2007 9.9 55 45
ASE 2008 9.9 55 45
ASE 2009 9.9 50 45
ASE 2010 9.9 50 45
ASE 2011 9.9 50 45
ASE 2012 9.9 40 45
ASE 2013 9.9 40 45
ASE 2014 9.9 45 45
ASE 2015 9.9 50 45
ASE 2016 9.9 45 45
ASE 2017 9.9 45 45
ASE 2018 9.9 45 45
ASE 2019 9.9 45 45
ASE 2020 9.9 45 45
ASE 2021 9.9 45 45
ASE 2022 9.9 50 45
ASE 2023 9.9 50 45
2225 1701
Research? You think people want facts? How precious.
The majority don't win the lottery. That is the nature of lotteries. Why is THAT so difficult to understand? If everyone gets the same thing in every box, that is nice and fair. It is also NOT the point of a mystery box where you play BECAUSE YOU CAN WIN.
I UNDERSTAND that most people don't win. Have I ever said otherwise? But that is not the same as "overcharging" which usually implies that there are obscene profits being made by the vendor NOT that my next door neighbor got a more valuable box.
NO ONE GETS SCREWED. They play the game. They win or lose. The KNOW that going in. If I buy a lottery ticket and lose, I did NOT get screwed. I simply lost the game. A game I KNEW the rules of when I sat down to play.
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Stop making things up. See my spreadsheet. See the Coinweek article.
If you want to make an affirmative declaration supply FACTS.
You can hate VB without making up LIES to support your hatred.
That's a start, and thank you for taking the time. I care, apparently as do you.
Why limit the analysis to only the least valuable coins, and then extrapolating from them? Why not a reasonable sample from all three groups, just to see whether the 30% overvaluation (2225/1701) increases, decreases or stays the same as the coin values increase?
FWIW, even the list you posted shows that higher priced coins have a much greater over valuation than the lower priced ones (125/50 or 60 vs 40, 45 and 50/45). Nice try! Cherry pick valuations, and then accuse others of lying to make a point. 🤣
Of course there are cheaper ones. That is BEYOND IRRELEVANT. My response was to someone who said VB is more expensive than trading card boxes which is not true. In fact, I wrote "...go up to $10,000..." I didn't claim they all cost $10,000.
Please read posts carefully before responding.
@jmlanzaf - Follow the 80/20 rule - focus your analysis on the small number of high value coins that comprise most of the total VB value. If that supports your thesis, no need to spend so much time looking at all the low value coins.
Edited to add that in your analysis above, you need to weight the coins to their representation in the vault boxes. 1701 to 2225 isn’t correct if they don’t all show up equally.
So....what's the updated post stats?😂🤣🤔
I thought about it for a few seconds, and then I came to my senses! It's pointless. There is no end in sight.
Edited( or can we just elect a non partial forum member to declare a winner. Any judges on the forum?)
They do so show up equally which is why I did the analysis that way. There's 20 of each.
The value of the higher value coins was less likely to be inflated, in my opinion. In fact, the coins shown represent 30% of all coins in the boxes and almost 10% of the value. There is little argument over the $40,000 valuation of the trophy coins, so that is another 10% of the valuation. The proof Eagles are about 70% of NGC guide on ebay which is roughly soothe 10% of total valuation. I'm quite confident that the Coinweekb article is in the ballpark and the total value of the coins is $400k+ against a risk price of $480k. But my doing my work is not going to prevent people from continuing to make up numbers and lying about the valuation.
The analysis was done before by Coinweek as well as a couple of forum members. I really don't feel the need to justify it to you or anyone else. If you care, you can do the math yourself. The NGC price guide, eBay, and the list of VB contents are all publicly available.
It's not a contest. The 3 of us have been ignoring NJ for the most part. He's arguing with no one. I made the mistake of taking him off ignore today. I will not repeat that mistake.
Everyone hates this thread, but they keep coming back. They then stir the pot and complain that people respond. A pox upon all your houses.
No voting for judges! That would just create a nightmare keeping this thread alive even longer!🤣😯
I am shocked the ultimate judge (aka Moderator) hasn't closed this thread weeks ago after it stopped being about coins🤔
The flaw in your analysis is that you only looked at 10% of the total value. You don’t have to justify it, but it lacks credibility if you ignore 90% of the value.
I’m just looking for the numbers - which coinworld didn’t provide either - they made an 80% of guide assumption, but without data, it’s just an assumption.
It doesn’t matter to me what the end result is, but I am legitimately curious what the expected value of a vaultbox is and I haven’t seen any calculation based on what the coins can actually be sold for.
What is good, if brief, is better.
But not yours? 🤣
No worries. It's a near certainty that you'll just start another one if and when this one gets shut down.
Instead of being shocked, why not just control yourself and not start a new thread whenever VB does something new? Pretty much anything that can be said has already been said. People profess annoyance because everyone does not agree with whatever it is they are saying, yet no one stops. Including you.
I didn’t read this, zero interest. 600 comments on the newest gimmick. You guys need to get out more.
Not Coin World, which actually has some journalistic credibility. Coinweek, which is an advertising platform that does not stand behind its own content. Coin World would never publish an advertisement masquerading as an article like that.
"2023 © DISCLAIMER: All content within CoinWeek.com is presented for informational purposes only, with no guarantee of accuracy. All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management."
Like having courtside seats at the Internet Allstars game.
Special bonus, the slam dunk contest that never ends...
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
-----Abraham Lincoln
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
That goes both ways. Coinweek. 🤣
"2023 © DISCLAIMER: All content within CoinWeek.com is presented for informational purposes only, with no guarantee of accuracy. All News, Articles, Commentary and Opinions are contributed by the author(s), with or without compensation, who are solely responsible for the content, and do not represent CoinWeek Management."
As I said, you can do the work.
At current market prices of the VB slabs, the actual market value is above cost. VB slabs are selling for far more then the generic NGC 69s that I used in the spreadsheet.
You're playing Whack-A-Mole. You could demonstrate value to everyone's satisfaction and it'll just end up being something else next. Some people have concluded that VaultBox is bad and they're working their way back from that.