Certified Morgan dollars on TV
seatedlib3991
Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭✭
This morning I turned on the TV and found an infomercial selling a group of 21 "sleeper" Morgan dollars.
Only $3,995 for the 21 coin set in NGC 63 holders.
Zero mention of PCGS
Claimed 63 is "The most coveted collector grade".
Jotted down some of the "sleeper" dates. 83-O, 84-O. 85-O, 88, 89, 90. Have not collected Morgan dollars in a while but think those are the most common. Kept flashing population reports and showing how "these" dates were the same as much more expensive dates in comparison.
Wife is still mad at me for yelling at the TV at 7 in the morning but some things just get under my skin.
Could not help but wonder what kind of set could be done with that much money to spend. For one thing, I bet you could do the same set in the "popular" collector grade of 64. PCGS. James
Comments
Never buy a coin from TV.
I call these guys on TV "barkers." They are introduced as "experts," yet I have never heard of any of them. They usually say that common "stuff" is rare and lots of collectors want it. It's usually not the case.
They have rather high overhead which explains their high prices.
I watch them for a few minutes for their entertainment value only.
Dang it. Looks I’ve been going about this collecting thing in the wrong way completely.
I’d much rather have one really nice example of an MS 67 Morgan dollar worth $3995 than 21 MS63 “sleepers” from TV at the same price.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
Yeah, well, your wife is right. I promise you that whoever you were yelling at could not hear you, so all you accomplished was annoying your wife. 😀
Beyond that, just understand that TV is a very expensive way to reach people, and that ad was not meant for you. It is meant to bring new people into the hobby. They are expensive to reach and the sellers are not running a charity. So the prices are always going to be high for what you are getting.
That said, there is really nothing wrong with NGC. For the more common stuff in the more common grades, which is precisely what you are complaining about, there is no premium attached to PCGS slabs as compared to NGC.
Both services have deals with telemarketers, and you will find numerous slabs from both companies all over TV, especially with moderns. 63 is undoubtedly a more popular "collector grade" than 64 because they are both considered "choice," neither is considered "gem," and, coin by coin, 63 will be less expensive.
Yes, you could find anything for less money anywhere other than TV. But, you have to know what you are doing and where to look. And those are simply not the people being marketed to on cable TV at 7:00 a.m. on a Saturday.
They have to be selling a lot of this greatly overpriced stuff to keep on doing the show.
I have found myself yelling at the TV a lot over the past several years. (Yes, maybe a little nuts here :-))
My own son actually fell for one of these scams and bought a bunch of uncirculated modern nickel rolls from some of these “barkers” several years ago. I was very disappointed!
I have a dim view of such marketing endeavors.
I sympathize with your screaming at the blasted TV.
For my health and sanity, I watch it very seldom these days and have disconnected from most services.
Take care of yourself and stay away from those shopping channels at least.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
I have to watch these coin shows for a little while, just to hear the "whoppers" they tell.
Personally I just hate to see my hobby used so often as a get rich ploy that ends up fleecing the innocent. I mention PCGS only because the lying trash on TV was pretending NGC was the only game in town. My guess is his "scant" populations would double and triple when all the rest are thrown in. James
And they surely do. There are several telemarketers on cable and satellite TV several times per week. As I said, production and air time is not cheap. If they weren't making money they wouldn't be all over the place. Even at 7:00 a.m. on a Saturday.
P.S. @NJCoin . Just for the record. Annoying the wife has been my ONLY other hobby for more than 40 years. James
Figure it this way...
Somebody has to pay the studio to create the broadcast. Somebody has to pay for airtime. Somebody has to pay the (air quotes) talent. And the makeup people. Production assistants. Director.
I guarantee it's not coming out of the seller's cut - they have to pay off the Benz somehow. Nope, they jack up the prices enough to cover everything.
If you go to a local coin shop, you're paying for their overhead, and a new shirt because the old one has mustard stains. What's cheaper - a Benz or a shirt??????
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
THIS ^^^^^. Again, telemarketing is not aimed at numismatists. It's a very expensive selling platform, and is priced accordingly. It's not a "rip off" to the extent that it reaches people who would not otherwise be reached, even though they certainly pay a lot more than they would if they bought through other channels.
Kind of like buying a car and then paying for a driver is more expensive than renting a car and driving yourself, calling an Uber, taking a bus, or walking if you need to go from Point A to Point B.
RCTV must be good if it comes on at 7AM.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
I find that yelling at the tv is part of my entertainment of watching it.
When it comes to pro hockey games, the yell is always shoot the puck.
My wife only gives me the eye stares when it comes to my computer not doing what I want it to especially when it comes to email composing.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Words to live by.
1908 MS-64 No Motto Saint offered today for $4,500....the mark-ups are really obscene, even if they were set when gold's price was $2,800/oz.
I know they have to cover costs and make a profit on the infomercial, but you would hope the markup would be a bit less.
For some reason these guys run their ads on a local Chinese language station.
In English.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
The same could be said about the Mint's mark-ups on ALL of its numismatic gold items. They are a federal agency that is only supposed to be covering its costs, rather than charging what the market will bear. AND, they have a monopoly on the issuance of US coinage, so unlike TV, there really is no other place to get what they are offering, unless you want to take a chance on lower pricing in the secondary market in the future.
At the end of the day, it's a free market. If people are willing to pay, that's all that really matters, whether it's 2024 Flowing Hair gold coins, with or without privy, direct from the Mint, or 1908 MS-64 No Motto Saints from RCTV.
If there was no market at whatever prices are being charged, the TV time would go to someone else selling something else, and US Mint production resources would be directed elsewhere.
While I'm not fond of fraud, I cannot muster much sympathy for anyone who would pony up $4000 without any real idea what the coins are worth. That is, literally, asking to be cheated.
No, that’s definitely not “literally asking to be cheated”. But it is buyers putting themselves into position to pay much more than they could obtain the coins for elsewhere.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The real bad part is when relatives think they are buying something nice for their coin collecting relatives. Worse than NGC slabbed Morgan’s are the so-called gold tribute coins “layered” in real gold that get sold on TV and in magazines.
Mr_Spud
"No, that’s definitely not “literally asking to be cheated”. But it is buyers putting themselves into position to pay much more than they could obtain the coins for elsewhere."
Ah another of the "literally" police. It irks me too, but my wife says just accept the fluidity of a spoken language.
Actually, you could argue that the Mint is WORSE. They have a monopoly on coin creation and can create privy-marked rarities that they then sell for $50,000 per ounce.
Or you could argue that the mint might benefit from even larger markups over cost BUT that they’re not as likely to hype, greatly exaggerate or mislead potential buyers.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm not sure i would try to make that case about the Mint. They do hype the collectibility of their products. But I'm not trying to stop any of them from doing their thing.
I’m apparently guilty of not accepting the fluidity of a spoken language when a word (such as “literally”) is so badly abused - especially when I’ve seen it happen twice in the past few days.🫢
😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m not trying to stop it either, as even I (usually) know when a cause is hopeless. But I’ve certainly seen a lot of statements and claims from TV sellers that are far worse than anything from the Mint.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's likely true. But any more reasonable claim of collectability by the Mint is, for me, more than compensated for by their intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities. But,i agree, old men yelling at clouds changes little.
Why? You didn't seem to have an issue with it at the time, until it became obvious that others placed a far higher value than you did on "their intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities." Shutting you out of an opportunity to feed at the Mint's trough.
Until that happened, you seemed ready, willing and able to take your rightful place in the "retail arbitrage" food chain, offering your capital and kind assistance in helping the Mint in its distribution of its "intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities."
That's totally inaccurate, as you appear to prefer. You will find not a single post where I was either excited about ANY of the FH dollars or interested in collecting them. With respect to the privies, quite contrary to your current claims, I referred to them as artificial rarities at the time and questioned the long term interest and value. But as I said here, I do not care what TV hawkers or the Mint do. I don't, however, give the Mint a pass and criticize other retailers.
A baker who sells rye bread doesn't have to like rye bread.
I will gladly sell TV hawked "rarities" and Mint "rarities" when I can. And when I can't, I simply move on to the next thing. It's business, not a moral crusade.
Survey says: FAIL(again)
It's not at all inaccurate. Not even a little, let alone "totally inaccurate." I never said you were "excited" or "interested in collecting" anything.
I said you "you seemed ready, willing and able to take your rightful place in the "retail arbitrage" food chain, offering your capital and kind assistance in helping the Mint in its distribution of its "intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities.""
Which is 1,000,000% consistent with "gladly sell TV hawked "rarities" and Mint "rarities" when I can" and totally inconsistent with purported disdain for "their intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities." If you'll gladly sell something, you should have absolutely no issue with its production. Period.
Now who's FAILING (again)? 😀
We disagree; it's happened before.
The concept of "caveat emptor" is as old as civilization. It doesn't condone cheating people, but it recognizes that lots of people are trying to cheat you. It's one thing to spend $50 on some widget about which you know nothing; but it's sheer folly to spend $4000 on something you know nothing about, from a TV huckster. That certainly is the functional equivalent of "literally asking to be cheated."
That’s all fine and dandy. But the functional equivalent of something isn’t the same thing as “literally”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm curious how you know the exact expense structure to design and execute each US Mint product individually. Materials, labor, shipping, contractors etc.
If you care about this marketplace or any marketplace you protect the image and perception of the products you consume or deal or manufacture. It helps perceived value long term...if you are in the marketplace long term. So those of us who are, should care about representation. In this case specifically the marketplace does not care about a sellers overhead, The overwhelming priority should be in cultivating and maintaining potential collectors of material which can be challenging utilizing a TV marketing strategy.
Sorry to interrupt a good aurgument but as long as this thread has risen from the dead i wanted to mention the latest TV deal on True Grit. Voice over guy is hawking a pound of Morgan Dollars at $49 a coin plus shipping and handling. He says "These are not cull coins, these are coins in the highly desires grades that collectors covet. Each coins is guaranteed to have a legible date." Who could ask for more? James
I don't. I also don't have to know the exact molecular structure of water (although, that's an easy one and I do know it) to know that it is wet.
Regardless, of "the exact expense structure to design and execute each US Mint product individually. Materials, labor, shipping, contractors etc.," I know it's a LOT less than would be justified by the premiums they charge, given the volumes they move.
How do I know this? Because world mints make profits moving a tiny fraction of the US Mint's volume at roughly the same mark ups. And because the Mint also sustained itself for decades running a numismatic program, including clad as well as precious metal coinage, at FAR lower premiums.
You are correct insofar as no one cares about anyone's overhead, need to turn a profit, etc. It all comes down to perceived value. And, if it continues on its current course, the Mint is going to turn off even more current and potential future collectors with its pricing structure.
Because the value just isn't there at 3x spot for silver and around $1,000 over $2700 spot per ounce for gold. Bullion is produced at a fraction of the cost, and the additional costs to create and handle numismatic product is not nearly what they currently charge.
Your argument about long term value is somewhat circular. 230 gold privy coins will certainly have a greater long term value than 100,000+ proof ASEs, but there were not too many people impressed with how they were priced, or that they were even made in the first place.
If you price something high enough at the outset, the long term value is not guaranteed to be there, no matter how few are made. The Mint is killing the figurative golden goose by taking the collector base for granted, and pricing its numismatic offerings on a par with world mints that have far smaller volumes.
The end result is going to be a race to the bottom, in which higher prices lead to lower volumes, until it will no longer make sense to continue the program. See the thread on the 2024 Mint sales report for more details.
We don't know the other world Mint obligations or responsibilities. We do know our Mint is hamstrung with Congressional approval of commemorative pork barreling projects on a constant money losing basis.
True. But the US Mint commemorative program has been around since 1982, and the Mint did not have to sell proof AGEs or ASEs at anywhere close to the premium they do today in order for them to make their nut.
Everything should stand on its own. If Congress wants the Mint to make commems at a loss, that's fine, and that goes in one bucket. Trying to make up for it by milking other popular programs is not going to be sustainable, as we are now seeing.
The Mint sees what other mints are doing with respect to pricing, and thinks they can do the same, with 10x, 20x, or more of the volume. They are learning, the hard way, that demand is not inelastic, no matter how popular the program.
I do have disdain for the artificial rarity which is why I don't COLLECT them. But they exist, why would I not SELL my customers what they want?
You would absolutely sell your customers what they want. You would not derisively refer to the product you were marketing as the "intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities," if you did not, in fact, hold it, or your customers, in disdain.
Lol. Not true. Even ludicrous. If a baker hates rye bread, does he show disdain to his customers by selling it?
I also hate registry top pop moderns. Other people like them. I sell them what they want. I don't like Morgan dollars, should I refuse to sell them to people that do?
Lmfao. You've created a disagreement where there isn't one. I AGREED with you about the Mint and you still manufactured an argument.
Forum rules prevent me from expressing my opinion of those barkers.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
No. But, if a baker thinks rye bread represents the "intentional, monopolistic creation of alleged rarities," then, yeah, maybe he doesn't make or sell rye bread. Otherwise, maybe it's not so bad after all, since it supports himself and his family.
No, you shouldn't refuse to sell anything that is legal to sell, and for which a market exists. Which has nothing to do with your personal collecting preferences.
You also shouldn't trash talk about anything you make markets in, lest your customers think you are snickering about them behind their backs. Which you don't.
The gold privys weren't a crime against humanity until you couldn't get your mitts on them at a price you were comfortable with. Then, and only then, all bets were off, because you weren't going to be selling them to anyone.
Yelling at the tv is cheap therapy EXCEPT if Max Headroom appears on the screen and talks back to you. 😲
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
What is not sustainable? I am not understanding. They have developed a following with some recent successful releases. They are severely backing off mintages, designing and producing aesthetically pleasing numismatically significant material. I cannot be the only one pleased with my recent purchases.
If the values hold they are on a sustainable path, cultivating interested long term buyers.
I'm not talking about the recent successes, like the 2024 FH products, whatever they have planned for 2026, etc. I'm talking about the annual series, where prices keep going up and sales keep going down.
If they keep it up, they are going to price themselves out of the market altogether, since those fixed costs I know nothing about are only going to increase while they are going to have less and less product over which to spread it.
I understand. Certain yearly issues are going to fluctuate or are trending down.
That does not mean additional new programs are unsustainable.
I'm saying the entire thing is unsustainable if they keep raising prices to the point where they totally kill demand. Just think how much they would have had to charge for the FH silver medal to just break even if it was the only numismatic offering of the year.
At the rate they are going, they will soon be at a point where they are selling a tiny fraction of the amount they used to sell, across all products. They are already selling a small fraction, as compared to 10 or 20 years ago.
It's not just because collectors are dying off and not being replaced. It's also because those who are still alive and kicking are rejecting the huge premiums the Mint is asking, for everything, regardless of how high or low the mintages are. Right here on this forum.
That is what is not sustainable, long term. Because there will be a point at which the asking price is so high, due to low volumes, that even you will not be interested in "additional new programs."
The FH gold privy would be an extreme example of what I am talking about. If the Mint did not have literally millions of annual proof and uncirculated coins over which to spread its costs, both fixed and variable, just what do you think the Mint would have to charge for whatever new and exciting program you might be interest in?
And would you still be interested at that price, assuming it would be a multiple of the 3x for silver and $1,000+ per ounce they charge for gold? Most folks would take a pass. At which point every new issue would be a gold privy auction.
Or there just wouldn't be any new issues at all, because it wouldn't be worth their while to fire up the presses for the tiny amount of one ounce silver coins or medals they'd be able to sell at maybe $300+ each.
This is what I mean by unsustainable. Continued price increases, when they are already charging a significant premium over intrinsic value, will only lead to lower demand, which will lead to more price increases, which will lead to still lower demand.
Unsustainable over the long run. Commems only exist due to Congressional action. Do you think Congress would take the same interest in the numismatic program in general, if public interest is insufficient to sustain it in a way that makes economic sense?
is the washington quarter unsustainable?