@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I consigned several coins to GC recently, including a Morgan Dollar that had earned CMQ approval (which I paid for). When I checked the auction listing, I was surprised to find that they scraped off and removed the CMQ sticker.
An email inquiring about this decision elicited the following response:
We removed the label, as it is not one that we recognize in our auctions. We have not seen them bring premium prices, unlike CAC.
Not a huge deal, but some bidders may value the approval from David Hall, and if GC is removing these stickers, the sample size on hammer prices is small if not nonexistent (a completed item search does not turn up any listings for "CMQ").
I love both buying and selling with GC and will continue to do business with them, but thought this was worth sharing in case anyone else is considering consigning CMQ-approved coins.
(left is my pre-submission photo; right is GC auction photo)
the coin on the right obviously looks better than the one on the left, even missing those other details.
Edit to add: I've said on record from day one that the stickers should be on the back of the holders, anyway. IF such are really necessary to sell coins.
@ianrussell said:
I guess this is the wrong thread to announce the launch of the GC sticker?
🤔
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@PerryHall said:
Why not let the bidders decide if the CMQ sticker has any value?
Exactly!! It's kind of a BS response, and is likely less than 100% truthful. OTOH, you have to respect Ian for not wanting to provide a platform to a competitor. After all, while it's a DH approval, it's a SB product.
That would totally explain why THIS sticker has to go while others are allowed to remain. So this information is not shocking, and I guess the takeaway is that if CMQ stickers are your thing and you want to later sell in auction, you should plan on sending the coins to the auction house marketing the stickers, as opposed to its competitors. @messydesk said:
I would think the qualifications for a sticker remaining on a slab are that the sticker has a proven track record of adding value of some sort to the buyer, and not just the entity affixing the sticker before selling the coin. As far as approval stickers goes, this narrows it down to CAC, QA, and Eagle Eye. Thankfully, my attribution sticker is also now recognized.
I imagine soon we'll see an updated GC T&C that enumerates stickers that will not be removed from consignor holders.
I think you said it best. And for your stickers, remember we didn't instantly approve - we had to do a lot of research before finally listing with VSS stickers. Of course, I wish we allowed them on day 1, but that's with the benefit of hindsight.
@bsshog40 said:
Ya, the more I'm following the thread, the more I learned that the CMQ sticker is an SB product.
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Maybe I'm not understanding the CMQ stickers. While Stacks Bowers may sticker some of the coins they auction, don't they also sticker coins submitted by collectors and dealers that are returned to them rather than being sold in one of their auctions? If so, the CMQ sticker doesn't necessarily represent an appearance in a SB auction as others have stated.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I feel that if a sticker in anyway covers an info oriented portion of the holder, then remove it. If not, leave it, or at least have boundaries, suchas, CAC ok, Eagle Eye ok, blah, blah, blah. All others to be removed. I have full faith in Ian and if the holder is in any way detrimental to HIS consideration of the coin's best value, then sobeit. Perhaps if a sticker that may add value requires removal, show the sticker before and after, thus the buyer will have the info they feel matters to them. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I don’t think a CMQ sticker adds much value today. Perhaps in a few years things might be different. Nevertheless when I’m bidding on a coin without being able to view it in hand the more information I have the better off I am.
@bsshog40 said:
Ya, the more I'm following the thread, the more I learned that the CMQ sticker is an SB product.
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
If Rick decided to start his own auction house, I have a feeling his stickers would find their way into a GC trash bin right alongside CMQ ones. I honestly cannot believe track record has anything to do with anything here.
These are a SB product dreamed up by them to help market coins on their platform. It boggles my mind to see anyone thinking a competitor would want to in any way promote them or give them credibility. How can that possibly help GC in the long run, other than maybe helping it sell a single coin now?
If CMQ takes off, and the only place to get it is at SB, how does that help Ian? It doesn't, which is maybe why he wouldn't want to use a platform he spent many years building into what it is today to help promote it in any way. Maybe keep in mind that, at the end of the day, after everyone is done respecting everyone else, it's still a business.
Also maybe keep in mind that David and Greg could have done this on their own, like JA did. They decided to get in bed with SB for a reason, and the result is that CMQ is not independent of a single auction house. What they lose in independence they make up for in a built in audience for their product, but this is the flip side of that.
They made a choice, as they were free to do. As did Ian. I think we really should respect each of them without opining as to what they should do with their businesses.
@bsshog40 said:
Ya, the more I'm following the thread, the more I learned that the CMQ sticker is an SB product.
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
I agree! My main opinion is the seller should be notified before anything is altered or removed.
I am thinking about auctioning off my Complete US Type set in the future and GC was at the top of the list. Almost all of my coins are PCGS CAC except for one coin and it is a high value coin with a CMQ sticker. I would not want it removed if offered on there site. Does Heritage remove CMQ stickers???
@PerryHall said:
Maybe I'm not understanding the CMQ stickers. While Stacks Bowers may sticker some of the coins they auction, don't they also sticker coins submitted by collectors and dealers that are returned to them rather than being sold in one of their auctions? If so, the CMQ sticker doesn't necessarily represent an appearance in a SB auction as others have stated.
If you are referring to me, I never meant to imply the sticker is the same thing as a HA label to the extent it represents an appearance in an auction. The point is that it is a SB product, and SB is a competitor. Please read my other post for more details as to why Walmart does not accept Amazon returns, while Kohl's and the UPS store does.
@willy said:
I am thinking about auctioning off my Complete US Type set in the future and GC was at the top of the list. Almost all of my coins are PCGS CAC except for one coin and it is a high value coin with a CMQ sticker. I would not want it removed if offered on there site. Does Heritage remove CMQ stickers???
You should ask them. Wouldn't surprise me if they did. Of course, they're so big that it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Why don't you just wait for Greg Rohan to come here and answer for himself, like Ian did, rather than settling for @MFeld? 😀
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
I did not buy the coin because of the sticker. I bought it because a dealer I trust looked it over in person and we decided the coin was worth buying. But since it has a sticker on it now I would prefer if it was not removed. If I use GC in the future and they decide to remove the sticker I will live with that decision. But it is good to know ahead of time.
@bsshog40 said:
Ya, the more I'm following the thread, the more I learned that the CMQ sticker is an SB product.
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
If Rick decided to start his own auction house, I have a feeling his stickers would find their way into a GC trash bin right alongside CMQ ones. I honestly cannot believe track record has anything to do with anything here.
These are a SB product dreamed up by them to help market coins on their platform. It boggles my mind to see anyone thinking a competitor would want to in any way promote them or give them credibility. How can that possibly help GC in the long run, other than maybe helping it sell a single coin now?
If CMQ takes off, and the only place to get it is at SB, how does that help Ian? It doesn't, which is maybe why he wouldn't want to use a platform he spent many years building into what it is today to help promote it in any way. Maybe keep in mind that, at the end of the day, after everyone is done respecting everyone else, it's still a business.
Also maybe keep in mind that David and Greg could have done this on their own, like JA did. They decided to get in bed with SB for a reason, and the result is that CMQ is not independent of a single auction house. What they lose in independence they make up for in a built in audience for their product, but this is the flip side of that.
They made a choice, as they were free to do. As did Ian. I think we really should respect each of them without opining as to what they should do with their businesses.
You can get your entire collection stickered without it being sold by SB. There is a tight connection, obviously, but it is not directly a question of auction placement. If he wanted, Ian could send all GC consignments for CMQ stickers before auctioning them.
CDN CPG only recognizes the CAC sticker or CACG Holder (seperate valuation line) not the other sticker players. I certainly would not spend extra money plus additional shipping cost / risk for one of the other sticker players.
Thanks for sharing info on GC policy on the others. Frankly glad they remove those others / I buy coins not Xmas trees lol.
@willy said:
I did not buy the coin because of the sticker. I bought it because a dealer I trust looked it over in person and we decided the coin was worth buying. But since it has a sticker on it now I would prefer if it was not removed. If I use GC in the future and they decide to remove the sticker I will live with that decision. But it is good to know ahead of time.
Very true, and I don't blame you. OTOH, if you think the sticker adds value, why wouldn't you try to capture that value at SB?
@bsshog40 said:
Ya, the more I'm following the thread, the more I learned that the CMQ sticker is an SB product.
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
If Rick decided to start his own auction house, I have a feeling his stickers would find their way into a GC trash bin right alongside CMQ ones. I honestly cannot believe track record has anything to do with anything here.
These are a SB product dreamed up by them to help market coins on their platform. It boggles my mind to see anyone thinking a competitor would want to in any way promote them or give them credibility. How can that possibly help GC in the long run, other than maybe helping it sell a single coin now?
If CMQ takes off, and the only place to get it is at SB, how does that help Ian? It doesn't, which is maybe why he wouldn't want to use a platform he spent many years building into what it is today to help promote it in any way. Maybe keep in mind that, at the end of the day, after everyone is done respecting everyone else, it's still a business.
Also maybe keep in mind that David and Greg could have done this on their own, like JA did. They decided to get in bed with SB for a reason, and the result is that CMQ is not independent of a single auction house. What they lose in independence they make up for in a built in audience for their product, but this is the flip side of that.
They made a choice, as they were free to do. As did Ian. I think we really should respect each of them without opining as to what they should do with their businesses.
You can get your entire collection stickered without it being sold by SB. There is a tight connection, obviously, but it is not directly a question of auction placement. If he wanted, Ian could send all GC consignments for CMQ stickers before auctioning them.
Of course not, and I did not mean to suggest that it was. All I'm saying is that SB is a competitor. If they competed with my business, I wouldn't allow them to use my business as a platform to promote theirs.
Yes, if he wanted to, Ian could send every single GC consignment to SB for a possible sticker. But why on earth would he?
Among other things, that might signal to consignors that maybe they should just be dealing directly with SB, since they have these awesome stickers that enhance hammer prices. And while I'm sure the goal is for CMQ to be another CAC, right now it is far from it, and I'm sure the place to get any value at all from a CMQ sticker is from like minded people at the mother ship, SB.
I can't understand the insistence that this has something to do with a competitor being a threat to the Not So Great Collections auction. That's just silly, but if true it points out a little insecurity. They have been around long enough, built a loyal base and overall offer a really good alternative for collectors. They have no need to fear that competition.
Absent any disclosure in their contract with a consignor this seems pretty clear: they made a mistake, need to own up to it, satisfy the consignor for the sticker value and if this is their standard practice it needs to be explained somewhere in their consignor contract.
@Maywood said:
I can't understand the insistence that this has something to do with a competitor being a threat to the Not So Great Collections auction. That's just silly, but if true it points out a little insecurity. They have been around long enough, built a loyal base and overall offer a really good alternative for collectors. They have no need to fear that competition.
Absent any disclosure in their contract with a consignor this seems pretty clear: they made a mistake, need to own up to it, satisfy the consignor for the sticker value and if this is their standard practice it needs to be explained somewhere in their consignor contract.
One does not need to be a "threat" the way you are using the word to just not want to help a competitor in business.
As I sarcastically alluded to above, Amazon is aggressively signing up local B&M locations from coast to coast to handle their returns. Get back to me when Walmart offers up its real estate for this service, and we can talk about silly, insecurity, need to fear, and plain old common sense.
Yes, a mistake was made because a sticker was removed without consent. It was already owned up to, and a public offer to fix it was made. Why continue to pound the only founder and president of any major auction house who actually subjects himself to us?
@ianrussell said:
Over the past month alone, we've had consignments arrive with 40+ different stickers affixed to them for a myriad of different purposes (you can see most of them all over eBay). Some coins look like Christmas trees. We have to remove them prior to listing.
Please note, I have nothing against CMQ or David Hall and Greg Roberts - Raeleen and I have the utmost respect for both of them.
Ian
Honestly, I'm torn on this issue.
When I consign to an auction house, I am trusting them to maximize the return. So, to that end, I must rely on their judgment in how to best present the coin.
CMQ is not a random eBay sticker. It does not have the market cachet of CAC. However, CAC didn't always have the same cachet that they do now.
The consignor did seek out the sticker that you removed. So, at the very least, the consignor put some value on the sticker and I would think that some deference should be given to that.
I'm not torn on it at all. If I'm the OP I'm mad as heck. That sticker isn't a competing product anyway-and even if it was, my complaint's not about whose sticker is on the coin. If I'm consigning the coin to GC... they don't own it, I do. I'm paying them to sell it for me at auction, as it is, not as they think it should be. I paid for the sticker; they didn't... and if GC has a problem with certain stickers etc., they should disclose such things CLEARLY in their consignment terms BEFOREHAND so the consignor can make an informed decision...otherwise they're just asking for trouble. At a minimum they should inform ME, the OWNER of the item, before doing anything and not simply take it upon themselves to just rip off what I may consider a potential value-adding product that I paid for.
@pointfivezero said:
I’m a huge GC fan. Their responsiveness, service level, auction results and shipping speed are beyond reproach.
In my opinion, this is one of the first missteps I’m aware of. Everyone should get one mulligan.
Tim
Don't think it rises to the need of a mulligan.
Just state a clear policy.
If something tells me David Hall looked at this coin... don't mess with other peoples stuff.
I have seen CAC coins I wouldn't buy with @mikee999 money.
Seems needlessly petty.
By mulligan, I mean they should get a chance to redeem themselves. Either state their policy in advance as you mention or more preferably, leave the sticker attached. As a CMQ customer myself, I understand the OP's "concern" with the handling of his/her coin.
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
@ianrussell said:
Over the past month alone, we've had consignments arrive with 40+ different stickers affixed to them for a myriad of different purposes (you can see most of them all over eBay). Some coins look like Christmas trees. We have to remove them prior to listing.
Please note, I have nothing against CMQ or David Hall and Greg Roberts - Raeleen and I have the utmost respect for both of them.
Ian
Honestly, I'm torn on this issue.
When I consign to an auction house, I am trusting them to maximize the return. So, to that end, I must rely on their judgment in how to best present the coin.
CMQ is not a random eBay sticker. It does not have the market cachet of CAC. However, CAC didn't always have the same cachet that they do now.
The consignor did seek out the sticker that you removed. So, at the very least, the consignor put some value on the sticker and I would think that some deference should be given to that.
I'm not torn on it at all. If I'm the OP I'm mad as heck. That sticker isn't a competing product anyway-and even if it was, my complaint's not about whose sticker is on the coin. If I'm consigning the coin to GC... they don't own it, I do. I'm paying them to sell it for me at auction, as it is, not as they think it should be. I paid for the sticker; they didn't... and if GC has a problem with certain stickers etc., they should disclose such things CLEARLY in their consignment terms BEFOREHAND so the consignor can make an informed decision...otherwise they're just asking for trouble. At a minimum they should inform ME, the OWNER of the item, before doing anything and not simply take it upon themselves to just rip off what I may consider a potential value-adding product that I paid for.
Where's the dead horse jpeg? You are 1,000,000% correct. Ian came here and said so himself. He then apologized and offered to have the coin restickered if that's what the OP wanted.
What more is there to say, and why would you still be "mad as heck" if you were the OP? Ian is a good guy who made a mistake, owned it, came here to say so, and offered to fix it.
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
GC has a different commission schedule.
So what? What would rather do, get 30% more for your coin, or pay 5% less in commission? If CMQ has any real value, it's surely more than a few points in commission, no?
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
GC has a different commission schedule.
Also, consignors will usually get their auction proceeds 2-5 months sooner at GC.
Also, the SB website pales in in comparison to the GC website especially for consignors.
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
GC has a different commission schedule.
Also, consignors will usually get their auction proceeds 2-5 months sooner at GC.
Also, the SB website pales in in comparison to the GC website especially for consignors.
Sounds like GC is the real deal. Maybe people don't need to have their coins stickered by SB after all, huh?
This is bizarre and unsettling.
Removing a sticker that had been acquired by a consigner at cost and effort? By two of the most recognized numismatists in the field?
That's the equivalent of a real estate agent repainting your house without cause or permission.
I have yet to consign anything to GC. Get ready for me to continue not to consign anything to GC.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
As much as I like just about everything “GC”, this was an overreach. CMQ does add some value, imo,especially with Hall & Roberts behind it. Not to mention the consignor did pay for the sticker.
Prior to this thread, I had never heard of the CMQ sticker.
But I certainly know GC, and have bought and sold coins through them; I have always found them to be an absolute pleasure to deal with.
If I understand what a CMQ sticker is (an opinion by some acknowledged experts that a coin is solid for the grade), I see no reason to scrape it off. It may or may not be of value now, but if CAC stops stickering coins (as I understand to be their plans), and/or if CMQ gains more market acceptance, a legacy CMQ sticker may be of significant value, and should not be scraped off.
All that said, I am impressed with Ian's grace and wit responding on this thread. And I don't understand why someone doing a stickering service would align with an auction house (any auction house), with the inherent conflict of interest issues that that raises.
‘’As far as approval stickers goes, this narrows it down to CAC, QA, and Eagle Eye.’’
‘’Forgive me if this has already been ask but do QA stickers remain on moderns?’’
Wait a minute - am I being told here that QA stickers add more value than CMQ stickers?
PLEASE PROVE IT!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
GC has a different commission schedule.
So what? What would rather do, get 30% more for your coin, or pay 5% less in commission? If CMQ has any real value, it's surely more than a few points in commission, no?
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
GC has a different commission schedule.
So what? What would rather do, get 30% more for your coin, or pay 5% less in commission? If CMQ has any real value, it's surely more than a few points in commission, no?
I don't intend to open up a can of worms...but I think it's extremely doubtful that there are very many US coins that would gain a consignor an extra 30% at SB vs GC, regardless of sticker or no. Depending on the type, value, and amount of the total consignment, I would wager the average consignor realizes more net proceeds at GC.
@ianrussell said:
Over the past month alone, we've had consignments arrive with 40+ different stickers affixed to them for a myriad of different purposes (you can see most of them all over eBay). Some coins look like Christmas trees. We have to remove them prior to listing.
Please note, I have nothing against CMQ or David Hall and Greg Roberts - Raeleen and I have the utmost respect for both of them.
Ian
Honestly, I'm torn on this issue.
When I consign to an auction house, I am trusting them to maximize the return. So, to that end, I must rely on their judgment in how to best present the coin.
CMQ is not a random eBay sticker. It does not have the market cachet of CAC. However, CAC didn't always have the same cachet that they do now.
The consignor did seek out the sticker that you removed. So, at the very least, the consignor put some value on the sticker and I would think that some deference should be given to that.
I'm not torn on it at all. If I'm the OP I'm mad as heck. That sticker isn't a competing product anyway-and even if it was, my complaint's not about whose sticker is on the coin. If I'm consigning the coin to GC... they don't own it, I do. I'm paying them to sell it for me at auction, as it is, not as they think it should be. I paid for the sticker; they didn't... and if GC has a problem with certain stickers etc., they should disclose such things CLEARLY in their consignment terms BEFOREHAND so the consignor can make an informed decision...otherwise they're just asking for trouble. At a minimum they should inform ME, the OWNER of the item, before doing anything and not simply take it upon themselves to just rip off what I may consider a potential value-adding product that I paid for.
Where's the dead horse jpeg? You are 1,000,000% correct. Ian came here and said so himself. He then apologized and offered to have the coin restickered if that's what the OP wanted.
What more is there to say, and why would you still be "mad as heck" if you were the OP? Ian is a good guy who made a mistake, owned it, came here to say so, and offered to fix it.
My statements stand. I appreciate that Ian wants to make it right, but a good business owner darn well should make it right. The larger point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place because a) consigned items are not theirs to alter or modify without approval of the consigning owner and b) a professional operation should already have crystal clear polices in place about things like this so that consignors know what will happen before they send them anything.
If it was even possible, the CMQ sticker now has even less value to me than it did before. I’m a frequent consignor at GC, but SB not so much. Knowing that the sticker will not be marketed on GC, and probably HA too, indicates that it will never garner any real value in the marketplace.
IMO, Hall and Roberts made a mistake aligning with SB for this venture. Not that there’s anything wrong with any of the aforementioned parties, but the potential for conflict of interest has been a black cloud over the Griff since it was announced. If they had started independently, I think it would have had a better shot of gaining traction.
I purchased this unstickered Blay Lincoln from GC and submitted it to CAC and CMQ. I guess I should choose another selling platform if and when it comes time to sell:
@Weiss said:
This is bizarre and unsettling.
Removing a sticker that had been acquired by a consigner at cost and effort? By two of the most recognized numismatists in the field?
That's the equivalent of a real estate agent repainting your house without cause or permission.
**> I have yet to consign anything to GC. Get ready for me to continue not to consign anything to GC. **
Ian runs a great business and extends himself to satisfy consignors and buyers. Works hard and has pulled himself away from daily activities to address petty concerns such as this on multiple occasions. Would other auction houses reach out? Think about that. This thread is more of people with short sighted comments such as this complaining only to complain and your continuation of not consigning will not deter others from using the service. So many sad people here with nothing better in the world than to suck the joy out of others. Keep up the good work @ianrussell
Comments
the coin on the right obviously looks better than the one on the left, even missing those other details.
Edit to add: I've said on record from day one that the stickers should be on the back of the holders, anyway. IF such are really necessary to sell coins.
🤔
I think you said it best. And for your stickers, remember we didn't instantly approve - we had to do a lot of research before finally listing with VSS stickers. Of course, I wish we allowed them on day 1, but that's with the benefit of hindsight.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Nobody bidding on a coin at GC cares there is a SB sticker.
To me, the sticker just means somebody more qualified had a viewpoint.
If anything, it helps the value and provenance.
The buyer is also shopping on Ebay, Heritage, etc...
They are buying the coin regardless of the site hosting the auction.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
So what? Doesn't Rick Snow put his Eagle Eye sticker on coins that he owns and offers for sale and yet GC doesn't remove his stickers? As far as a "proven track record", the CMQ sticker is fairly new but the numismatists (David Hall and Greg Roberts) who screen the coins submitted for review do have a proven track record.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Maybe I'm not understanding the CMQ stickers. While Stacks Bowers may sticker some of the coins they auction, don't they also sticker coins submitted by collectors and dealers that are returned to them rather than being sold in one of their auctions? If so, the CMQ sticker doesn't necessarily represent an appearance in a SB auction as others have stated.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I feel that if a sticker in anyway covers an info oriented portion of the holder, then remove it. If not, leave it, or at least have boundaries, suchas, CAC ok, Eagle Eye ok, blah, blah, blah. All others to be removed. I have full faith in Ian and if the holder is in any way detrimental to HIS consideration of the coin's best value, then sobeit. Perhaps if a sticker that may add value requires removal, show the sticker before and after, thus the buyer will have the info they feel matters to them. JMO
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I don’t think a CMQ sticker adds much value today. Perhaps in a few years things might be different. Nevertheless when I’m bidding on a coin without being able to view it in hand the more information I have the better off I am.
If Rick decided to start his own auction house, I have a feeling his stickers would find their way into a GC trash bin right alongside CMQ ones. I honestly cannot believe track record has anything to do with anything here.
These are a SB product dreamed up by them to help market coins on their platform. It boggles my mind to see anyone thinking a competitor would want to in any way promote them or give them credibility. How can that possibly help GC in the long run, other than maybe helping it sell a single coin now?
If CMQ takes off, and the only place to get it is at SB, how does that help Ian? It doesn't, which is maybe why he wouldn't want to use a platform he spent many years building into what it is today to help promote it in any way. Maybe keep in mind that, at the end of the day, after everyone is done respecting everyone else, it's still a business.
Also maybe keep in mind that David and Greg could have done this on their own, like JA did. They decided to get in bed with SB for a reason, and the result is that CMQ is not independent of a single auction house. What they lose in independence they make up for in a built in audience for their product, but this is the flip side of that.
They made a choice, as they were free to do. As did Ian. I think we really should respect each of them without opining as to what they should do with their businesses.
I agree! My main opinion is the seller should be notified before anything is altered or removed.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
I am thinking about auctioning off my Complete US Type set in the future and GC was at the top of the list. Almost all of my coins are PCGS CAC except for one coin and it is a high value coin with a CMQ sticker. I would not want it removed if offered on there site. Does Heritage remove CMQ stickers???
If you are referring to me, I never meant to imply the sticker is the same thing as a HA label to the extent it represents an appearance in an auction. The point is that it is a SB product, and SB is a competitor. Please read my other post for more details as to why Walmart does not accept Amazon returns, while Kohl's and the UPS store does.
You should ask them. Wouldn't surprise me if they did. Of course, they're so big that it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Why don't you just wait for Greg Rohan to come here and answer for himself, like Ian did, rather than settling for @MFeld? 😀
Given that you chose CMQ over CAC, or nothing, why isn't SB the natural first choice for you? After all, they are the ones actively promoting CMQ, and, if you expect to get a premium, seems to me like that would be the place to go.
I did not buy the coin because of the sticker. I bought it because a dealer I trust looked it over in person and we decided the coin was worth buying. But since it has a sticker on it now I would prefer if it was not removed. If I use GC in the future and they decide to remove the sticker I will live with that decision. But it is good to know ahead of time.
You can get your entire collection stickered without it being sold by SB. There is a tight connection, obviously, but it is not directly a question of auction placement. If he wanted, Ian could send all GC consignments for CMQ stickers before auctioning them.
CDN CPG only recognizes the CAC sticker or CACG Holder (seperate valuation line) not the other sticker players. I certainly would not spend extra money plus additional shipping cost / risk for one of the other sticker players.
Thanks for sharing info on GC policy on the others. Frankly glad they remove those others / I buy coins not Xmas trees lol.
Very true, and I don't blame you. OTOH, if you think the sticker adds value, why wouldn't you try to capture that value at SB?
Of course not, and I did not mean to suggest that it was. All I'm saying is that SB is a competitor. If they competed with my business, I wouldn't allow them to use my business as a platform to promote theirs.
Yes, if he wanted to, Ian could send every single GC consignment to SB for a possible sticker. But why on earth would he?
Among other things, that might signal to consignors that maybe they should just be dealing directly with SB, since they have these awesome stickers that enhance hammer prices. And while I'm sure the goal is for CMQ to be another CAC, right now it is far from it, and I'm sure the place to get any value at all from a CMQ sticker is from like minded people at the mother ship, SB.
I can't understand the insistence that this has something to do with a competitor being a threat to the Not So Great Collections auction. That's just silly, but if true it points out a little insecurity. They have been around long enough, built a loyal base and overall offer a really good alternative for collectors. They have no need to fear that competition.
Absent any disclosure in their contract with a consignor this seems pretty clear: they made a mistake, need to own up to it, satisfy the consignor for the sticker value and if this is their standard practice it needs to be explained somewhere in their consignor contract.
One does not need to be a "threat" the way you are using the word to just not want to help a competitor in business.
As I sarcastically alluded to above, Amazon is aggressively signing up local B&M locations from coast to coast to handle their returns. Get back to me when Walmart offers up its real estate for this service, and we can talk about silly, insecurity, need to fear, and plain old common sense.
Yes, a mistake was made because a sticker was removed without consent. It was already owned up to, and a public offer to fix it was made. Why continue to pound the only founder and president of any major auction house who actually subjects himself to us?
The real question is do they recognize the 'RickO' sticker?
Dave
I'm not torn on it at all. If I'm the OP I'm mad as heck. That sticker isn't a competing product anyway-and even if it was, my complaint's not about whose sticker is on the coin. If I'm consigning the coin to GC... they don't own it, I do. I'm paying them to sell it for me at auction, as it is, not as they think it should be. I paid for the sticker; they didn't... and if GC has a problem with certain stickers etc., they should disclose such things CLEARLY in their consignment terms BEFOREHAND so the consignor can make an informed decision...otherwise they're just asking for trouble. At a minimum they should inform ME, the OWNER of the item, before doing anything and not simply take it upon themselves to just rip off what I may consider a potential value-adding product that I paid for.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Forgive me if this has already been ask but do QA stickers remain on moderns?
those-qa-cac-like-stickers
Actual size, right?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Yes
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I’m a huge GC fan. Their responsiveness, service level, auction results and shipping speed are beyond reproach.
In my opinion, this is one of the first missteps I’m aware of. Everyone should get one mulligan.
Tim
A link to several in the current GC auction: https://www.greatcollections.com/search.php?q=qa&mode=product&sort=01
Edited to add an 'example/image':
Source: https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1554615/1985-P-Kennedy-Half-Dollar-PCGS-MS-67-QA-Gold-Label-Toned
Thank you!
Don't think it rises to the need of a mulligan.
Just state a clear policy.
If something tells me David Hall looked at this coin... don't mess with other peoples stuff.
I have seen CAC coins I wouldn't buy with @mikee999 money.
Seems needlessly petty.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
By mulligan, I mean they should get a chance to redeem themselves. Either state their policy in advance as you mention or more preferably, leave the sticker attached. As a CMQ customer myself, I understand the OP's "concern" with the handling of his/her coin.
Tim
GC has a different commission schedule.
Where's the dead horse jpeg? You are 1,000,000% correct. Ian came here and said so himself. He then apologized and offered to have the coin restickered if that's what the OP wanted.
What more is there to say, and why would you still be "mad as heck" if you were the OP? Ian is a good guy who made a mistake, owned it, came here to say so, and offered to fix it.
So what? What would rather do, get 30% more for your coin, or pay 5% less in commission? If CMQ has any real value, it's surely more than a few points in commission, no?
Also, consignors will usually get their auction proceeds 2-5 months sooner at GC.
Also, the SB website pales in in comparison to the GC website especially for consignors.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Sounds like GC is the real deal. Maybe people don't need to have their coins stickered by SB after all, huh?
This is bizarre and unsettling.
Removing a sticker that had been acquired by a consigner at cost and effort? By two of the most recognized numismatists in the field?
That's the equivalent of a real estate agent repainting your house without cause or permission.
I have yet to consign anything to GC. Get ready for me to continue not to consign anything to GC.
--Severian the Lame
One of the greatest stickers out there IMO.
I'd guess @winesteven's entire collection would qualify!
As much as I like just about everything “GC”, this was an overreach. CMQ does add some value, imo,especially with Hall & Roberts behind it. Not to mention the consignor did pay for the sticker.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
It's interesting discussion when one complains about the sticker on a $500 Morgan.
I would be more concerned about potential seller with the $40,000 gold coin pondering his course.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Prior to this thread, I had never heard of the CMQ sticker.
But I certainly know GC, and have bought and sold coins through them; I have always found them to be an absolute pleasure to deal with.
If I understand what a CMQ sticker is (an opinion by some acknowledged experts that a coin is solid for the grade), I see no reason to scrape it off. It may or may not be of value now, but if CAC stops stickering coins (as I understand to be their plans), and/or if CMQ gains more market acceptance, a legacy CMQ sticker may be of significant value, and should not be scraped off.
All that said, I am impressed with Ian's grace and wit responding on this thread. And I don't understand why someone doing a stickering service would align with an auction house (any auction house), with the inherent conflict of interest issues that that raises.
Mark
Or, how about Stewart Blay’s sticker?
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
@mattniss: good one, although Steve has bought a “few” RD ones here & there.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
‘’As far as approval stickers goes, this narrows it down to CAC, QA, and Eagle Eye.’’
‘’Forgive me if this has already been ask but do QA stickers remain on moderns?’’
Wait a minute - am I being told here that QA stickers add more value than CMQ stickers?
PLEASE PROVE IT!
Wondercoin
Actually, with a CMQ at CG one could get both.
I don't intend to open up a can of worms...but I think it's extremely doubtful that there are very many US coins that would gain a consignor an extra 30% at SB vs GC, regardless of sticker or no. Depending on the type, value, and amount of the total consignment, I would wager the average consignor realizes more net proceeds at GC.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
My statements stand. I appreciate that Ian wants to make it right, but a good business owner darn well should make it right. The larger point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place because a) consigned items are not theirs to alter or modify without approval of the consigning owner and b) a professional operation should already have crystal clear polices in place about things like this so that consignors know what will happen before they send them anything.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
If it was even possible, the CMQ sticker now has even less value to me than it did before. I’m a frequent consignor at GC, but SB not so much. Knowing that the sticker will not be marketed on GC, and probably HA too, indicates that it will never garner any real value in the marketplace.
IMO, Hall and Roberts made a mistake aligning with SB for this venture. Not that there’s anything wrong with any of the aforementioned parties, but the potential for conflict of interest has been a black cloud over the Griff since it was announced. If they had started independently, I think it would have had a better shot of gaining traction.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I purchased this unstickered Blay Lincoln from GC and submitted it to CAC and CMQ. I guess I should choose another selling platform if and when it comes time to sell:
Tim
**> I have yet to consign anything to GC. Get ready for me to continue not to consign anything to GC. **
Ian runs a great business and extends himself to satisfy consignors and buyers. Works hard and has pulled himself away from daily activities to address petty concerns such as this on multiple occasions. Would other auction houses reach out? Think about that. This thread is more of people with short sighted comments such as this complaining only to complain and your continuation of not consigning will not deter others from using the service. So many sad people here with nothing better in the world than to suck the joy out of others. Keep up the good work @ianrussell
That takes a lot of nerve, IMHO.
People pay good money for those stickers and some value them as much or even more than CAC.
CMQ is not some second-rate, fly-by-night outfit.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/