@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.
How can a sticker gain a proven track record if it is removed by the auction houses?
There are other auctions and there are other ways of buying and selling coins. It took a while for CAC to become well-established, but eventually even our hosts saw the need for them in their registry. I imagine CMQ will get there. One disadvantage CMQ has is starting up among a sea of meaningless seller-affixed copycat stickers. CAC didn't have this situation, although they arguably created it due to their success.
Right, but were auction houses removing CAC stickers for the first few years and working against them?
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
@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.
How can a sticker gain a proven track record if it is removed by the auction houses?
There are other auctions and there are other ways of buying and selling coins. It took a while for CAC to become well-established, but eventually even our hosts saw the need for them in their registry. I imagine CMQ will get there. One disadvantage CMQ has is starting up among a sea of meaningless seller-affixed copycat stickers. CAC didn't have this situation, although they arguably created it due to their success.
Right, but were auction houses removing CAC stickers for the first few years and working against them?
There wasn't a perceived need to do that because the sticker landscape wasn't as full of noise as it is today.
As for removing the CMQ stickers, that's a practice that was resolved a few days ago. The issue now is whether an auction company will permit them to be on the holders of coins they sell. If CMQ has sufficient staying power and benefit and can prove it in venues other than GC, I see no reason why GC wouldn't add them to their approved services in time. If they specifically need GC to prove their worth, then what does that tell you about CMQ?
Ian, I'm a bigger supporter of GC, but my customers do pay a premium for 3 other stickers....
The 3 are the W Sight White by Bob Paul, QMC by David Hall/Stacks and Rick Snow's Eagle Eye Sticker on Indian Cents... these 3 IMHO do add some value to the holder by my clients. Just my 3 cents... Jon
@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.
How can a sticker gain a proven track record if it is removed by the auction houses?
There are other auctions and there are other ways of buying and selling coins. It took a while for CAC to become well-established, but eventually even our hosts saw the need for them in their registry. I imagine CMQ will get there. One disadvantage CMQ has is starting up among a sea of meaningless seller-affixed copycat stickers. CAC didn't have this situation, although they arguably created it due to their success.
Right, but were auction houses removing CAC stickers for the first few years and working against them?
There wasn't a perceived need to do that because the sticker landscape wasn't as full of noise as it is today.
I'm not sure there is a perceived "need" to do it today either. Is anyone losing sales or losing value because of the presence of a sticker? A sticker should at worst case have a completely neutral effect.
As for removing the CMQ stickers, that's a practice that was resolved a few days ago. The issue now is whether an auction company will permit them to be on the holders of coins they sell. If CMQ has sufficient staying power and benefit and can prove it in venues other than GC, I see no reason why GC wouldn't add them to their approved services in time. If they specifically need GC to prove their worth, then what does that tell you about CMQ?
But how does a company establish "staying power" and benefit if their stickers are being removed when they are sold by auction houses? I'm not saying all auction houses are doing this, but we start to get into the discussion about picking winners and losers. I fully recognize any auction houses' right to operate as they please and in no way suggest they modify searches, filtering, and titles to support every sticker that comes along, but actively working to thwart new services is not good for the hobby or the industry and to that extent, their customers.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
They should have at least contacted the seller before they did that; I'm sure they have some type of boilerplate TOS that they reserve the right to take such actions at their discretion as perceived by them to be advantageous for auction results purposes. They are churning a huge amount of material. And they will get belligerent if a consignor does anything legal with them, for example filing a complaint with a consumer rights organization; where I've seen them announce that they will never do business with you again, which is certainly at their discretion and according to their rights. They do have wealthy fund backers who tell them how to operate their business.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
The regency holders are bought because or the rarity of the holder. The coin inside is almost irrelevant.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
The regency holders are bought because or the rarity of the holder. The coin inside is almost irrelevant.
Thank you for adding "almost" to your statement as there is a value difference between American coinage and the much more prevalent and common "Danny Kay" coins.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
The regency holders are bought because or the rarity of the holder. The coin inside is almost irrelevant.
Thank you for adding "almost" to your statement as there is a value difference between American coinage and the much more prevalent and common "Danny Kay" coins.
I think those account for way over half of regency holders.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
Not sure about this. If they push higher (to shill) and become the high bid, then they bought the coin. If they like it and want it, and their bid is the highest, as the seller I'm happy.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
Not sure about this. If they push higher (to shill) and become the high bid, then they bought the coin. If they like it and want it, and their bid is the highest, as the seller I'm happy.
The point is, it generally breeds distrust of the auction site and as such, I believe most sites forbid insider buying. Rather than wander off topic though, you can read or add to the debate here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/503997/shill-bidding
I like the user-friendly aspect to Heritage Auctions and how they give all manner of pricing including current Greysheet. Plus they don't bury auction results as GC does for whatever reasons.
Part of the problem is that CMQ has done a terrible job of marketing themselves. When I bought a coin from a SB auction, I asked for it to go for CMQ stickering. They were very clear that these were separate companies. Perhaps the choice of the griffon sticker was a poor choice as there seems to be a lot of confusion about the offering.
I stand with those that feel it is a terrible idea to remove these stickers from GC auctions. Let the collectors make the choice. Hall and Roberts are not some fly by night operation adding a useless sticker.
I sincerely hope that those who so happen to be visiting this site will not be influenced by the grandstanding and pure nonsense that this thread represents,
Coin collecting is about coins...and how coins measure up to other coins of the same date and series. And opinions have a way of changing the dynamics of what is truly important. GC seems to have made a reasonable effort to be reasonable.
Why is this so different in that the attention is on a sticker and not the coin?
We have entered the kicking the dead horse phase of the thread.
Please... can this be the last post to a thread that is sucking the life out of this hobby? Is that too much to ask?
I don't think it is. So can this end the nonsense... please??
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
I'm not a fan of stickers myself, but I think leaving them in place might be better policy, as individual bidders have their own views. I don't see the harm in this.
I AM, on the other hand, a HUGE fan of Ian and GC. Solid people, solid company, and I've been happy with my results as both a buyer and seller.
Dave
Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
Auction houses should not automatically (without permission or TOS statement) remove stickers from consignments.
Auction houses should not be expected to put up for auction an item that does not meet their standards (i.e. - has a lower-tier sticker that might lower the appeal to bidders).
Auction houses have an expectation if not responsibility to maximize the hammer price. If an item has an added feature that would lower the price, there is an understandable desire to eliminate the detracting component.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
These are collected because of the holder. The stickers ruin that. Same for rattlers.
Once you own it you can always take them off if you don't like them, yes?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
The regency holders are bought because or the rarity of the holder. The coin inside is almost irrelevant.
Thank you for adding "almost" to your statement as there is a value difference between American coinage and the much more prevalent and common "Danny Kay" coins.
I think those account for way over half of regency holders.
I've owned many of the Danny Kaye Regency holders and yes, the primary value is in the holder:
But I bought the Lincoln Regency holder for three reasons - the provenance (Blay), the coin and the holder. The stickers were obtained to demonstrate the copper has remained true to the grade for the thirty years it's been slabbed.
@Dave99B said:
I'm not a fan of stickers myself, but I think leaving them in place might be better policy, as individual bidders have their own views. I don't see the harm in this.
I AM, on the other hand, a HUGE fan of Ian and GC. Solid people, solid company, and I've been happy with my results as both a buyer and seller.
Dave
Agree, as I have always been a huge GC/Ian fan. I have followed and supported them from the beginning. Nothing but great experiences with GC. Hopefully, in the future, he either notifies the consigner of his intentions to remove stickers, or else gives them the choice to leave them or remove them.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
@JBK said:
Auction houses have an expectation if not responsibility to maximize the hammer price. If an item has an added feature that would lower the price, there is an understandable desire to eliminate the detracting component.
I have a coin that says 'cleaned' on the holder and think it would help maximize the hammer price if they could maybe just cover that part up. A sticker, any kind, should work
In all seriousness though you are right. If the auction house feels a sticker will lower hammer price, then there should be a conversation with the consigner about why it might be a good idea to remove it.
@TrickleCharge said:
In all seriousness though you are right. If the auction house feels a sticker will lower hammer price, then there should be a conversation with the consigner about why it might be a good idea to remove it.
How would a sticker indicating that two famous and well-respected numismatists have reviewed and approved a coin lower the hammer price of a coin? Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@TrickleCharge said:
In all seriousness though you are right. If the auction house feels a sticker will lower hammer price, then there should be a conversation with the consigner about why it might be a good idea to remove it.
How would a sticker indicating that two famous and well-respected numismatists have reviewed and approved a coin lower the hammer price of a coin? Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
Worst case, a sticker should be considered neutral, best case it adds value.
@pointfivezero said:
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
This does seem like a 'sterling' opportunity to position aftermarket stickers where (for once) they are at no risk of obscuring TPG data, but no!
How would a sticker indicating that two famous and well-respected numismatists have reviewed and approved a coin lower the hammer price of a coin?
working theory. Just like with green CAC stickers on rattlers, the perception that the old holder is an upgrade is now made questionable two fold. Now bidders may also wonder if it was rejected by CAC
Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
Yes. It should. But see my point above. For years we’ve heard in this forum that every nice coin has been sent to be graded. And that all graded coins that are nice have been to CAC. So the paranoia sets in and you can no longer market that old holder as an upgrade since those same experts just say it’s solid for the current grade.
@TrickleCharge said:
In all seriousness though you are right. If the auction house feels a sticker will lower hammer price, then there should be a conversation with the consigner about why it might be a good idea to remove it.
How would a sticker indicating that two famous and well-respected numismatists have reviewed and approved a coin lower the hammer price of a coin? Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
If an auction house feels that a sticker would lower the hammer price then they should communicate that with the seller prior to listing. The seller can then make an informed decision about how to proceed. If I was selling coins through an auction house I would certainly want them to communicate with me their thoughts to best achieve the highest sale price, but that doesn't mean I always have to agree.
We've already seen some posters here indicate that stickers on a regency holder would put them off of bidding. It's something that should be considered.
@TrickleCharge said:
We've already seen some posters here indicate that stickers on a regency holder would put them off of bidding. It's something that should be considered.
Those concerns are probably overblown and overstated. Stickers can be removed.
@MFeld said:
More than one poster has asked (or speculated as to) whether Heritage would remove CMQ stickers from coins that are consigned to us. I wanted to be sure that my reply would be accurate, so checked and was told the following:
“Heritage’s policy at this time is to not remove such stickers from coins consigned to us unless the current owner requests us to do so. These stickers can be seen in our online full-slab images. CAC and Eagle Eye Photo Seals are the only stickering services our cataloguers may reference in their titling and/or descriptions.”
This is the way it should be done. Leave one’s property unmolested and let the pictures speak for themselves. However, when it comes to titles and descriptions, that’s the prerogative of the house.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
@TrickleCharge said:
We've already seen some posters here indicate that stickers on a regency holder would put them off of bidding. It's something that should be considered.
Those concerns are probably overblown and overstated. Stickers can be removed.
I agree with you for the most part, but if those concerns exist at all we should at least be open to allowing them consideration.
I get the whole principle thing but honestly I would have scraped that silly little sticker off as well.
With the sticker it looks like it failed at CAC without the sticker it looks like it’s never been.
@1madman said:
Forgive my ignorance with the cmq sticker, but isn’t it strongly associated with stacks auction house? Seems like it would be somewhat of a conflict of interest to gc
Not really. The Stacks-Bowers sticker is another grader's opinion. Why does Great Collections think they have to right to scrap that off without the consignor's permission? Do they think they gives them a leg up on the competition? It doesn't. It makes them look petty.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
Not sure about this. If they push higher (to shill) and become the high bid, then they bought the coin. If they like it and want it, and their bid is the highest, as the seller I'm happy.
This ^^^. Shill bidding is when a seller, or related party, bids to push up prices. I am pretty sure all auction houses reserve the right to participate in their auctions.
Nothing wrong with it, insofar as it legitimately pushes prices to where the house (and seller) believe it should be. Whereas money does not change hands when a seller buys their own coins (hence the word "shill"), when the house buys the item, a legitimate arm's length transaction between unrelated parties actually takes place. Who frowns on it, other than bidders looking for a below market deal?
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
Not sure about this. If they push higher (to shill) and become the high bid, then they bought the coin. If they like it and want it, and their bid is the highest, as the seller I'm happy.
The point is, it generally breeds distrust of the auction site and as such, I believe most sites forbid insider buying. Rather than wander off topic though, you can read or add to the debate here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/503997/shill-bidding
What debates? Which "most sites" forbid it? Heritage? No. SB? No. GC? GC does not maintain its own inventory, so it wouldn't. What other "most sites" in our world exist?
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
Then prepare to be shocked. There is nothing unethical about it, to the extent they do not already have an economic interest in the coin and want to buy it for their inventory. If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Quoted from their Conditions of Sale:
"Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may bid for their own account at any auction. Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may have information about any lot that is not known publicly, and Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates reserves the right to use such information, in a manner determined solely by them and for their benefit, without disclosing such information in the catalog, catalog description or at the auction. Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates are not required to pay a Buyer’s Premium, or other charges that other Bidders may be required to pay and may have access to information concerning the lots that is not otherwise available to the public. Any claimed conflict of interest or claimed competitive advantage resulting therefrom is expressly waived by all participants in the Auction Sale."
Geez. Almost 5000 views. I’m getting a headache. Let’s give GC some slack. This might be the first coin that was submitted to them with a Grif. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that this probably won’t happen again.
@NJCoin said:
Nothing wrong with it, insofar as it legitimately pushes prices to where the house (and seller) believe it should be. Whereas money does not change hands when a seller buys their own coins (hence the word "shill"), when the house buys the item, a legitimate arm's length transaction between unrelated parties actually takes place. Who frowns on it, other than bidders looking for a below market deal?
Really? Nothing wrong with it? If you're buying there's a BIG problem. The auction site is pushing you to bid more after they failed to generate honest competing bidders so they can increase the fees that they make!
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
Then prepare to be shocked. There is nothing unethical about it, to the extent they do not already have an economic interest in the coin and want to buy it for their inventory. If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Quoted from their Conditions of Sale:
"Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may bid for their own account at any auction. Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may have information about any lot that is not known publicly, and Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates reserves the right to use such information, in a manner determined solely by them and for their benefit, without disclosing such information in the catalog, catalog description or at the auction. Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates are not required to pay a Buyer’s Premium, or other charges that other Bidders may be required to pay and may have access to information concerning the lots that is not otherwise available to the public. Any claimed conflict of interest or claimed competitive advantage resulting therefrom is expressly waived by all participants in the Auction Sale."
it would be interesting to know when the house is bidding - is this common knowledge at the live auction?
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Generally agree with your comment except for this small correction. GC does operate as a coin dealer and I wouldn’t be surprised if their policy on internal auction participation mirrors Stacks or HA.
As a buyer I would certainly prefer that auction houses NOT be able to buy lots at a 10-20% discount than the rest of us, but such is life in a capitalist environment. I can’t necessarily blame them, if I owned an auction house I would probably want to reserve that right as well.
@NJCoin said:
Nothing wrong with it, insofar as it legitimately pushes prices to where the house (and seller) believe it should be. Whereas money does not change hands when a seller buys their own coins (hence the word "shill"), when the house buys the item, a legitimate arm's length transaction between unrelated parties actually takes place. Who frowns on it, other than bidders looking for a below market deal?
Really? Nothing wrong with it? If you're buying there's a BIG problem. The auction site is pushing you to bid more after they failed to generate honest competing bidders so they can increase the fees that they make!
Yup. Maybe it's worth keeping in mind that they represent sellers, not buyers. The only "deals" you get are the ones they are willing to allow you to get.
To the extent they also run a coin business, you are competing with them for every lot, and that works to the sellers' advantage. Why would the affiliated coin dealer be any less legitimate or honest than every other dealer that bids in the auction?
When they bid, I'm sure it's not to increase their commission, although that is a happy side effect. The idea is to take the "deal" you would otherwise get for itself. And why shouldn't they?
They are not "pushing you" to do anything. Teach them a lesson and don't bid. I am very sure that when they bid it's because they want the coin at the price.
Not because they are trying to squeeze 20% (less whatever they are kicking back to the seller) of a few extra bucks out of you. That's literally the definition of shill bidding, and is what happens when the owner bids on their own coin to drive up the price, with no intention to actually buy the coin, since they already own it.
That is simply not what auction houses do when bidding on items they do not already own. Why risk getting stuck with inventory they don't want, at possibly inflated prices, just to squeeze a higher commission out of a sale? The risk/reward just isn't there for a large house like SB or HA.
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Generally agree with your comment except for this small correction. GC does operate as a coin dealer and I wouldn’t be surprised if their policy on internal auction participation mirrors Stacks or HA.
As a buyer I would certainly prefer that auction houses NOT be able to buy lots at a 10-20% discount than the rest of us, but such is life in a capitalist environment. I can’t necessarily blame them, if I owned an auction house I would probably want to reserve that right as well.
Do they? I quickly read their terms before posting, and noted that they have the following disclaimer:
"13. Although owning inventory is not GreatCollections core business model, from time to time, we own coins or we own an economic interest in a consignment (e.g. we advanced the consignor payment prior to sale). We reserve the right to include in any auction or for direct sale coins or other items that we have an interest in, whether direct or indirect."
Since owning inventory is not their "core business model," and since they don't market coins at retail like HA and SB, I just assumed they were not bidders in their auctions, and that the above disclosure was simply to let people know they have an economic interest in some sales.
Strictly speaking, they are not really buying anything at a discount, since the 10-20% represents an opportunity cost of not having someone else be the high bidder. Not to mention the house still has to incur all the costs of conducting the sale. If it makes anyone feel any better, I'm sure they could have the retail division write a check to the auction house to cover the buyer's fee.
The bottom line for me is simply that they are bidding, and I wouldn't consider it to be shilling unless they also own the coin.
Generally agree with your comment except for this small correction. GC does operate as a coin dealer and I wouldn’t be surprised if their policy on internal auction participation mirrors Stacks or HA.
Are you referring to GC's current listing of 282 Buy Now Coins which includes 23 Morgan Dollars and 50 America the Beautiful coins?
OK, but dealers generally pay wholesale so I wouldn't put too much expectation into "strong bids" from a dealer regardless of stickers and I would expect SB to not participate in their own auctions as a matter of integrity.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
Then prepare to be shocked. There is nothing unethical about it, to the extent they do not already have an economic interest in the coin and want to buy it for their inventory. If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Quoted from their Conditions of Sale:
"Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may bid for their own account at any auction. Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may have information about any lot that is not known publicly, and Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates reserves the right to use such information, in a manner determined solely by them and for their benefit, without disclosing such information in the catalog, catalog description or at the auction. Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates are not required to pay a Buyer’s Premium, or other charges that other Bidders may be required to pay and may have access to information concerning the lots that is not otherwise available to the public. Any claimed conflict of interest or claimed competitive advantage resulting therefrom is expressly waived by all participants in the Auction Sale."
it would be interesting to know when the house is bidding - is this common knowledge at the live auction?
Absolutely not. Why would it be? When the house bids, for anyone, does it ever identify the identity of the bidder? Does any large bidder ever want the room to know who they are while they are bidding? Probably why they use numbers rather than names, no?
Comments
Right, but were auction houses removing CAC stickers for the first few years and working against them?
True, but the more you do things to the holder, the more likely you're going to damage it. If the real collectible is the holder, not the coin, I don't get the reasoning behind stickering it.
There wasn't a perceived need to do that because the sticker landscape wasn't as full of noise as it is today.
As for removing the CMQ stickers, that's a practice that was resolved a few days ago. The issue now is whether an auction company will permit them to be on the holders of coins they sell. If CMQ has sufficient staying power and benefit and can prove it in venues other than GC, I see no reason why GC wouldn't add them to their approved services in time. If they specifically need GC to prove their worth, then what does that tell you about CMQ?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Ian, I'm a bigger supporter of GC, but my customers do pay a premium for 3 other stickers....
The 3 are the W Sight White by Bob Paul, QMC by David Hall/Stacks and Rick Snow's Eagle Eye Sticker on Indian Cents... these 3 IMHO do add some value to the holder by my clients. Just my 3 cents... Jon
I'm not sure there is a perceived "need" to do it today either. Is anyone losing sales or losing value because of the presence of a sticker? A sticker should at worst case have a completely neutral effect.
But how does a company establish "staying power" and benefit if their stickers are being removed when they are sold by auction houses? I'm not saying all auction houses are doing this, but we start to get into the discussion about picking winners and losers. I fully recognize any auction houses' right to operate as they please and in no way suggest they modify searches, filtering, and titles to support every sticker that comes along, but actively working to thwart new services is not good for the hobby or the industry and to that extent, their customers.
I agree you wouldn't expect "strong bids" from a dealer. However, why wouldn't SB (or an employee) participate in their own auction if they discover a wholesale "deal."
Because someone bought the coin and not the holder, I should think.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It's usually frowned upon because the auction houses have inside information. I personally don't see a problem with it but it does raise questions about the integrity of an auction when bids appear from insiders as perhaps they are just pushing bidding higher rather than actually trying to acquire the item (shill bidding I believe this is called).
They should have at least contacted the seller before they did that; I'm sure they have some type of boilerplate TOS that they reserve the right to take such actions at their discretion as perceived by them to be advantageous for auction results purposes. They are churning a huge amount of material. And they will get belligerent if a consignor does anything legal with them, for example filing a complaint with a consumer rights organization; where I've seen them announce that they will never do business with you again, which is certainly at their discretion and according to their rights. They do have wealthy fund backers who tell them how to operate their business.
The regency holders are bought because or the rarity of the holder. The coin inside is almost irrelevant.
Thank you for adding "almost" to your statement as there is a value difference between American coinage and the much more prevalent and common "Danny Kay" coins.
peacockcoins
I think those account for way over half of regency holders.
Not sure about this. If they push higher (to shill) and become the high bid, then they bought the coin. If they like it and want it, and their bid is the highest, as the seller I'm happy.
The point is, it generally breeds distrust of the auction site and as such, I believe most sites forbid insider buying. Rather than wander off topic though, you can read or add to the debate here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/503997/shill-bidding
I like the user-friendly aspect to Heritage Auctions and how they give all manner of pricing including current Greysheet. Plus they don't bury auction results as GC does for whatever reasons.
Part of the problem is that CMQ has done a terrible job of marketing themselves. When I bought a coin from a SB auction, I asked for it to go for CMQ stickering. They were very clear that these were separate companies. Perhaps the choice of the griffon sticker was a poor choice as there seems to be a lot of confusion about the offering.
I stand with those that feel it is a terrible idea to remove these stickers from GC auctions. Let the collectors make the choice. Hall and Roberts are not some fly by night operation adding a useless sticker.
I sincerely hope that those who so happen to be visiting this site will not be influenced by the grandstanding and pure nonsense that this thread represents,
Coin collecting is about coins...and how coins measure up to other coins of the same date and series. And opinions have a way of changing the dynamics of what is truly important. GC seems to have made a reasonable effort to be reasonable.
Why is this so different in that the attention is on a sticker and not the coin?
We have entered the kicking the dead horse phase of the thread.
Please... can this be the last post to a thread that is sucking the life out of this hobby? Is that too much to ask?
I don't think it is. So can this end the nonsense... please??
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I would be shocked if SB was bidding up coins in their own auctions, grossly unethical as @ProofCollection mentioned, but actively making markets outside of the SB auction, no different than CAC making a market, is totally appropriate. Quote from the CMQ website:
CMQ stickered coins are widely recognized as being “premium quality” within the rare coin market, resulting in impressive prices when compared with similarly graded non-stickered coins. Furthermore, Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ and David Hall Rare Coins’ trading departments actively make markets in all CMQ stickered coins, providing added demand and liquidity.
One little sticker has given CMQ nearly 4K views.
Bet it won't happen again.
If it my business, I would want to know the opinions of my loyal customers.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I'm not a fan of stickers myself, but I think leaving them in place might be better policy, as individual bidders have their own views. I don't see the harm in this.
I AM, on the other hand, a HUGE fan of Ian and GC. Solid people, solid company, and I've been happy with my results as both a buyer and seller.
Dave
It's all been said but what the heck....
Auction houses should not automatically (without permission or TOS statement) remove stickers from consignments.
Auction houses should not be expected to put up for auction an item that does not meet their standards (i.e. - has a lower-tier sticker that might lower the appeal to bidders).
Auction houses have an expectation if not responsibility to maximize the hammer price. If an item has an added feature that would lower the price, there is an understandable desire to eliminate the detracting component.
I've owned many of the Danny Kaye Regency holders and yes, the primary value is in the holder:
But I bought the Lincoln Regency holder for three reasons - the provenance (Blay), the coin and the holder. The stickers were obtained to demonstrate the copper has remained true to the grade for the thirty years it's been slabbed.
Tim
Agree, as I have always been a huge GC/Ian fan. I have followed and supported them from the beginning. Nothing but great experiences with GC. Hopefully, in the future, he either notifies the consigner of his intentions to remove stickers, or else gives them the choice to leave them or remove them.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I have a coin that says 'cleaned' on the holder and think it would help maximize the hammer price if they could maybe just cover that part up. A sticker, any kind, should work
In all seriousness though you are right. If the auction house feels a sticker will lower hammer price, then there should be a conversation with the consigner about why it might be a good idea to remove it.
How would a sticker indicating that two famous and well-respected numismatists have reviewed and approved a coin lower the hammer price of a coin? Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Worst case, a sticker should be considered neutral, best case it adds value.
I buy coins not stickers. Received a really nice CACG coin today won from eBay auction. Now on the hunt for some nice slabbed World Gold.
"Buy the sticker not the slab."
This does seem like a 'sterling' opportunity to position aftermarket stickers where (for once) they are at no risk of obscuring TPG data, but no!
working theory. Just like with green CAC stickers on rattlers, the perception that the old holder is an upgrade is now made questionable two fold. Now bidders may also wonder if it was rejected by CAC
Shouldn't that determination be made by the owner of the coin? If someone likes the coin but for some strange reason doesn't like the CMQ sticker, why would they hesitate to just buy the coin and then remove the sticker?
Yes. It should. But see my point above. For years we’ve heard in this forum that every nice coin has been sent to be graded. And that all graded coins that are nice have been to CAC. So the paranoia sets in and you can no longer market that old holder as an upgrade since those same experts just say it’s solid for the current grade.
My Ebay Store
If an auction house feels that a sticker would lower the hammer price then they should communicate that with the seller prior to listing. The seller can then make an informed decision about how to proceed. If I was selling coins through an auction house I would certainly want them to communicate with me their thoughts to best achieve the highest sale price, but that doesn't mean I always have to agree.
We've already seen some posters here indicate that stickers on a regency holder would put them off of bidding. It's something that should be considered.
Those concerns are probably overblown and overstated. Stickers can be removed.
It would have so easy to contact the consignor before removing a sticker he paid for. Poor show IMHO.
The entertainment can never be overdressed....except in burlesque
This is the way it should be done. Leave one’s property unmolested and let the pictures speak for themselves. However, when it comes to titles and descriptions, that’s the prerogative of the house.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
I agree with you for the most part, but if those concerns exist at all we should at least be open to allowing them consideration.
I get the whole principle thing but honestly I would have scraped that silly little sticker off as well.
With the sticker it looks like it failed at CAC without the sticker it looks like it’s never been.
Considering your coin already has the CAC sticker -
Curious - How much per coin was sticker cost from the non CAC companies once all expense tallied?
Not really. The Stacks-Bowers sticker is another grader's opinion. Why does Great Collections think they have to right to scrap that off without the consignor's permission? Do they think they gives them a leg up on the competition? It doesn't. It makes them look petty.
This ^^^. Shill bidding is when a seller, or related party, bids to push up prices. I am pretty sure all auction houses reserve the right to participate in their auctions.
Nothing wrong with it, insofar as it legitimately pushes prices to where the house (and seller) believe it should be. Whereas money does not change hands when a seller buys their own coins (hence the word "shill"), when the house buys the item, a legitimate arm's length transaction between unrelated parties actually takes place. Who frowns on it, other than bidders looking for a below market deal?
What debates? Which "most sites" forbid it? Heritage? No. SB? No. GC? GC does not maintain its own inventory, so it wouldn't. What other "most sites" in our world exist?
Then prepare to be shocked. There is nothing unethical about it, to the extent they do not already have an economic interest in the coin and want to buy it for their inventory. If you don't like it, stick to a company like GC that does not also run a coin dealer.
Quoted from their Conditions of Sale:
"Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may bid for their own account at any auction. Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates may have information about any lot that is not known publicly, and Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates reserves the right to use such information, in a manner determined solely by them and for their benefit, without disclosing such information in the catalog, catalog description or at the auction. Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Stack’s Bowers and its affiliates are not required to pay a Buyer’s Premium, or other charges that other Bidders may be required to pay and may have access to information concerning the lots that is not otherwise available to the public. Any claimed conflict of interest or claimed competitive advantage resulting therefrom is expressly waived by all participants in the Auction Sale."
Geez. Almost 5000 views. I’m getting a headache. Let’s give GC some slack. This might be the first coin that was submitted to them with a Grif. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that this probably won’t happen again.
Really? Nothing wrong with it? If you're buying there's a BIG problem. The auction site is pushing you to bid more after they failed to generate honest competing bidders so they can increase the fees that they make!
it would be interesting to know when the house is bidding - is this common knowledge at the live auction?
Generally agree with your comment except for this small correction. GC does operate as a coin dealer and I wouldn’t be surprised if their policy on internal auction participation mirrors Stacks or HA.
As a buyer I would certainly prefer that auction houses NOT be able to buy lots at a 10-20% discount than the rest of us, but such is life in a capitalist environment. I can’t necessarily blame them, if I owned an auction house I would probably want to reserve that right as well.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yup. Maybe it's worth keeping in mind that they represent sellers, not buyers. The only "deals" you get are the ones they are willing to allow you to get.
To the extent they also run a coin business, you are competing with them for every lot, and that works to the sellers' advantage. Why would the affiliated coin dealer be any less legitimate or honest than every other dealer that bids in the auction?
When they bid, I'm sure it's not to increase their commission, although that is a happy side effect. The idea is to take the "deal" you would otherwise get for itself. And why shouldn't they?
They are not "pushing you" to do anything. Teach them a lesson and don't bid. I am very sure that when they bid it's because they want the coin at the price.
Not because they are trying to squeeze 20% (less whatever they are kicking back to the seller) of a few extra bucks out of you. That's literally the definition of shill bidding, and is what happens when the owner bids on their own coin to drive up the price, with no intention to actually buy the coin, since they already own it.
That is simply not what auction houses do when bidding on items they do not already own. Why risk getting stuck with inventory they don't want, at possibly inflated prices, just to squeeze a higher commission out of a sale? The risk/reward just isn't there for a large house like SB or HA.
Do they? I quickly read their terms before posting, and noted that they have the following disclaimer:
"13. Although owning inventory is not GreatCollections core business model, from time to time, we own coins or we own an economic interest in a consignment (e.g. we advanced the consignor payment prior to sale). We reserve the right to include in any auction or for direct sale coins or other items that we have an interest in, whether direct or indirect."
Since owning inventory is not their "core business model," and since they don't market coins at retail like HA and SB, I just assumed they were not bidders in their auctions, and that the above disclosure was simply to let people know they have an economic interest in some sales.
Strictly speaking, they are not really buying anything at a discount, since the 10-20% represents an opportunity cost of not having someone else be the high bidder. Not to mention the house still has to incur all the costs of conducting the sale. If it makes anyone feel any better, I'm sure they could have the retail division write a check to the auction house to cover the buyer's fee.
The bottom line for me is simply that they are bidding, and I wouldn't consider it to be shilling unless they also own the coin.
Are you referring to GC's current listing of 282 Buy Now Coins which includes 23 Morgan Dollars and 50 America the Beautiful coins?
Absolutely not. Why would it be? When the house bids, for anyone, does it ever identify the identity of the bidder? Does any large bidder ever want the room to know who they are while they are bidding? Probably why they use numbers rather than names, no?