@TwoSides2aCoin said:
if HRH were there, he would use all available data to keep us updated. i just know this.
But, again, GC data is NOT available. They have chosen to not make it available.
This is on GC not PCGS. There is zero evidence that GC even offered to sell it.
I think GC could stage a bloody coup and people would just smile and thank them for their weekly auctions.
jmlanzaf is correct. Ian has said:
I took the stance very early on at GC not to have auction results on third party websites, as I believe it's in our best interest to build GC's website traffic. That being said, there are advantages with having the listings everywhere for GC as well. So far, the disadvantages were enough to persuade me to keep it only on the GC website. We may revisit in the new year.
I don't believe that logic works very well. "If we share our auction data with PCGS then less people will visit our site". Makes no sense to me and why I spend a lot more time on Heritage's site which is intellectually rigorous, the best in the business with lots of good statistical information, and frankly business-like. If there were auction result links to GC, I would at least spend a little time on their site, but I don't. HA is a lot more customer friendly and serious than the alternative imo.
@logger7 said:
Coin Facts includes Stacks Bowers, ebay, HA, and other auction companies. I'd like to hear why they all permitted access to the collecting public and dealers. I can only think of narrow minded legalistic and ultimately selfish reasons why other competing auction companies will not permit their data to be permitted to be added.
Why should businesses give away data for free? “Selfish” doesn’t play into it - businesses exist to make money and each auction company has their own business model.
Er... isn't that "selfish" even if it's a reasonable business decision?
Do you give your inventory away for free to customers? No? I guess you are pretty selfish then!
Labelling GC as “selfish” implies a component of morality that is not appropriate within the context of operating a business. There’s no ethical or moral requirement to give away proprietary data for free.
"Selfish" isn't necessarily moral or ethical.
Yes, I selfishly insist on making a profit on my inventory. GC selfishly keeps its data to itself.
Aaaaaand the context was an accusation that GC was being “narrow-minded” and “selfish” by not providing data in contrast to other companies such as HA.
Sure sounds like a value-judgment to me but maybe @logger7 can clarify their meaning.
Just a guess, but I bet HA made a business decision to share data. A few potential reasons - drive website traffic, advertise, or part of a broader relationship with PCGS.
@logger7 said:
Coin Facts includes Stacks Bowers, ebay, HA, and other auction companies. I'd like to hear why they all permitted access to the collecting public and dealers. I can only think of narrow minded legalistic and ultimately selfish reasons why other competing auction companies will not permit their data to be permitted to be added.
Why should businesses give away data for free? “Selfish” doesn’t play into it - businesses exist to make money and each auction company has their own business model.
Er... isn't that "selfish" even if it's a reasonable business decision?
Do you give your inventory away for free to customers? No? I guess you are pretty selfish then!
Labelling GC as “selfish” implies a component of morality that is not appropriate within the context of operating a business. There’s no ethical or moral requirement to give away proprietary data for free.
"Selfish" isn't necessarily moral or ethical.
Yes, I selfishly insist on making a profit on my inventory. GC selfishly keeps its data to itself.
So why call GC selfish then?
I’m certain that Heritage made the business decision to share data with PCGS based on “selfish” reasons. Maybe it drives traffic to their site. Maybe it serves as advertising. Maybe they have a broader business relationship with PCGS. It’s (most likely) not out of the goodness of their hearts. It doesn’t make them any more or less “selfish” than GC.
@logger7 said:
Coin Facts includes Stacks Bowers, ebay, HA, and other auction companies. I'd like to hear why they all permitted access to the collecting public and dealers. I can only think of narrow minded legalistic and ultimately selfish reasons why other competing auction companies will not permit their data to be permitted to be added.
Why should businesses give away data for free? “Selfish” doesn’t play into it - businesses exist to make money and each auction company has their own business model.
Er... isn't that "selfish" even if it's a reasonable business decision?
Do you give your inventory away for free to customers? No? I guess you are pretty selfish then!
Labelling GC as “selfish” implies a component of morality that is not appropriate within the context of operating a business. There’s no ethical or moral requirement to give away proprietary data for free.
"Selfish" isn't necessarily moral or ethical.
Yes, I selfishly insist on making a profit on my inventory. GC selfishly keeps its data to itself.
Aaaaaand the context was an accusation that GC was being “narrow-minded” and “selfish” by not providing data in contrast to other companies such as HA.
Sure sounds like a value-judgment to me but maybe @logger7 can clarify their meaning.
Just a guess, but I bet HA made a business decision to share data. A few potential reasons - drive website traffic, advertise, or part of a broader relationship with PCGS.
I never said there was a problem with it. I'm not even the one who originally used either word. I just think it's funny that PCGS is being blamed for it.
@logger7 said:
Coin Facts includes Stacks Bowers, ebay, HA, and other auction companies. I'd like to hear why they all permitted access to the collecting public and dealers. I can only think of narrow minded legalistic and ultimately selfish reasons why other competing auction companies will not permit their data to be permitted to be added.
Why should businesses give away data for free? “Selfish” doesn’t play into it - businesses exist to make money and each auction company has their own business model.
Er... isn't that "selfish" even if it's a reasonable business decision?
Do you give your inventory away for free to customers? No? I guess you are pretty selfish then!
Labelling GC as “selfish” implies a component of morality that is not appropriate within the context of operating a business. There’s no ethical or moral requirement to give away proprietary data for free.
Then why does Heritage Auctions share their data? You can go back for over 25 years and get lots of other information for free as part of being a thoroughly educated consumer. Maybe "egalitarian" is a better description.
A difference in philosophy. Ian thinks it works out better not to (he thinks he gets more traffic) and HA thinks sharing gets them more business/traffic. Not sure there's any way to know who's more correct.
@bestmr said:
I’ve often wondered where PCGS get their prices. I was also watching this Kennedy auction and while I knew it wouldn’t hit $20k, I was curious to where it would end up at.
They (supposedly) watch the public auctions including ebay and also take into account the active private dealer bids on the dealer networks. Also people can report transactions which is probably good to do if you buy a low pop coin somewhere.
Comments
I don't believe that logic works very well. "If we share our auction data with PCGS then less people will visit our site". Makes no sense to me and why I spend a lot more time on Heritage's site which is intellectually rigorous, the best in the business with lots of good statistical information, and frankly business-like. If there were auction result links to GC, I would at least spend a little time on their site, but I don't. HA is a lot more customer friendly and serious than the alternative imo.
Aaaaaand the context was an accusation that GC was being “narrow-minded” and “selfish” by not providing data in contrast to other companies such as HA.
Sure sounds like a value-judgment to me but maybe @logger7 can clarify their meaning.
Just a guess, but I bet HA made a business decision to share data. A few potential reasons - drive website traffic, advertise, or part of a broader relationship with PCGS.
I never said there was a problem with it. I'm not even the one who originally used either word. I just think it's funny that PCGS is being blamed for it.
A difference in philosophy. Ian thinks it works out better not to (he thinks he gets more traffic) and HA thinks sharing gets them more business/traffic. Not sure there's any way to know who's more correct.
They (supposedly) watch the public auctions including ebay and also take into account the active private dealer bids on the dealer networks. Also people can report transactions which is probably good to do if you buy a low pop coin somewhere.
Please keep the conversations in this category on US Coins.