Article by Pinnacle
WalkerGuy
Posts: 126
Interesting article on Pinnacle's web site. It is in regards to prices paid for "pop top", coins and others, that are a result of the Registry concept. There are other subjects integrated into the article, and it is sure to generate a bit of discussion.
Dick
Dick
0
Comments
"However (and in all candidness) we believe that SOME of the prices being paid for “PCGS Registry coins” are simply outrageous. Without going into detail, it suffices to say that paying tens of thousands of dollars for common-date, late-20th century issues is begging for disappointment"
My question - why limit the fair comment to "PCGS" coins? Mark-did you see the post I made here last week concerning the $19,250 auction price tag for a 1948(s) quarter in an NGC-MS68* holder? Other than a 1932(d,s) quarter in MS66 (and perhaps one or two 1932(d) in MS65 sales throughout the history of the world), I can not recall a price that high for any MS Wash quarter, PCGS or NGC, for any date, any grade. What was more remarkable was the fact this $19,250 sale was for a "common date" Wash quarter, where the same coin in the "one grade under" NGC slab tends to sell for a couple hundred dollars!!
As seen from my 1948(s) quarter example (and there are many other recent examples as well), I believe the point Pinnacle was trying to make was not limited to "PCGS Registry Coins", but potentially wild prices being paid for many 20th Century coins regardless of the holder. Again, overall, I really enjoyed reading the Article.
The registry is a 2 edged sword for dealers - while it's easier to sell great coins for strong prices, there aren't enough top pop coins to make a living.....if I was a dealer, I'd be downplaying the registry too, if for no other reason than survival.
peacockcoins
I'm on my way out the door, but in quick response to your point about a slight bias against PCGS in the article - no bias intended against PCGS. We feel the same way about moon money paid for coins in any holders, if the price paid is not based primarily/solely on the coin, itself. However, because of the great success of the PCGS Registry program, more times than not, the PCGS coins are the ones that sell for........well, you know.
As I have mentioned to you before and, as I am sure you are well aware, on many occasions, coins in PCGS holders are bringing significantly higher prices than coins of EQUAL/IDENTICAL QUALITY in NGC holders, solely because of the PCGS Registry program effect. That is a large part of what our article addressed.
Why do I get the feeling I should be afraid, very afraid to check out this forum again when I get back??
To an outside reader, your article does appear somewhat biased against PCGS. For example, please cite one common date PCGS graded modern that has sold for 10s of thousands of dollars. That means at least $20,000. The only ones I am aware of are key dates like the 32D Washington or 53S FBL Franklin. Though not an expert, I am told by knowledgeable board members that 19th century PCGS and NGC coins price almost at parity. For moderns, PCGS coins on average cost more, but most agree that for moderns PCGS grading is tighter.
There are a few points which could be added to the essay. Your article did not cite the difficulty of finding 20th century type pieces for series that span the century mark. For example, it is relatively easy to find an MS66RD IHC from before 1900, but seemingly impossible to find a 1900 or later example. Other series seem similar. For example, proof Morgans, or even Barbers. This scaricity of 20th century material might be attributable to demand created by type set registries both NGC or PCGS. The same applies to the difficulty of finding a type 2 SLQ from 1917 to 1924. These examples might be registry related.
Greg
Yes, PCGS is still "center stage" with the amazing prices realized for some 20th century low pop coins, but NGC is putting on a good show now as well and a few folks have grabbed the popcorn and balloons and are enjoying that show as well
Cameron Kiefer
Excellant point - I've had a really hard time finding any decent IHC 66 reds from the 1890's or 1900's - had forgotten about the registry/type coin effect. I concentrated on the super tough dates early on, thinking the later dates could be purchased at any time.....they're just not available like they used to be.
Is it only a matter of time, Mitch, that you also find yourself dealing- at least in part, in NGC coins?
peacockcoins
Don't forget about the 1972 Ike that sold for 10,000. Talk about moon money....that's mars money.
I think your articles hit the nail on the head. What's interesting is they came from a coin dealer. The fact that demand, supply, and HYPE is what drives the price of the low pop coins must be acknowledged. The HUGE prices being paid for low pop State quarters and other modern coins, that don't even have a year of availability under their belt, hasn't and won't lure me in. To me it's about "make a buck while you can". If the prices hold I'll be shocked. Rather, I think these coin pops will continue to grow. Whether the prices will remains to be seen.
I agree with what Greg said about having trouble finding certain series in higher grades. I too have been looking for a post 1900 IHC in 66RD. I finally gave up and settled for one in 65RD. I'm not complaining, it saved me a few hundred dollars
Finally, registry collecting, for PCGS and NGC, has removed a lot of material from the market. In some cases what's left are coins that would have sold at, or below, normal price levels. Now they're elevated to PQ price levels due to demand.
My Two Cents worth.
The 72P IKE is the key date, not a common date. Also, the piece that sold was the scare type 2 variety. Compare the sales price of the IKE with key date MS66 Peace dollars, like the 34S. The Peace dollars would be at those levels of higher. Also on the PCGS registry issue, I believe a comparable NGC piece could seel in that range as well.
Greg
the moderns sell for tiny fractions of what the classics sell for in th same grade or of
the same rarity. They merely single out coins made in the last of the 20th century. In
their inventory they don't list a single coin made after 1964. So you can chalk this article
up to just the worst kind of self serving claptrap.
My question, to you, is - What percentage of collector/dealers (they have sets up as well) do you think actually list their sets and what is the percentage of registry sets to the entire collector base?
Todd
800.954.0270
Typetone,
I have read a lot of your post and find most to enlightning(sp). I agree with most everything you have said about coins. BUT, I can't see any comparison to any IKE and a 34-S Pease dollar. There is no such thing a KEY Ike! There are billions of all of them. There are untold billions that haven't been looked at yet setting in bank vaults across the country. I realize that some of the clad coins, not just IKE's are hard to find in higher grades. I think, as many others do, that the only reason they are bringing such high prices is because of the Registry and the compitition to have the best. This has made a lot of money for some people, but when the new wears off and people go to sell the coins I just can't see these prices holding. There has to be a big adjustment in the future as I see it. Even if no more high grades are found, but I think there will be lots, unless the fancy goes away and people just stop looking.
Greg - you raised a number of good points, among them "For example, please cite one common date PCGS graded modern that has sold for 10s of thousands of dollars. That means at least $20,000. The only ones I am aware of are key dates like the 32D Washington or 53S FBL Franklin"
I believe that the article should have said "many thousands" or "several thousand", rather than "10s of thousands". I have passed that comment along.
DAM - you said "What's interesting is they came from a coin dealer"
We realize that we will be subject to criticism with that article but feel we owe it to our clients (many of whom do participate in the Registry program) to at least caution them to consider their purchasing decisions carefully.
cladking - you said "Let's see, again someone singles out mderns for bashing. They don't point out that
the moderns sell for tiny fractions of what the classics sell for in th same grade or of
the same rarity. They merely single out coins made in the last of the 20th century. In
their inventory they don't list a single coin made after 1964. So you can chalk this article
up to just the worst kind of self serving claptrap'
It sounds to me as if you don't care to be open minded about this issue. The article is not just about "moderns". It is also about many of the types of coins that we do handle/sell. So clearly, we are not "bashing" only that which we don't deal in. And, far from being self serving, the article obviously lends itself to criticism from some of our own clients, as well as others. I would ask you to explain how that is "self serving" but from your earlier comment, have a feeling that would be an exersise in futility.
Lastly, you said "the moderns sell for tiny fractions of what the classics sell for in th same grade". A lot of the "classics" haven't ever even received some of the super high grades that many modern coins have. That is part of the point of our article!
PS - when quoting you, I have not corrected your typos. If I were to do that, the quotes would not be accurate. And, I don't want to quote unfairly.
We realize that we will be subject to criticism with that article but feel we owe it to our clients (many of whom do participate in the Registry program) to at least caution them to consider their purchasing decisions carefully.
I've been buying coins from Pinnacle for 10 years. The thoughts in your article are what I expect to hear when I'm spending hundreds or thousands of dollars. It gives the customer an alternative perspective to the HOT HOT MARKET, GET IN BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE hype that seems to be prominately displayed on some dealers marquees.
When we start to get into specifics (such as paying "tens of thousands" -- which Mark is now rethinking to really be a smaller number), defining what "moderns" we are talking about (a State Quarter vs. a high-grade proof Buffalo), and collector objectives, we get a little more on shakier ground. It is hard to read a "warning" like this without wondering "are they talking about me?" A little more concrete guidance would be useful, but I guess that would come when a customer calls asking about a coin, and inquiring whether it is a good investment in light of the concerns pointed out in the piece.
As a Jefferson proof collector, I am hesitant to call all the coins in my sets "moderns." Pre-1940 proofs are not really "modern" to me -- and they weren't produced in the millions. I will easily concede that anything later than 1970 is undoubtedly "modern." I would pay (and have paid) thousands -- not tens -- for top-grade proof Jeffs from the '30s, and deep cameo Jeffs from the '42-58 era. Is this a stupid investment? Is it the equivalent of buying a top-grade MS state quarter minted this year for thousands? I don't think so (and I am not criticising those who do collect "pop-top" state quarters). I think that the degree of risk associated with both kinds of purchases are very different, and referring broadly to "overpriced moderns" obscures this difference.
It may be a CYA article, but it's more than most dealers do, and some folks who might otherwise be burned might have a little more cash in their pockets for heeding the advice of the article.
Good job!
William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night
Lakesammman - you said: "if I was a dealer, I'd be downplaying the registry too, if for no other reason than survival."
We are not downplaying the registry in order to survive - it has been great for our business. We merely want to present the positives and negatives associated with it.
Greg, I have been told that the exaggeration you made note of is being changed - thank you for pointing that out to us.
Todd, you raised two excellent questions in asking "My question, to you, is - What percentage of collector/dealers (they have sets up as well) do you think actually list their sets and what is the percentage of registry sets to the entire collector base?"
Unfortunately, I do not have the answers to those. Hopefully, some of the board members here can address your questions.
Dam - thank you for your comments.
Registry Coin - cute.
BNE - you said, in part " A little more concrete guidance would be useful, but I guess that would come when a customer calls asking about a coin, and inquiring whether it is a good investment in light of the concerns pointed out in the piece."
Your are correct - it would be impossible to cover all coins and all situations in such an article. We try to counsel clients and provide as much information as possible, when discussing specific coins or coin types with them. We often let them know of Registry items for sale (by us or others) and, if we think the prices are out of line, we tell them so. Ultimately it is the client's decision whether to purchase the coin or not, but we feel a duty to "warn" them in certain instances.
cladking - I apologize if my tone was impolite. I admit it - your post got to me because I thought it was very unfair. I try, however, not to let posts get to me and to remain polite at all times.
Greg being a long time customer of Pinnacle gets his "exaggeration" corrected almost instanly.
Also, there is no question that an additional bias is shown in the article against "modern" Registry coins. Yet, as you know Mark, it would be very easy to fill the pages here with stories of rediculously overpriced (and overgraded) classic coins, which collectors are buying from various sources. I think you would probably admit yourself that for every coin Pinnacle offers for sale there may be a coin or two Pinnacle wouldn't touch with a "ten foot pole" - right? Interestingly, there are rarely warnings issued against all the "classic junk", which comprised a decent % of coins out there - right? Fair point?
Pat: I am very comfortable buying an selling NGC 20th century coins. I spent more than 5 figures for an NGC Wash quarter recently and actively pursue NGC product wherever possible. You may recall, I argued from the very beginning on these boards that NGC Registry weighting system was the best in existence IMHO.
That's called clout
BTW, I thought I was a Wondercoin customer as well! Can I get you to start changing your posts?
Greg
I have heard that if a company owns 1.5% of a market they can control the market (from my old marketing days).
Should the prices go higher on the high end coins then that suggest that the other coins should go higher as well.
Perhaps the registry people are at the leading edge of the market and one would be wise to follow it.
Further, that would suggest that if the high end start to fall, the market prices will fall as well.
What do you think?
Todd
800.954.0270
<< <i>
...They merely single out coins made in the last of the 20th century. In
their inventory they don't list a single coin made after 1964. So you can chalk this article
up to just the worst kind of self serving claptrap'
The article is not just about "moderns". It is also about many of the types of coins that we do handle/sell. So clearly, we are not "bashing" only that which we don't deal in. And, far from being self serving, the article obviously lends itself to criticism from some of our own clients, as well as others. I would ask you to explain how that is "self serving" but from your earlier comment, have a feeling that would be an exersise in futility.
Lastly, you said "the moderns sell for tiny fractions of what the classics sell for in th same grade". >>
Thank you for the later post, but the facts remain.
The article says that Pinnacle's customers buy the coin not the holder. There is of course no
way you can screen your customers and their intent. But the author seems certain anyone
buying a modern is buying the holder not the coin. Is this because Pinnacle doesn't sell moderns?
Or is it claptrap?
The article makes much ado about the lack of NGC coins inthe PCGS registry yet Pinnacle sells both
NGC and PCGS. This again sounds like claptrap.
The article states that the "complicated" 19th century issues are underappreciated and should be
acquired before they become more popular. No mention is made of the fact that there are dozens
of advanced classic collectors for each advanced modern collector. And it looks like a great deal of
Pinnacle's inventory is tied up in 19th century coins. ...again claptrap.
It would certainly seem that the author is either extremely prejudiced against modern coins and/or
he is merely trying to steer the purchasers to the very coins he has for sale.
Perhaps calling this the worst kind of self serving claptrap isn't extremely polite and could have been
phrased so as not to incite while still getting the point across. While steering people toward the mer-
chandise one has for sale is time honored claptrap of the best possible kind, it certainly seems gratuitous
to slam the one area of the hobby that is actually growing while you do it. Should you feel a need to slam
what you percieve as risky behaviour on the part of some of your customers, you might consider pointing
out specific examples of coins you feel are overpriced and your reasons. Though I'm sure you feel all coins
of the last of the 20th century are overpriced.
You seem to be focused solely on the LATE 20th century material that we do not deal in. And, we have our reasons for staying away from such coins. Our article was about far more than that and I will repeat myself one more time - we deal in a lot of registry material (whether you choose to recognize that fact or not).
If we wanted to attempt to, as you put it, "steer" people to what we deal in, we could have easily done so. And, without raising issues/concerns about some of the very types of coins we handle and without chancing some of the criticisms we knew our article would evoke.
Feel free to lambaste us some more. I will let you have the final word and now officially give up trying to explain our point of view and intent.
Mitch, we will have to agree to disagree on much of this. But as always, you are a gentleman in making your points.
And, no doubt some 19th century issues are "complicated", just as some 20th century issues are "complicated". But, what is most interesting is the fact that for every decent 19th century coin buy out there, there are an equal amount (if not multiples) of "classic junk" in holders just waiting for some collector to take a beating on. I do not think Mark would argue with this observation.
Back up to my point: I recently acquired, in pertinent part, what is perhaps the greatest collection of MS, Proof and Pattern Shield nickels ever assembled. But, an interesting development came from this major purchase:
The seller, who spent years assembling the collection, pointed out for nearly every coin in the collection, the junk upon junk out there on the marketplace which he rejected on nearly every coin date in the set (showing why his classic coin selection was special for that slot). He was filled with information of this auction lot and that auction lot that was no good, or this dealer's coin or that dealer's coin that was absurdely overgraded or overpriced. While every seller may believe, to some extent, his collection is better than another, this collection was truly wonderful (by many top dealers account) and the knoweldgeable seller had detailed information concerning the slabbed junk out there in the way of Shield Nickels and Lib nickels (which I also acquired fabulous selections of along with the Shield Nickels). Also, there were selected coins that I had no interest in even with an understanding of the complicated landscape and (as has been mentioned here many times) it also became clear that grading services were known to slab MS coins as PR and PR coins as MS, creating additional risks in "playing" in this coin area (anyone know the difference in price between a PR64 or PR65 1880 Shield nickel and an MS64 or MS65 coin!!)
Bottom line: 19th century Registry is no better than 20th century registry for the collector who is not willing to do the work and learn about the series he is interested in. Pinnacle might be a wonderful 19th century dealer and then there are other dealers who are wonderful in the 20th century. But, the secret is learning about what the series is all about - not simply concluding that 19th century coins are better than 20th century coins
Fair and excellent point. With that, I can agree. Whew!
I have to admit I didn't really understand the word claptrap, so I looked it up - in case anyone else doesn't know it either, I'll save you a short trip to the dictionary.
"showy, insincere, empty talk, expression etc. intended only to get applause or notice"
I will bet you a dinner at the acknowledged best resturant on the west coast, that you do not know Brad, Kathleen, Mark, Scott, or anyone else associated with Pinnacle. If you did, you would be ashamed of yourself.
The article has many fine points and I'm sure was not meant to be a doctoral thesis. The folks over on the coin forum are real cutthroats who are willing only to cut each others throat at the sound of someone breathing, let's not do that here.
Dick Graham
Greg
and that at least some of the individuals you list have good reputations. Indeed, I've never
heard anything bad about Pinnacle or any of their employees! I've said nothing bad about
them except to say that one of their articles is self serving claptrap. There were a few things
said ill of me and implied but I have very thick skin and I had called their article "claptrap', so
I expected some response. Feel ashamed? Hardly.
This would be much more appropriate in a PM. If you turn it on it mght keep another thread
uncluttered.
paying "Bill Gates moolah" for Moderns. I have been doing business with Pinnacle for over 8 years, and trust me, they have a large, loyal clientele, and are not being self serving to steer business their way.
I know the Registry and Modern Coins are very sensitive
subjects, these days, and this article was bound to get a "Raise" from a few people, but it is what it is; a truthful, accurate, and informative article. Thanks Guys,
Paul Taylor
<< <i>I've said nothing bad about them except to say that one of their articles is self serving claptrap. >>
Self-serving? Perhaps, but I doubt it was deliberate. By nature of the modern market, and Pinnacle's chosen niche, it could appear that way. The article simply points out what many others have already stated. The fact that it happens to come from a classics dealer, rather than a modern dealer, does not mean it should be summarily dismissed. When the message is true, it matters not the messenger.
Claptrap? Absolutely not. I think it was spot-on, and I happen to be a modern collector with several PCGS registry sets.
Russ, NCNE
I feel the opposite about the classic rarities I own.
Most articles are written for the naive collector in the general public. I would not recommend doing what I do with moderns for the average collector. The risk is much greater than sticking with the classic rarities.
If this article had been published only to the more scrupulous collector, I would expect a different flavor.
As it sounds, I think it is sage advice to the general collector: KNOW HOW DEEP THE POND IS BEFORE YOU JUMP IN!!!!!!!!
Let's stop beating Mark about the head over an article published to the general collecting public. You guys are not the general collecting public and can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy these so-called modern rarities.
Is it possible though, 19th Century coins, although no more 'complicated' than 20th Century issues, are somewhat more desireable due to content/design?
I agree finding a 1974-P Lincoln in Superb GEM MS67 is one tough assignment- but do I care? Do you?
Maybe finding that IHC from the late 1890's in full RED MS66 is a bit more rewarding- long term.
(I'll just go back to my Kennedy sets and PO01 type coins now. . .)
peacockcoins
i think though that it did ruffle some feathers but i think that has to do with certain agendas and fear they might be exposed and dollars lost rather than the disagreement with the article
sincerely michael
I believe you hit the proverbial "nail" on it's head.
I think that's what may be happening, in some cases.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)