Coin World guest commentary on registry sets (I'm a bit cynical)

kranky

This week's Commentary in CW talks about the registry set competition. Summarized:

In the past (Eliasberg vs. Norweb) there used to be fierce competition for the finest coins. PCGS now has 1200 different people with registry sets and NGC another 50 because of the recognition provided by the registry sets ("friendly competition", says the writer). Back then rarity was defined by number of extant coins.

While everyone wants the best condition, today's collector is enamored by possessing coins that offer the ultimate in quality, beauty and rarity. Some are willing to pay whatever it takes to own a coin no one else has.

An example: a 1948-S NGC MS68 Washington quarter recently sold for $19,250, and had three bidders still in it at $15,000. Two years ago this coin would have sold for about $1000. Given the great demand generated by the registries, what might this great coin be worth as more collectors enter the competition?

The writer believes the preferences of today's collectors represent a paradigm shift. They desire not only rarity, but the ultimate in quality. As awareness of the registries spreads, the number of collectors and the value of those few coins possessing the epitome of perfection will dramatically increase.

[End summary]

So I read that, and when I finished I thought - wow, I bet every Washington quarter dealer was thrilled to have this guy write this commentary praising them.

And then I looked to see who wrote it. It's a prominent Washington quarter dealer. I'm always interested in different points of view, but when I saw the author I thought - how'd you get this ad past the editorial desk? Maybe it's just me, but it seems so blatant.

wondercoin

Kranky: Who wrote it?

I have written about the 1948(s) Wash quarter at close to $20k on the Registry Board from nearly the time the coin sold. Unless Teletrade revealed it personal bidding information publicly (which I would doubt), the conclusion that (3) folks were in over $15k on that coin, comes from the situation that a dealer I know (and perhaps another dealer) discovered the (2) collectors who bid in that auction over $14k. I was told one collector bid only up to around $14k (before commish) and the other won the coin - hence, the inference there must be a third collector over $15k as well. It is also possible the 2nd collector bid higher than $14k in the firstplace?

IMHO, this has nothing to do with 1200 Registry guys or anything like that. It has everything to do with 2 (or maybe 3) individuals wanting a 1948(s) quarter in top grade at nearly any price. I have personally purchased the vast majority of every PCGS-MS68 silver quarter ever slabbed by PCGS and have never spent $19k+ on any of them (heck, I remember about a year ago on these boards when I offered $6k for PCGS-MS68 silver quarters and most folks thought I was nuts at that price level, although no one was ever able to sell me one at that price level). This 1948(s) quarter was an NGC coin. I commend the job NGC is doing promoting its registry and its * designation, which I believe this coin was.

I do agree that several collectors out there today want the very highest grade obtainable, whether it be in moderns or classics. In both cases, the "one point" move up from the next highest grade is often times enormous. Of course, no one has a crystal ball to see if the top graded coins will maintain the ratio to the next highest grade coins it enjoys today. That ratio could go higher or lower as more collectors enter the market.

If the "new market" price for MS68 Wash quarters is close to $20k for pretty ones, I will not shed a tear , but I am also a bit concerned that a market at $1k/coin (for the NGC coins, but it really was closer to $2k-$3k/coin IMHO) may have jumped to $20k/coin in such a short time span. It seems like too much, too fast to me, at least Wondercoin. P.S. You can take a look at several of the PCGS-MS68 Wash quarters I have purchased in my Museum of Coins (under construction still) at www.wondercoin.com

dpoole

I don't know why dealers would be any more thrilled with this phenomenon than collectors. Dealers can't sell 'em if they can't get 'em. Since their rare at those grading levels, they just won't come around often that enough. And when they do, they're going to have to pay so much to get them (unless they happen to hit the Lottery and "make" one), there won't be that much room for a markup.

Trime

Kranky,
Time will tell where the prices will be.
Supply and demand!
Greed and Fear!
Promotion and obscurity!

Hype is rampant in the coin market. Every report from CDN and the various auction and retail houses remind us that the market is hot, white hot and really hot. I share your impression and probably your opinion on this matter but I didn't ride the dot or tele-coms up the mountain either.

Gilbert

Wondercoin,

I believe you are correct in your assessment of the bidding over the quarter, and my understanding of the article was that APPEL was saying that the price went so high because of the three bidders, and what will be the situation regarding the price of this coin in the future.

The quarter scenario was used to illustrate 1) a comparison to Eliasberg, Norweb and May going "head to head" for great rarities and 2) that this quarter may have only brought $1000 a year ago, but with the advent of the registry and collectors desiring the finest and rarest EXAMPLE within a series, the similar "head to head" competition has resulted in record prices.

Yes, his bottom line was his belief that todays collectors represent a paradigm shift to not only collecting the rarest, but also the ultimate quality.

The quarter was just a bidding war example; I thought the article spoke more to 20th century coins and today's collectors. I didn't perceive any bias towards quarters.

kranky

I don't know if I got my point across - I didn't care whether the comments were valid or not IMHO, because I enjoy reading different points of view. But this just seemed like reading a commentary in the daily paper which talks the joys of eating in a fine restaurant, then finding out it was written by the owner of such a place. That's not really a "Guest Commentary" to me.

I realize a commentary isn't a news article and will contain opinions, and I would have been fine with the comments on the growth in the registries up until it crafts an argument that pop-tops are what "today's collector" want and uses a Washington quarter example to illustrate giant leaps in price. Now you have an express train leaving Opiniontown on the way to Biasedville, considering the author has a very vested interest in getting more people to see things that way.

I don't doubt the author's sincerity and I'm sure he believes what he wrote. I purposely left out the author's name because that really wasn't the point. I saw it as an advertisement under the guise of commentary.

But hey, maybe others don't see it the way I did. That's certainly happened before!


[edit: on the upside, there wasn't an advertisement in the same CW issue from the author, which makes me feel better.]