Morgannut, good post. I think you're right in many ways. The TPG's have certainly increased the visibility of condition rarities, and they have been responsible for defining to some extent the way they are graded. I also believe the genie is out of the bottle regarding moderns, and they are becoming increasingly mainstream. Dealers are becoming aware of them raw, even knowing the nuances of type one and type two proof sets. I chuckled the other night when I was browsing New Zealand's Ebay site and there was a seller promoting an 81 US proof set he had identified as type two. New Zealand? I don't anticipate the TPG's going away, and I expect the collector base will continue to grow, and so likely will the pool of collectors who can grade them. I guess we'll know eventually whether thats true. Considering growth of the collector base, moderns have one thing going for them that rarities do not, supply. There will never be more that 1000 collectors of a coin with total mintage of 1000. Its cool to be one of the 1000 who own one, but there simply will never be any growth. Maybe higher pricing, but never growth of the collector base. Since I know that's true, and I know there are a some moderns that are extremely difficult, I'm pretty content putting myself in a forward looking position rather than expecting the hobby to unwind 20 years of TPG influence. If collecting diminishes, I'll own some very nice coins. If it grows, I'll benefit. When non-modern collectors speculate on population booms in moderns as the price goes up, they are right about the common stuff, but the population of four-five figure Kennedy halves has increased by one coin per year for the last 4 years. Not much of an explosion.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>But everyone's arguement is based on obtaining the acceptance of basically two corporations. No corporation, little value. Yes, there is a difference between moderns in MS-65, MS-67, and MS-69. The problem is there is no widespread collector base that can readily tell the difference without the help of the TPG's setting some standard. More importantly the demand is Registry based, and so values into 4 or 5 figures Registry based.
Why is that so important? Because decades before the TPG's, collectors were able to grade raw classic dates without any holder and decide with some consistency big differences in value based on grade/eye appeal. They ranked coins to be sure, but it was on raw quality and rarity. This is the reason that the Clapp or other older high-grade collections were worth so much before the benefit of TPG grading. Sorry, you take most moderns out of their holders and lose the Registry, then you will never see 4 figure bids. Take any Clapp/ Eliasburg coins out of their holders, they go for the same decades old price premiums, with or without the Registry and TPG grades.
The modern coins are fine. I collect them raw and watch them tone. But value certified is primarily from two corporation's grades and registries, not the collectability of the coins per se. >>
There's a lot of good reasoning here but I believe you are starting with a totally invalid premise. People can tell the difference quite easily between different levels of condition. Even a novice or non-collector when told about how to grade can correctly line up seven or eight coins based on their quality. True, they won't know what grades they are but they will tell the best from the worst.
<< <i> 1. I never said moderns are crap, nor did I say they are not worthy of being collectable coins - what I said was be careful paying a lot of money for a coin whose value is completely dependent on the grade OPINION on that little piece of paper in the plastic slab. Without that opinion, the value evaporates because without the paper and the surrounding plastic, the coin has no intrinsic rarity. >>
2. There is no discernable difference between 69s and 70s. I would make an educated guess that if one were to crack out any MS/PF70 coin and submit it as part of a 5 coin modern submission, it would not come back as a 70. The grading & slabbing of most MS/PF70 coins come from bulk submissions, something like a slot machine - put in enough coins and eventually a winner comes out, but in the end the House always wins.
As for plastic making a silk purse out of sows crap, grading is an opinion, and like that famous 1963 Pr64RB Lincoln Memorial cent that was in a PR70DCam holder, the opinion on that paper insert was the only thing that made that 25 cent coin worth $39,600. I was at both Heritage auctions when it sold for 5 figure money - the 1st when someone with more mney than brains bought it for his registry set and the second when PCGS bought it back and it was announced in the auction room that PCGS would not "grade guarantee" that coin.
The recent Spotted MS70 SAEs somewhat prove the point that Greg is making: If someone pays too much money for an "MS70" coin that is otherwise common, PCGS is not going to save the buyer from his stupidity and repurchase the coins for more than they are worth, and they may not be worth much as more are graded. Bear in mind that ultimately it is PCGS that determines the number that are "worthy" of an MS70 grade - and it's their OPINION that counts - but there is no quantifiable basis that would limit them to only a few coins - they could grade 1 coin a 70, or a 1000, and as it is only an opinion, there is no way to say that that opinion is right or wrong. >>
There is no question that most collectors would be very hard pressed to tell a 69 from a 70. To the degree that purchasers can't see this difference the price is dependent on the graders. It's also true that price is largely dependent on maintaining a definition that keeps the coin scarce if buyers can't spot the differences for themselves. A certain percentage of eagles or large cents will "make the grade". They do not have to be submitted in bulk to get such grade.
Be this as it may there is still no logical reason to assume the problem is caused by the dyna- mics of the particular market of the coins in question. There is far less cause or logic to apply the conclusions to all modern coins (which has been done here by others). To some degree the nature of the market probably has become relevant; determining the value of the coin. It's relatively easy to look up the value of a nice gem original large cent and there is not often a huge spread for two coins of the same date and grade. This is not as true for most moderns. Not only are collectors seeking the finest coin even if it's only a quarter or half grade better, but the market is not as mature. While supply is often much more fixed than most realize these are much smaller and younger markets. It should hardly be a surprise that prices are in flux and can be difficult for price guides and collectors to nail down. The root cause of the whole problem has more to do with pricing than with grading probably (at least according to the prin- ciples). It should be remembered that the source of the problems (spotting) has little bearing on most other moderns and that the prices of some moderns are much easier to determine than PR/MS 70 eagles.
When I first read the thread that spawned this one my intial reactions were two-fold. First, it would interesting if the TPG's took a stand on this problem and excluded it from their grading guarantee. I wonder who then would have any responsibility for making the owner whole or is it just caveat emptor when this situation occurs. Would the dealer who sold the coins to him have any responsibility?
Finally, it seems obvious to me but I guess not to others that it shouldn't take this long to settle the matter. From Hall's on admission he may have dropped the ball.
So, the times, they are a-changing? Sometimes I think of the good 'ol days when we used to just sit around, and, well, talk of the good 'ol days... And so change, without a doubt, has hit the coin industry. We can accept the changes with open arms, learning and enjoying the new nuances, or we can dislike, even fear the change, or be ambivalent. Personally, I don't care for change that much. I am sick and tired of getting remotes for every new item in my house. I need a remote just to find the correct remote. Anyway, the coin industry changes can be fun when embraced, frustrating at times, but for the most part, fun, just like the good 'ol days. Enjoy, if you can.
Mike makes a good point. If PCGS cannot tell whether an ASE has some surface contamination that will cause spotting, and if it starts paying out too much in grading guarantee claims, it will either have to find a way to "treat" those coins before slabbing them to prevent spotting or change its guaranty polciy and decline to guarantee newly slabbed coins from claims for spotting.
What would happen to the market price of these coins if the propemsity to spot becomes widely known and the guarantee does not apply? Or let me phrase that this way--would you pay a premium for a 70 if you knew that the guarantee would not cover spotting?
A most interesting thread as it deals with coins and with pro sports.
My comments:
1. Those who lump all post 1964 (or 1933 or any other date you choose) coins into the catgegory of "moderns" and who bash these coins and those who collect them are probably the descendants (biologically or at least intellectually) of those persons who 50-70 years ago bashed persons who collected late 19th and early 20th century gold coins (since they were distressingly "modern" and "common" and would thus never be very valuable). Some of these collectors spent much time and effort educating themselves prior to and during the time that they acquired specific coins which they believed were "PQ". Time proved these collectors right and their critics wrong considering the huge amount of monies that coins from these collections have sold for. I have no doubt that history will repeat itself with coins that are viewed by many as "modern" and "common". Knowledgeable collectors of selected "mordern" coins (i.e. CladKing) will no doubt smile some day when his/her holdings are sold for prices which will surprise and amaze. The fun thing about collecting is looking for diamonds in the ruff and acquiring same for less than the cost of a Sandwich and drink at Quizno's.
2. It is amazing that pro sports can result in life long loyalties, memories and joy. Years and decades pass yet talk of a certain game of 20, 30, 40, 50 and even 80 years ago cause people (primarily men) to get weak in the knees, emotional and even teary eyed. Endless talk of the "good old days" for your favorite pro team and pro players simply amazes me, particularly when the participants in the conversation are complete strangers. I played hoops in college at the small college level and have plenty of great stories I could tell. However, unless I told the stories to college teammates or classmates who went to every game, not a single person would care. In fact, any person hearing me recall past glories would listen politely for a few minutes and think I was a guy who can only live in the past. Not so with pro sports. I wonder why that is?
This is a great thread and so I thought I would send it to the top to generate more replies (including replies to my question about strangers happily reliving the past games and players in pro sports).
Though I do not share the pursuit of high grade moderns, I do enjoy cheering on my modern-collecting forum friends in pursuit of high-grade coins, rips, registry glory, obscene profits™, or whatever makes them happy.
I think that sports are a common bond between (mostly) boys and men that allow us to relive our youths and fantasies in a (mostly) non-destructive manner. My wife always marvels how I can quickly become best friends with a fellow Pittsburgh Steelers fan--as if we have known each other since the Glory Days.
i have played in all the stadiums in the league ( takes about 10 to 13 years to make all the rotations ).....and i have to tell you pittsburgh has the best fans in the league....actually i think that it goes back to the roots of the city where as there where many tuff years ( 100 years ago ) and the only way to make it was to all pull in the same direction....so the people are tighter knit as a community and have more respect for one another
i went to the ana in pitt and went up way high on the hill to a resturant rather late...couldnt get a cab back...so our waitress took us back to our hotel....not many cities where that happens
playing pittsburgh 26 times....i always enjoyed the city and the city
monsterman
my goal is to find the monsters and i go where they are but i sometimes miss some.... so if you have any and want to sell IM THE BUYER FOR THEM!!!
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
i have played in all the stadiums in the league ( takes about 10 to 13 years to make all the rotations ).....and i have to tell you pittsburgh has the best fans in the league
I begrudgenly have to give my respect to anybody who played for the oilers of old- they had some nice teams........ what position did you play??
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
Moderns are being saved in prolific numbers. Those who collect them must remember that there are many more out there waiting for their turn to be slabbed. Sure, there are some real cool exceptions, such as many of the quarters of the 1980's.
goose you said:
<<<<
<< <i>nothing was better than watching the old Steelers and the Oilers play!!! >>
>>>>>
You forgot why!!!
As a fellow Cleveland Browns fan, I remember the reason! That was the only way there was a guarantee that at least one of the two teams lost that week!
As someone who has seen monsterman play too many times against my beloved Browns I can vouch that he should have been a Hall of Famer except for the fact that he always seemed to run second to another MLB Jack Lambert of the Steelers who did make the HOF and who clobbered anyone who came near him year after year. Gosh, I hated both Lambert and monsterman!
But monsterman was as smart a football player as they came!! He was the one who figured out the footwork of opposing quarterbacks?
Somehow I seem to remember him humiliating Dan Fouts in his prime?
>>>>>But monsterman was as smart a football player as they came!! He was the one who figured out the footwork of opposing quarterbacks?
Somehow I seem to remember him humiliating Dan Fouts in his prime? >>>>
it was those dance lessions i took to perfect my footwork :-).....that got me into studying quarterbacks footwork where as they might just tip me as to what they were going to do before they did it ...and it was a bonus if i had enough time to call a defense ( audible ) at the line of scrimage and put all the rest opf the players where i needed them....that and reading lips definitely gave me an edge ( btw my ole buddy brian sipe was smart enough to know what i was up to and always put his hand on his facemask to cover his lips ....the little sheet )
anyway air correll and fouts were scoring 45 points on everone and we didnt want to be a statistic.....so i studied his feet...seems like his right guard ( ed white ) would always step back with his left foot ( for pass protection...but steped forward for runs ) and when dan called a pass he didnt want his right foot steped on so he dropped it 4 inches backward when he called a pass and kept his feet parallel when he called a run...thus by watching his foot set up i just audibled every play...and always got all of them right...
they always thought we were stealing their signals....and we leaked to them we were....they spent more time changing their signals than they did on their game plan.,..they even had 3 guys ( we called the the 3 blind mice ) on the sidelines all flashing signals with one live and 2 dummies...it was really funny
alrighty then...as paul harvey says....now you know the rest of the story...good day
monsterman
my goal is to find the monsters and i go where they are but i sometimes miss some.... so if you have any and want to sell IM THE BUYER FOR THEM!!!
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
they always thought we were stealing their signals....and we leaked to them we were....they spent more time changing their signals than they did on their game plan.,..they even had 3 guys ( we called the the 3 blind mice ) on the sidelines all flashing signals with one live and 2 dummies...it was really funny
Comments
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>But everyone's arguement is based on obtaining the acceptance of basically two corporations. No corporation, little value. Yes, there is a difference between moderns in MS-65, MS-67, and MS-69. The problem is there is no widespread collector base that can readily tell the difference without the help of the TPG's setting some standard. More importantly the demand is Registry based, and so values into 4 or 5 figures Registry based.
Why is that so important? Because decades before the TPG's, collectors were able to grade raw classic dates without any holder and decide with some consistency big differences in value based on grade/eye appeal. They ranked coins to be sure, but it was on raw quality and rarity. This is the reason that the Clapp or other older high-grade collections were worth so much before the benefit of TPG grading. Sorry, you take most moderns out of their holders and lose the Registry, then you will never see 4 figure bids. Take any Clapp/ Eliasburg coins out of their holders, they go for the same decades old price premiums, with or without the Registry and TPG grades.
The modern coins are fine. I collect them raw and watch them tone. But value certified is primarily from two corporation's grades and registries, not the collectability of the coins per se. >>
There's a lot of good reasoning here but I believe you are starting with
a totally invalid premise. People can tell the difference quite easily between
different levels of condition. Even a novice or non-collector when told about
how to grade can correctly line up seven or eight coins based on their quality.
True, they won't know what grades they are but they will tell the best from
the worst.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
1. I never said moderns are crap, nor did I say they are not worthy of being collectable coins - what I said was be careful paying a lot of money for a coin whose value is completely dependent on the grade OPINION on that little piece of paper in the plastic slab. Without that opinion, the value evaporates because without the paper and the surrounding plastic, the coin has no intrinsic rarity. >>
2. There is no discernable difference between 69s and 70s. I would make an educated guess that if one were to crack out any MS/PF70 coin and submit it as part of a 5 coin modern submission, it would not come back as a 70. The grading & slabbing of most MS/PF70 coins come from bulk submissions, something like a slot machine - put in enough coins and eventually a winner comes out, but in the end the House always wins.
As for plastic making a silk purse out of sows crap, grading is an opinion, and like that famous 1963 Pr64RB Lincoln Memorial cent that was in a PR70DCam holder, the opinion on that paper insert was the only thing that made that 25 cent coin worth $39,600. I was at both Heritage auctions when it sold for 5 figure money - the 1st when someone with more mney than brains bought it for his registry set and the second when PCGS bought it back and it was announced in the auction room that PCGS would not "grade guarantee" that coin.
The recent Spotted MS70 SAEs somewhat prove the point that Greg is making: If someone pays too much money for an "MS70" coin that is otherwise common, PCGS is not going to save the buyer from his stupidity and repurchase the coins for more than they are worth, and they may not be worth much as more are graded. Bear in mind that ultimately it is PCGS that determines the number that are "worthy" of an MS70 grade - and it's their OPINION that counts - but there is no quantifiable basis that would limit them to only a few coins - they could grade 1 coin a 70, or a 1000, and as it is only an opinion, there is no way to say that that opinion is right or wrong.
>>
There is no question that most collectors would be very hard pressed to tell a 69 from a 70.
To the degree that purchasers can't see this difference the price is dependent on the graders.
It's also true that price is largely dependent on maintaining a definition that keeps the coin
scarce if buyers can't spot the differences for themselves. A certain percentage of eagles or
large cents will "make the grade". They do not have to be submitted in bulk to get such grade.
Be this as it may there is still no logical reason to assume the problem is caused by the dyna-
mics of the particular market of the coins in question. There is far less cause or logic to apply
the conclusions to all modern coins (which has been done here by others). To some degree
the nature of the market probably has become relevant; determining the value of the coin. It's
relatively easy to look up the value of a nice gem original large cent and there is not often a
huge spread for two coins of the same date and grade. This is not as true for most moderns.
Not only are collectors seeking the finest coin even if it's only a quarter or half grade better,
but the market is not as mature. While supply is often much more fixed than most realize these
are much smaller and younger markets. It should hardly be a surprise that prices are in flux
and can be difficult for price guides and collectors to nail down. The root cause of the whole
problem has more to do with pricing than with grading probably (at least according to the prin-
ciples). It should be remembered that the source of the problems (spotting) has little bearing on
most other moderns and that the prices of some moderns are much easier to determine than
PR/MS 70 eagles.
Finally, it seems obvious to me but I guess not to others that it shouldn't take this long to settle the matter. From Hall's on admission he may have dropped the ball.
Sometimes I think of the good 'ol days when we used to just sit around, and, well, talk of the good 'ol days...
And so change, without a doubt, has hit the coin industry. We can accept the changes with open arms, learning and enjoying the new nuances, or we can dislike, even fear the change, or be ambivalent. Personally, I don't care for change that much. I am sick and tired of getting remotes for every new item in my house. I need a remote just to find the correct remote. Anyway, the coin industry changes can be fun when embraced, frustrating at times, but for the most part, fun, just like the good 'ol days. Enjoy, if you can.
<< <i>I could never really understand why anyone would pay big bucks for an MS70 whatever that has a mintage in the hundreds of millions >>
Dragon,
Name a single modern coin with mintages in the hundreds of millions that has ever received the MS70 grade. Just one will do.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i><< I could never really understand why anyone would pay big bucks for an MS70 whatever that has a mintage in the hundreds of millions >> >>
I would reword that, why would anyone buy a noncirculating coin(ASE) with millions made in ms70 for big money.
I give up. Why?
What would happen to the market price of these coins if the propemsity to spot becomes widely known and the guarantee does not apply? Or let me phrase that this way--would you pay a premium for a 70 if you knew that the guarantee would not cover spotting?
CG
My comments:
1. Those who lump all post 1964 (or 1933 or any other date you choose) coins into the catgegory of "moderns" and who bash these coins and those who collect them are probably the descendants (biologically or at least intellectually) of those persons who 50-70 years ago bashed persons who collected late 19th and early 20th century gold coins (since they were distressingly "modern" and "common" and would thus never be very valuable). Some of these collectors spent much time and effort educating themselves prior to and during the time that they acquired specific coins which they believed were "PQ". Time proved these collectors right and their critics wrong considering the huge amount of monies that coins from these collections have sold for. I have no doubt that history will repeat itself with coins that are viewed by many as "modern" and "common". Knowledgeable collectors of selected "mordern" coins (i.e. CladKing) will no doubt smile some day when his/her holdings are sold for prices which will surprise and amaze. The fun thing about collecting is looking for diamonds in the ruff and acquiring same for less than the cost of a Sandwich and drink at Quizno's.
2. It is amazing that pro sports can result in life long loyalties, memories and joy. Years and decades pass yet talk of a certain game of 20, 30, 40, 50 and even 80 years ago cause people (primarily men) to get weak in the knees, emotional and even teary eyed. Endless talk of the "good old days" for your favorite pro team and pro players simply amazes me, particularly when the participants in the conversation are complete strangers. I played hoops in college at the small college level and have plenty of great stories I could tell. However, unless I told the stories to college teammates or classmates who went to every game, not a single person would care. In fact, any person hearing me recall past glories would listen politely for a few minutes and think I was a guy who can only live in the past. Not so with pro sports. I wonder why that is?
This is a great thread and so I thought I would send it to the top to generate more replies (including replies to my question about strangers happily reliving the past games and players in pro sports).
Fire away folks.
I really enjoyed your post.
Though I do not share the pursuit of high grade moderns, I do enjoy cheering on my modern-collecting forum friends in pursuit of high-grade coins, rips, registry glory, obscene profits™, or whatever makes them happy.
I think that sports are a common bond between (mostly) boys and men that allow us to relive our youths and fantasies in a (mostly) non-destructive manner. My wife always marvels how I can quickly become best friends with a fellow Pittsburgh Steelers fan--as if we have known each other since the Glory Days.
Amen......
I still think that the 70 grade was just created out of thin air to make some folks a whole bunch of money.........
i have played in all the stadiums in the league ( takes about 10 to 13 years to make all the rotations ).....and i have to tell you pittsburgh has the best fans in the league....actually i think that it goes back to the roots of the city where as there where many tuff years ( 100 years ago ) and the only way to make it was to all pull in the same direction....so the people are tighter knit as a community and have more respect for one another
i went to the ana in pitt and went up way high on the hill to a resturant rather late...couldnt get a cab back...so our waitress took us back to our hotel....not many cities where that happens
playing pittsburgh 26 times....i always enjoyed the city and the city
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
I begrudgenly have to give my respect to anybody who played for the oilers of old- they had some nice teams........ what position did you play??
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
goose you said:
<<<<
<< <i>nothing was better than watching the old Steelers and the Oilers play!!! >>
>>>>>
You forgot why!!!
As a fellow Cleveland Browns fan, I remember the reason! That was the only way there was a guarantee that at least one of the two teams lost that week!
As someone who has seen monsterman play too many times against my beloved Browns I can vouch that he should have been a Hall of Famer except for the fact that he always seemed to run second to another MLB Jack Lambert of the Steelers who did make the HOF and who clobbered anyone who came near him year after year. Gosh, I hated both Lambert and monsterman!
But monsterman was as smart a football player as they came!! He was the one who figured out the footwork of opposing quarterbacks?
Somehow I seem to remember him humiliating Dan Fouts in his prime?
>>>>>But monsterman was as smart a football player as they came!! He was the one who figured out the footwork of opposing quarterbacks?
Somehow I seem to remember him humiliating Dan Fouts in his prime? >>>>
it was those dance lessions i took to perfect my footwork :-).....that got me into studying quarterbacks footwork where as they might just tip me as to what they were going to do before they did it ...and it was a bonus if i had enough time to call a defense ( audible ) at the line of scrimage and put all the rest opf the players where i needed them....that and reading lips definitely gave me an edge ( btw my ole buddy brian sipe was smart enough to know what i was up to and always put his hand on his facemask to cover his lips ....the little sheet )
anyway air correll and fouts were scoring 45 points on everone and we didnt want to be a statistic.....so i studied his feet...seems like his right guard ( ed white ) would always step back with his left foot ( for pass protection...but steped forward for runs ) and when dan called a pass he didnt want his right foot steped on so he dropped it 4 inches backward when he called a pass and kept his feet parallel when he called a run...thus by watching his foot set up i just audibled every play...and always got all of them right...
they always thought we were stealing their signals....and we leaked to them we were....they spent more time changing their signals than they did on their game plan.,..they even had 3 guys ( we called the the 3 blind mice ) on the sidelines all flashing signals with one live and 2 dummies...it was really funny
alrighty then...as paul harvey says....now you know the rest of the story...good day
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
Gosh, I hated both Lambert and monsterman!
Lambert probably did not like you much either.
actually jack loves me....as he was one of my best students
monsterman
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
>>>Lambert probably did not like you much either<<<
actually jack loves me....as he was one of my best students
Monsterman,
My comment was directed at Oreville, who made the above statement first.
RYK