Teletrade and ANACS

wayneherndon

I see Teletrade now allows users to search auctions by type of ANACS holder (old vs. new).

I know one of the reasons for ICG's rapid market acceptance had to do with Teletrade agreeing to accept ICG coins. While I don't recall whether or not James Taylor was involved in getting Teletrade to accept ICG coins, I suspect he was. Now, it looks like he has gotten Teletrade to segregate the two holder types as another piece in ANACS efforts to position the new holder (and grading behind it) as superior to the older holder.

Taking ANACS to the PCGS/NGC level will take a lot of money and long time of doing things right. IHMO, ANACS and James are off to a good start with a number of physcial changes (new holder, new marketing campaign, office relocation, new customer care team, new hires in the grading room, no net grading of problem coins, etc.). Some of these are actual changes in the way ANACS does business and some are highly visible changes that are likely being made to more call attention to other changes the company wants to emphasize.

ANACS has a super history given it's many years of ownership by the ANA, fabulous leading research on authentication, variety attribution, and market acceptable grading. Some of the focus was lost when the ANA sold ANACS. Hopefully, these efforts will return ANACS to its former glory and provide another strong TPG for the market.

WH

segoja

Wayne,

Great insight!!!

ANACS coins are worth looking at, as they can be a tough on coins as PCGS, and then you can get the coins for a small discount.

Unfortuntely the market acceptance in not in ANACS favor. They're working it, but until the collecting public AND dealers accept the product, they have an uphill battle.

wondercoin

"Taking ANACS to the PCGS/NGC level will take a lot of money and long time of doing things right."

My 2 cents:

Miles is the superstar over there. His contacts and marketing genius are second to none in the business today. He is young and has myriad ideas for the future direction of the coin grading business. I remember when Michael Jordan started with the Bulls and single-handedly moved the team up the ladder. But, to accomplish greatness, the team needed to add Pippen and others. We'll see what ANACS can do in that regard. Miles can only carry that "team" so far.

Wondercoin

messydesk

Interesting. This looks to be one step beyond the fact that they've been designating PCGS holders as new or old for over 10 years. The difference between the ANACS And PCGS holder changes, however lie in the fact that PCGS's dealer rules forbid PCGS dealers from distinguishing between holders of various generations when buying them, which is why you never hear a PCGS dealer saying something like, "Well, that's in a new holder, so I can only offer you 20% back of bluesheet bid."

Dukie101

I wish ANACS well,and much success. I just want them to get back on track on their turn around times soon.

braddick

This is an interesting thread because honestly, up to now, what with the new ANACS holder unappealing font/insert and the ability to pop the holder apart easily, by hand, coupled with what seems like a bit more liberal grading (one example: I'm seeing PR70 coins now on eBay where I used to never) I was loosing a little respect for them now, vs the older ANACS of last year.

flaminio

<< <i>I'm seeing PR70 coins now on eBay where I used to never) I was loosing a little respect for them now, vs the older ANACS of last year. >>

It started right after JT took over. I think JT has 70 fever -- he pretty much buried ICG with them, and now he's doing the same thing with ANACS. I'm quite disheartened -- it really cheapens my MS69 set. I can't say I'm a fan of the new ANACS.

vega1

<< <i>as another piece in ANACS efforts to position the new holder (and grading behind it) as superior to the older holder. >>



As a long time customer of ANACS this positioning actually alienates me. I am very sorry to see that they have made a business decision to spend their time making coins in their older holders (many of mine for example) be perceived as somehow inferior. Even those that are not net graded. I understand the rationale, but I still think it sucks as a customer of theirs. It is unfortunate to see them denegrate an older product to try to elevate a new one. IMHO, they should be standing by all of their products. I do not believe they have suffered in any great way from a market perception that their grading is poor, just the opposite in fact, and by passively feeding a perception that it used to be inferior, they are causing an increase in the perception that they lack consistency.... if you know what I mean.

To use a (perhaps very poor) analogy, I wish them luck, but as a customer of theirs I have not been made to feel welcome to their new party wearing the clothes they themsleves sold me.

pharmer

It's like spring training, everyone is optimistic at this point. We'll see what the long haul brings for anacs. IMO the new holder sucks, and I will be surprised if collectors will prefer their coins in it. The teletrade thing may be a mixed blessing. The number of coins in each auction seems to continue to decrease, which might mean that consignments are falling and their own stuff becomes the offered staple. I keep seeing the same coins over and over again, beyond the three auctions you get if it doesn't sell/meet reserve, which suggest those are their coins.

ICG seems to be coming on without Taylor, which is interesting. More nice Morgans, varieties may increase with the ICG/CONECA program, and they are getting strong in foreign stuff.

Where's anacs' growth gonna occur? Not that I am concerned about them, I just don't share the spring training optimism.

BigMoose

I wish them well, but I think ANACS is dead in the water.

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>as another piece in ANACS efforts to position the new holder (and grading behind it) as superior to the older holder. >>



As a long time customer of ANACS this positioning actually alienates me. I am very sorry to see that they have made a business decision to spend their time making coins in their older holders (many of mine for example) be perceived as somehow inferior. Even those that are not net graded. I understand the rationale, but I still think it sucks as a customer of theirs. It is unfortunate to see them denegrate an older product to try to elevate a new one. IMHO, they should be standing by all of their products. I do not believe they have suffered in any great way from a market perception that their grading is poor, just the opposite in fact, and by passively feeding a perception that it used to be inferior, they are causing an increase in the perception that they lack consistency.... if you know what I mean.

To use a (perhaps very poor) analogy, I wish them luck, but as a customer of theirs I have not been made to feel welcome to their new party wearing the clothes they themsleves sold me. >>




I also don't appreciate their efforts to make their old holders into a second class product.

RedTiger

<< <i>I wish them well, but I think ANACS is dead in the water. >>



I agree. Dealers may like what they see and get information that collectors do not. From where I sit, I give ANACS a gentleman's C, or a C- for 2006. They have done a few good things, but just as many bad ones. Dealers with inventory have to put on a brave face, otherwise their new ANACS coins will not move or only move at a significant discount.

As a collector I would be hesitant to buy any new ANACS coin of significant value (over $100) where the grade makes the price (e.g. common MS65+ Morgans). It will be interesting to see where such coins trade for at real auctions. The old ANACS coins often sold for 25% below a similar MS65 PCGS example--a good deal above MS64 money, but not anywhere near full 65 money.

I suggest new collectors reading along, to be extremely careful on making major purchases in the new ANACS holders. Veterans of course, can grade the coins, and proceeed accordingly.

Wolf359

Grading any coin PF70 is a mistake until you are the market leader, which isn't ANACS.

I've heard ANACS will still net grade, but those go into the small holders only. They'll lose a ton of
business to SEGS and PCI if they refuse problem coins entirely.

bushmaster8

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>as another piece in ANACS efforts to position the new holder (and grading behind it) as superior to the older holder. >>



As a long time customer of ANACS this positioning actually alienates me. I am very sorry to see that they have made a business decision to spend their time making coins in their older holders (many of mine for example) be perceived as somehow inferior. Even those that are not net graded. I understand the rationale, but I still think it sucks as a customer of theirs. It is unfortunate to see them denegrate an older product to try to elevate a new one. IMHO, they should be standing by all of their products. I do not believe they have suffered in any great way from a market perception that their grading is poor, just the opposite in fact, and by passively feeding a perception that it used to be inferior, they are causing an increase in the perception that they lack consistency.... if you know what I mean.

To use a (perhaps very poor) analogy, I wish them luck, but as a customer of theirs I have not been made to feel welcome to their new party wearing the clothes they themsleves sold me. >>




I also don't appreciate their efforts to make their old holders into a second class product. >>



I agree completely.

Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,
he is involved with too many shenanigans.

PerryHall

<< <i>Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,
he is involved with too many shenanigans. >>



Care to elaborate?

Dukie101

Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,

????????

PLEASE EXPLAIN.

UncleWiggly

Randy Campbell??

Shamika

<< <i> I see Teletrade now allows users to search auctions by type of ANACS holder (old vs. new). >>


I conducted a poll last year concerning the ANACS holder (old style). Much to my surprise, many people preferred the smaller slab. Also, ANACS policy of net grading problem coins has always been a strong selling point from what many collectors have said.

I'm all for conservative grading, but one could argue that the two changes mentioned above will not help their position.

mirabela

What's so crazy about all of this from my perspective is that if anything, it was harder all along for a problem coin to get into a no-problem ANACS holder than into an NGC or PCGS holder. Look at AU 19th century type, for instance -- there is just no end to how many "lightly cleaned" pieces are slabbed, sometimes with an implicit net grade and sometimes not, by the big two.

PerryHall

<< <i>What's so crazy about all of this from my perspective is that if anything, it was harder all along for a problem coin to get into a no-problem ANACS holder than into an NGC or PCGS holder. Look at AU 19th century type, for instance -- there is just no end to how many "lightly cleaned" pieces are slabbed, sometimes with an implicit net grade and sometimes not, by the big two. >>



I've cracked net graded problem coins in ANACS slabs (minor problems) and have gotten them slabbed by PCGS and NGC. ANACS was brutal with their net grading.

relayer

We don't need no stinkin' 70's from ANACS

Kip

<< <i>Wayne,

Great insight!!!

ANACS coins are worth looking at, as they can be a tough on coins as PCGS, and then you can get the coins for a small discount.

Unfortuntely the market acceptance in not in ANACS favor. They're working it, but until the collecting public AND dealers accept the product, they have an uphill battle. >>



I bet ANACS gets there long long before ICG although it will take awhile
Kip

Pushkin

Wayne is a great guy and one of the best dealers, IMO, so I hate to diasgree with him. However, my limited experiences with the new ANACS have not been positive.

The integrity issue of the holders has been mentioned before and I understand they are working on it, I hope so. The first ANACS holder I received popped open in my pocket! Slab integrity is no small issue. The lines are cat hairs, not cracks. Any coin could be inserted into the slab it it could be re-glued.



The other was a grading issue where I believe they made a serious mistake, as did two experts who I showed the coin to. A third reputable person agreed with ANACS, but the coin has raised a big red flag with me.

I was optimistic about ANACS and I wish them well, but I'm more skeptical now than I was several months ago. I feel they are off track and I hope they get back on. Just one person's opinion.

anablep

I've been sending my Morgans to ANACS to be graded up until the change-over to the new slabs.

Until the problem of brittle slabs is rectified I will not be sending in any more coins to them.

And I really like(d) ANACS.

pharmer

<< <i>

<< <i>Wayne,

Great insight!!!

ANACS coins are worth looking at, as they can be a tough on coins as PCGS, and then you can get the coins for a small discount.

Unfortuntely the market acceptance in not in ANACS favor. They're working it, but until the collecting public AND dealers accept the product, they have an uphill battle. >>



I bet ANACS gets there long long before ICG although it will take awhile
Kip >>




But see, that's their problem. You may be correct, although I think not, but this comparison would not have been previously made. They were #3, period. Now they're fighting to be #3. That's quite a fall, and they did it to themselves.

This mention of 70's. Haven't been paying attention to that. Are you saying that there are anacs 70's popping up now? If so, my first thought is that that used to be the knock on ICG. So, the second thought is, James Taylor goes from ICG to ANACS, and is the implication being made that 70's popping up from anacs is not a coincidence? Trying to read between the lines here.

flaminio

<< <i>This mention of 70's. Haven't been paying attention to that. Are you saying that there are anacs 70's popping up now? >>

Twelve on eBay right now. That's not a lot by SGS standards, but in the pre-JT days weeks or months would pass without seeing an ANACS 70 for sale.

pharmer

Thanks Bob. That's interesting. This is how naive I was about ICG's 70's: I really thought that they really thought all those coins were 70's. Now I wonder if what was really going on was that someone there thought all those 70's was a good way to get submissions. Hmmm

SamByrd

My view as a ANACS customer is they have slipped and made a bad move with the new slabs and mr IGC as the guy in charge. I like ANACS grading and the older slab design. The new holder is really poor in design and I do not have a positve view of the other changes, this taylor person made IGC a 5th place TPG by the ms70 flood and overgrades of so much of there ms64 and above coins.

ElmerFusterpuck

I've bough many a bust half in ANACS holders and found them to be fairly graded (including a nice one in one of their new holders). I bought the coin first, though. That being said, I do believe some of the very early ANACS holders have some undergraded coins in them.

koynekwest

To try and compare the "New" ANACS with a company by the same name that existed six months ago is like trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges. They now have different ownership; largely different grading/attributing personnel; a different location; different leadership; and a totally different philoshophy. I can say this-after four submissions and four resulting disappointments, especially in the field of attribution, I, for one, won't be back-at least until some competent people are hired.

PerryHall

<< <i>To try and compare the "New" ANACS with a company by the same name that existed six months ago is like trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges. They now have different ownership; largely different grading/attributing personnel; a different location; different leadership; and a totally different philoshophy. I can say this-after four submissions and four resulting disappointments, especially in the field of attribution, I, for one, won't be back-at least until some competent people are hired. >>


This is just like when PCI changed hands and went from their green border holder to their gold label holder.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>The first ANACS holder I received popped open in my pocket! Slab integrity is no small issue. The lines are cat hairs, not cracks. Any coin could be inserted into the slab it it could be re-glued. >>




So I suppose smoeone could switch coins for the purpose of deceiving a buyer or to even make ANACS look bad.

sinin1

well there is 330 on the PCGS 70 list, although many are 69's keywording only x 70's

PCGS 70's


I wonder if they will guarantee coin switches, or even if they will be able to tell if superglued back together

Kip

<< <i>well there is 330 on the PCGS 70 list, although many are 69's keywording only x 70's

PCGS 70's


I wonder if they will guarantee coin switches, or even if they will be able to tell if superglued back together >>



From ebay

ANACS 12
NGC 1481
PCGS 330
ICG 311

pharmer

Maybe far fewer now than when James Taylor was there? Is there a way to tell?

bushmaster8

<< <i>Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,

????????

PLEASE EXPLAIN. >>



Ok. The following is a true story, I saw the whole thing with my own eyes. I have heard similar stories from others, but that is hearsay. What follows is fact.

Some years ago, there was a 1952-D Franklin with some decent color toning in a PCGS MS64FBL holder.

IMHO it was an MS65FBL that PCGS undergraded. A local coin dealer/coin doctor submitted the coin to

ANACS and they graded it MS66FBL. No big deal there. One day at a larger show in Chicagoland, the

dealer/doctor, whom I will call Blueberry had the coin prominently displayed in his case and Randy

Campbell passed by the table and stopped to chat. He picked up the ANACS MS66FBL 52-D, looked at it,

and proclaimed, (paraphrasing now), 'I really like this coin...this is the best 52-D I have seen...I am going

to put this in an MS67 holder.' There was no money or grading submission form exchanged, he just

walked away with the coin. Blueberry looked a bit stunned.

An hour or two later, the same coin was back in Blueberry's display case, in an mS67FBL holder.

To me, that is very disturbing. I consider myself an expert at grading Franklins, and I am and was quite

familiar with the nuances of PCGS vs. ANACS grading, especially so for Franklins, which I specialize in.

To me, the possibility of that coin having been assigned an MS67 grade by concensus grading is

infintesimally small. The coin was already overgraded as an MS66, and the new grade was absolutely a

pipe-dream.


P.S.- In the years that have passed since that incident, the market has vindicated my opinion about the
coin:

As an MS67, it sat in Blueberry's case for a couple years, until finally, a sucker came along in the form of

Ebay seller Ultracoin. Ultracoin has had it in his Ebay store for several years now, at a reasonable price,

but it remains unsold because no one can abide by the assigned grade.

koynekwest

In spite of the Randy Campbell thing, I think ANACS WAS the most ethical of the slabbing companies.

GoYankees

<< <i>

<< <i>Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,

????????

PLEASE EXPLAIN. >>



Ok. The following is a true story, I saw the whole thing with my own eyes. I have heard similar stories from others, but that is hearsay. What follows is fact.

Some years ago, there was a 1952-D Franklin with some decent color toning in a PCGS MS64FBL holder.

IMHO it was an MS65FBL that PCGS undergraded. A local coin dealer/coin doctor submitted the coin to

ANACS and they graded it MS66FBL. No big deal there. One day at a larger show in Chicagoland, the

dealer/doctor, whom I will call Blueberry had the coin prominently displayed in his case and Randy

Campbell passed by the table and stopped to chat. He picked up the ANACS MS66FBL 52-D, looked at it,

and proclaimed, (paraphrasing now), 'I really like this coin...this is the best 52-D I have seen...I am going

to put this in an MS67 holder.' There was no money or grading submission form exchanged, he just

walked away with the coin. Blueberry looked a bit stunned.

An hour or two later, the same coin was back in Blueberry's display case, in an mS67FBL holder.

To me, that is very disturbing. I consider myself an expert at grading Franklins, and I am and was quite

familiar with the nuances of PCGS vs. ANACS grading, especially so for Franklins, which I specialize in.

To me, the possibility of that coin having been assigned an MS67 grade by concensus grading is

infintesimally small. The coin was already overgraded as an MS66, and the new grade was absolutely a

pipe-dream.


P.S.- In the years that have passed since that incident, the market has vindicated my opinion about the
coin:

As an MS67, it sat in Blueberry's case for a couple years, until finally, a sucker came along in the form of

Ebay seller Ultracoin. Ultracoin has had it in his Ebay store for several years now, at a reasonable price,

but it remains unsold because no one can abide by the assigned grade. >>



WOW!!! I remember seeing that coin on eBay. It's still for sale.



"This coin has been graded by ANACS MS67 FBL. Probably the Finest Known! In the words of Randy Campbell one of the ANACS Graders. This is the finest 1952-D Franklin he has seen by a mile and a half!!"

Link

Coinhusker1

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm seeing PR70 coins now on eBay where I used to never) I was loosing a little respect for them now, vs the older ANACS of last year. >>

It started right after JT took over. I think JT has 70 fever -- he pretty much buried ICG with them, and now he's doing the same thing with ANACS. I'm quite disheartened -- it really cheapens my MS69 set. I can't say I'm a fan of the new ANACS. >>



That does suck. I thought JT was tightening, not loosening. I was hoping your set would be a crown jewel in a newly established ANACS registry!

Now your set will get beat out by crappy MS-70 coins in the new tacky holders.

KurtHorn

I used to send in 100-200 coins a year to ANACS. I no longer send any. The elimination of net grading is a boon to slimy dealers, and a real gift to Auction companies. ANACS net grading leveled the playing field in problem coins. Now that they don't net grade... why would anyone ever send a problem coin to ANACS instead of NCS?

The new holders, while an interesting concept are very flawed. The look with the type and color is poor. The slab can be broken by just bending it with your hands.

The only real improvement (and I can't really see the difference yet) is the hiring of Miles Standish. Who is undoubtedly one of the best. I like James Taylor, but I hate what's he's done to a venerable, respected grading company.

Coinhusker1

<< <i>


I was optimistic about ANACS and I wish them well, but I'm more skeptical now than I was several months ago. I feel they are off track and I hope they get back on. Just one person's opinion. >>



I agree they are way off track -- I hope their new owners are getting this feedback and will do something about it. I would hate to see them go under.

However, none of those new crappy slabs will ever find a home in my collection!

bushmaster8

TTT cus' I can't type and it took me a long time to write that story!

PawPaul

<< <i>

<< <i>Also, I don't think ANACS will ever attain the status they are looking for if they retain Randy Cambell,

????????

PLEASE EXPLAIN. >>



Ok. The following is a true story, I saw the whole thing with my own eyes. I have heard similar stories from others, but that is hearsay. What follows is fact.

Some years ago, there was a 1952-D Franklin with some decent color toning in a PCGS MS64FBL holder.

IMHO it was an MS65FBL that PCGS undergraded. A local coin dealer/coin doctor submitted the coin to

ANACS and they graded it MS66FBL. No big deal there. One day at a larger show in Chicagoland, the

dealer/doctor, whom I will call Blueberry had the coin prominently displayed in his case and Randy

Campbell passed by the table and stopped to chat. He picked up the ANACS MS66FBL 52-D, looked at it,

and proclaimed, (paraphrasing now), 'I really like this coin...this is the best 52-D I have seen...I am going

to put this in an MS67 holder.' There was no money or grading submission form exchanged, he just

walked away with the coin. Blueberry looked a bit stunned.

An hour or two later, the same coin was back in Blueberry's display case, in an mS67FBL holder.

To me, that is very disturbing. I consider myself an expert at grading Franklins, and I am and was quite

familiar with the nuances of PCGS vs. ANACS grading, especially so for Franklins, which I specialize in.

To me, the possibility of that coin having been assigned an MS67 grade by concensus grading is

infintesimally small. The coin was already overgraded as an MS66, and the new grade was absolutely a

pipe-dream.


P.S.- In the years that have passed since that incident, the market has vindicated my opinion about the
coin:

As an MS67, it sat in Blueberry's case for a couple years, until finally, a sucker came along in the form of

Ebay seller Ultracoin. Ultracoin has had it in his Ebay store for several years now, at a reasonable price,

but it remains unsold because no one can abide by the assigned grade. >>




....there you go

GrumpyEd

If the new holders became more desired than the old one's why wouldn't people send old ones in for re-holdering?

Don't they still re-holder old ones?

I still like the old baby holders better. Just asking since it sounds like some people think the newest standards are higher.

stinkinlincoln

The new ANACS holders are ugly. The label color is not nice lookig either.


I prefer the old ANACS all around.