Can someone explain that unwritten rule with Stack's regarding raw coins at auction and grades of ex

Longacre

I've seen several references to this "unwrittten rule" at Stack's but no one has been able to adequately explain it. I will attempt to paraphrase what I've heard. I heard that if Stack's sells a raw coin at retail at a particular grade, and then you want to later put it in one of their auctions, then the coin will be listed at the grade at which they sold it to you (not higher or lower). Is this correct? What if you purchased a coin from Larry Stack in 1938 on the day that the store opened, and it was graded EF-45. Under today's standards the coin would be AU-58. Why should the coin be prevented from being listed as AU-58? Or am I totally misinterpreting this unwritten rule and I should forget these delusions of cherrypicking EF-45 listed coins that are really AU-58's?

RYK

You are the lawyer, but I guess if there is an "unwritten rule", it will be impossible to put it into writing here.

coinguy1

Hypothetically and generally speaking, re-offering coins fro sale at their original grades is a good way to cover one's butt with the original purchaser/consignor of the coin.

If the coin deserves a higher grade by today's grading standards, chances are it will do well and the consignor will be pleased with the results. On the other hand, if the coin deserves a lower grade, someone other than the original seller/auctioneer can be the one to break the news.

dorkkarl

i think most people buying stack's coins are smart enough to buy 'em sight-seen, therefore they do'nt really care what the "grades" are listed as.

K S

MikeKing

Unwritten rule: contact them by phone, not email.
I've actually found them with incredible capability to be rude, but when I really had a problem and spoke to them directly, they were above board. Whether that is reproducible or not, I don't know.

I bought a 1/2 cent from them thru internet bidding. It was advertised as a proof and turned out not to be. They gave me a full refund without any issue. One thing the numismatist I spoke to told me however was that they could do that because they had not already paid their consignor.

ziggy29

<< <i>What if you purchased a coin from Larry Stack in 1938 on the day that the store opened, and it was graded EF-45. >>

I'd be really amazed since the Sheldon grading scale hadn't yet been developed in 1938.

Bochiman

<< <i>

<< <i>What if you purchased a coin from Larry Stack in 1938 on the day that the store opened, and it was graded EF-45. >>

I'd be really amazed since the Sheldon grading scale hadn't yet been developed in 1938. >>

FredWeinberg

I don't think Larry was born yet in 1938

RYK

<< <i>I don't think Larry was born yet in 1938 >>



I think that Longacre is referring to 1938 AD, not 1938 BC.

Higashiyama

"I don't think Larry was born yet in 1938"

Larry must be in his early fifties, but Harvey was no doubt born!

Regarding the question, I have seen coins catalogued by Stack's at different grades (usually higher) than they were in earlier catalogues.

There is typically a sentence in the nature of "from our October, 1983 sale, where it was conservatively graded as choice extremely fine."

coinut1799

Larry hadn't been developed in 1938 either.

ColonialCoinUnion

At the risk of off-topic'ing myself here, there was a relatively recent case of a consignor pulling a slew of colonials from a Bower's auction because the grades assigned by the TPG were lower than had been assigned by Bower's (and Ruddy, presumably) decades ago when the consignor bought them raw.

I'm guessing the consignor also thought Steve Deeds was Q. David Bowers.

roadrunner

The unwritten rule in my mind is to keep the consignor happy and grade the coins no lower than originally described. If they are now perceived better, that's great. Just don't go down. You don't want to give those consignors any reason to go elsewhere.

roadrunner