<< <i>That $3,000.00 some idiot paid for a widget would be right back to the $25.00 the coin is really worth.
... And PS---I collect Moderns also, difference here- I buy my ultra moderns from the mint and keep them in their nice government packaging. Are some of them 70's???---maybe, 69's???----maybe, DCAMS???---probably.........get it? And let me let you in on a little secret just between me and you.......A LOT of other people collect these the same way and don't send every stinking new coin they buy off to a slabbing company to get re-holdered...and you can be sure that there are A LOT of high grade examples of those coins being held by collectors----in other words...the "floor" under those high priced plastic moderns is HUGE. I know a few of you understand what I am saying even though it may not be appreciated by those SELLING YOU those very expensive plastic cases.
NUFF said. Go to the Bay and buy a piece of modern plastic from a power seller for hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, but don't get too upset when you find out that your neighbor has 10 examples of the same coin,same grade, in government plastic, that he/she only paid 20 bucks for. >>
Well said.
My original still in Mint box 1999-W George Washington $5 gold 2-coin set are flawless under 10X scope, beautiful to behold, and it never occurs to me that I should send the coins in for grading.
It's not that hard to extrapolate from the population of moderns to the full mintage to get an estimate of how many potential 70s there are out there. I'd be surprised of people bidding high prices on ultra-modern 70s aren't doing that, unless they are in the sheeple category.
Of course it would be a different situation if it turns out that the percentage of 70s in the remaining raw population is significantly different than the coins that have been graded. How likely is that?
<< <i>It's not that hard to extrapolate from the population of moderns to the full mintage to get an estimate of how many potential 70s there are out there. I'd be surprised of people bidding high prices on ultra-modern 70s aren't doing that, unless they are in the sheeple category. >>
<< <i>It's not that hard to extrapolate from the population of moderns to the full mintage to get an estimate of how many potential 70s there are out there. I'd be surprised of people bidding high prices on ultra-modern 70s aren't doing that, unless they are in the sheeple category. >>
This is what we call "Probability" >>
Yes, and I'd be surprised if people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics.
Posting a single example of a flawless raw coin doesn't provide useful information about the broader population.
<< <i>Yes, and I'd be surprised of people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics. >>
I was on the phone to a freind that was bragging about his Reverse Proof ASEs that he got back from PCGS, after I pointed out what percent of them came back as 70s and what percent had actually been slabbed by PCGS, he promtly sold his. I think history will prove that its a smart move, besides he still has in OGP he is keeping for his collection.. if I am proven to be totally wrong
"I am sorry you are unhappy with the care you recieved, is their anything I can do for you right now, how about some high speed lead therapy?" - A qoute from my wife's nursing forum
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
There's nothing wrong with moderns for the collector. I buy the silver dollars, silver proofs, and 1/10 ounce plats every year. Every now and then you hit a home run and many you could get cheaper in the secondary market. I don't have any plans of grading these coins since 99% of them are MS/PF 69's and above.
I love the different designs and I'll pass them to my kids or grand kids that will for sure make money since they won't have a dime in them. This is collecting folks and even the classic collector, of which I'm one too, seem to lose sight of that fact at times. Collectables in general in hard times aren't worth a whole lot and they can drop fast when everyone is worrying about paying the bills, something all collectors should keep in mind. Don't get into debt trying to buy these before they're out of sight. What goes up comes down just as hard at some point.
<< <i>Yes, and I'd be surprised of people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics. >>
I was on the phone to a freind that was bragging about his Reverse Proof ASEs that he got back from PCGS, after I pointed out what percent of them came back as 70s and what percent had actually been slabbed by PCGS, he promtly sold his. I think history will prove that its a smart move, besides he still has in OGP he is keeping for his collection.. if I am proven to be totally wrong >>
So let me try a simple math here using 10% as an example:
250,000 ASE Reverse Proof coins struck
10% PCGS-RP70 (10% is based on a small quantity submitted) => 250,000 x 0.10 = 25,000 coins (likely 25K if all are submitted) 85% PCGS-RP69 => 250,000 x 0.85 = 212,500 coins 5% PCGS-RP68 => 250,000 x 0.05 = 12,500 coins
Ratio of 69/70 = 212,500 / 25,000 = 8.5 (8.5 more in quantity RP69 graded and 8.5 less in price)
Therefore price differential between 69/70 = $100 (PCGS-RP69) x 8.5 = $850 (PCGS-RP70)
<< <i>There's nothing wrong with moderns for the collector. I buy the silver dollars, silver proofs, and 1/10 ounce plats every year. Every now and then you hit a home run and many you could get cheaper in the secondary market. I don't have any plans of grading these coins since 99% of them are MS/PF 69's and above.
I love the different designs and I'll pass them to my kids or grand kids that will for sure make money since they won't have a dime in them. This is collecting folks and even the classic collector, of which I'm one too, seem to lose sight of that fact at times. Collectables in general in hard times aren't worth a whole lot and they can drop fast when everyone is worrying about paying the bills, something all collectors should keep in mind. Don't get into debt trying to buy these before they're out of sight. What goes up comes down just as hard at some point.[/q I agree that what goes up must come down , The only moderns that have some built in protection are the bullion coins that you collect . If and when the next coin market crash happens they are going to fair a lot better than most of the classic coins, except for maybe the top pop classics that most of us cannot afford anyway.
agree that what goes up must come down , The only moderns that have some built in protection are the bullion coins that you collect . If and when the next coin market crash happens they are going to fair a lot better than most of the classic coins, except for maybe the top pop classics that most of us cannot afford anyway.
As I said I typically collect but not in the top pop range. In Classic coins or Moderns there's a way to invest and collect. For example Lib/Saint $10's and $20 considered common can be brought for a little over melt and there are many to purchase but don't be suprised if a lot of the so-called common dates are hard to find if your not trying to repeat, as with me. Makes me wonder how many of each year were melted since you see tons of 1924 Saints and 1904 Libs.
$5 Libs aren't bad either alone with rolls of Walkers and Franklins. Near Bulk coins today will be just like the Barber was a few decades ago and you sure don't get many of any of these in bulk bags anymore.
Yeah I have picked up a few of the low mintage Libertys and it will be interesting to see what happens to them. The market is COLD on these at the moment
<< <i>Yeah I have picked up a few of the low mintage Libertys and it will be interesting to see what happens to them. The market is COLD on these at the moment >>
When I brought mine in 2001 - 2004 I purchase AU55's to MS63's. The lower grades will do great as gold goes and fade as gold fades. I believe gold has a long way to go, but many think otherwise. If you want to stay around spot on the $20 Libs you need 61's and below and 62's and below on the Saints.
And as I sure you know buy graded coins not raw from PCGS, NGC, ICG or ANACS to avoid fakes.
I have been concentrating more on the lower mintages (10000 and below) in the Au58- ms63 range , some of them with low survival rates and a slightly heftier premium over spot
Of course it would be a different situation if it turns out that the percentage of 70s in the remaining raw population is significantly different than the coins that have been graded. How likely is that? >>
There is a very small possibility. For a very scarce coin the odds are slightly higher because of the tendency for coins to "bunch up" and the few coins that are near per- fect could have all gone to the same place and be sitting in storage. High grade proofs have far less of a tendency to bunch up though than a rare variety. Proof dies wear out fairly fast so each die probably makes only a few or several high grade coins before being too worn. This assures a wider dispersal. Mint state gems and varieties are far more likely to all come from the same die and go to the same place.
Most of the spectacular modern proofs have a very wide dispersal and then collectors seek the finest for slabbing. I would expect in most all cases the future incidence will closely mirror the current incidence.
<< <i>Laura could correct the market imbalance in moderns by simply selling some for what she believes they're worth. Prices would immediately correct. All she'd have to do is submit a few coins. She IS a market maker. All talk, no action. She's just a financial adviser to the modern collector, not a market participant. Personally, I'd love it if she'd correct the price of the ones I'm interested in. >>
Disdain is the greatest strenght of the modern market. Oh no, not that people should be buying coins because of such concerns as market strenght, but so long as most old time collectors and dealers hold the coins in contempt there is absolutely no danger they'll suddenly sell them all and ruin the market. So long as people believe the coins are there for the asking they'll continue to ignore them and collectors can do what we enjoy most; collect.
The plastic surrounding the 1913 Liberty Nickel has no bearing on what price they would bring.
It sure seemed to impact the value of the last one holdered. The true test would be to crack one out and send it with a newbie to the local market maker and see what they offered.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The CU price guide shows the 69-P Washington at $250 in MS66.
laura is right in my opinion and we who doubt the modern market's spectacular rise all say it in different ways.
the reason you do not see moderns for sale raw in high grades is because the plastic is what is adding all the extra value. being PCGS adds a bit more.
how can anyone argue this point? crack the coins out and they lose a big percentage of their value. most of them at least.
crack out a 1866-S half eagle and the bidding might be affected by oh, 10-20% at the most? the darn coin in poor condition always sells for 500+ bucks..
would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them?
would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them?
PCGS has been around for 20 years. Are you anticipating their demise? If you were gambling, is that the way you'd gamble? Did the people that gambled against PCGS or moderns fare very well for the last 20 years?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them? >>
For "most of them," yes, they would be the same or very similar. Where it makes a difference is in condition rarities but that is the same for classics. Many classic condition rarities may not be the same way sans PCGS plastic. For less expensive coins, the plastic can also be a large percentage of the asking value, for both common classics (e.g. Morgans) and moderns.
Many classics and moderns are the same sans plastic. Many other classics and moderns receive a large part of their market value from plastic.
Is this more of a raw vs. plastic issue than a modern vs. classic issue?
<< <i> The CU price guide shows the 69-P Washington at $250 in MS66.
laura is right in my opinion and we who doubt the modern market's spectacular rise all say it in different ways.
the reason you do not see moderns for sale raw in high grades is because the plastic is what is adding all the extra value. being PCGS adds a bit more.
how can anyone argue this point? crack the coins out and they lose a big percentage of their value. most of them at least.
crack out a 1866-S half eagle and the bidding might be affected by oh, 10-20% at the most? the darn coin in poor condition always sells for 500+ bucks..
would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them? >>
It is true that many moderns would sell fo less outside of the plastic. But this is more a function of the fact that many moderns' price is a function of their grade than their scarcity. You can see a similar effect in classics that are often counterfeited or alterred. See what an '09-S VDB will bring out of the holder or a 14-D. For that matter try any classic that is worth far less one grade down from its holdered grade.
People collect different things with different expectations. But we expect coins to be exactly what they are purported to be. This means expert opinion will be more important on some coins than others. The fact that, overall, more moderns fall into the category than classics doesn't even have any meaning to those who collect moderns raw. It also has little importance to many modern collectors who buy them slabbed too.
Let's say you take an average classic coin and list it twice on a popular venue, say eBay or Heritage, with one auction raw and another in PCGS plastic, will the realized prices be very close or very different?
Rarely do you see threads warning about classis coins and the impact of plastic, but frankly, the single point impact of plastic is huge on some coins, many times the $40k for the stupidest modern value ever, the PR70 Dcam Lincoln.
<< <i>If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs? >>
Plastic is important for classic without a doubt. It serves to handle authentication problems and a reasonable independent grading, since they do actually span a range of grades. I fail to see the value as much inthe NCLT though. To discriminate a rim tick to disqualify from a 70 grade? I think all that is completely nuts. Now for modern real coins, I can understand the value for something like SMS or full step Jeffs.
Plastic is limited however. For rarities and especially condition rarities, a responsible buyer will only use the TPG's assessment as a starting point in evaluating a piece. Anyone buying who puts 100% faith in a TPG tag or doesn't care because they are a registry retard is ignorant at best.
Plastic is limited however. For rarities and especially condition rarities, a responsible buyer will only use the TPG's assessment as a starting point in evaluating a piece. Anyone buying who puts 100% faith in a TPG tag or doesn't care because they are a registry retard is ignorant at best.
Well said.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
It is true that many moderns would sell fo less outside of the plastic. But this is more a function of the fact that many moderns' price is a function of their grade than their scarcity. You can see a similar effect in classics that are often counterfeited or alterred. See what an '09-S VDB will bring out of the holder or a 14-D. For that matter try any classic that is worth far less one grade down from its holdered grade.
People collect different things with different expectations. But we expect coins to be exactly what they are purported to be. This means expert opinion will be more important on some coins than others. The fact that, overall, more moderns fall into the category than classics doesn't even have any meaning to those who collect moderns raw. It also has little importance to many modern collectors who buy them slabbed too.
A lot of people here call submitting high grade coins to PCGS a form of gambling. One day the grade is this, the next it is that. A top pop wash quarter that is valued for FOO grade, cracked out may never get back into that same graded slab upon a raw submission. When there is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins below FOO to get the same grade.
And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
i have a feeling people will understand where i am coming from. It is difficult for me to argue something that seems so much like common sense to me. like duh
When there is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins below FOO to get the same grade.
And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
Without beating a dead horse to it's second death, I believe Laura can identify a Washington in MS66, and I don't really care what PCGS grades it, only what she and I grade it. I trust she and I can indeed tell the difference, so I'd imagine your generalization regarding moderns doesn't apply universally, which is the whole point. I'd imagine there are millions of 69-P Washingtons graded MS63, thousands MS65. I'd like one in MS66, and I'll pay a fair price for it raw. I don't see that as risky. Trying to pigeon-hole all moderns, or all modern collectors, is as silly as doing the same with classics. JMO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
A lot of people here call submitting high grade coins to PCGS a form of gambling. One day the grade is this, the next it is that. A top pop wash quarter that is valued for FOO grade, cracked out may never get back into that same graded slab upon a raw submission. When there is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins below FOO to get the same grade. >>
There is not as much variability in grading moderns as in classics. You are right of course that there can be differences dependent on factors that have nothing to do with grade but generally the problem in moderns is with the coins that fall in bewteen two grades. With all the spread there is in the value of moderns across grades there is not a lot of cracking out going on.
<< <i> And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
i have a feeling people will understand where i am coming from. It is difficult for me to argue something that seems so much like common sense to me. like duh >>
It's true that most people can't tell a PR-69 from a PR-70 but this doesn't mean there is no difference. Far more importantly the difference in grades on most all moderns is far greater than the difference be- tween PR-69 and PR-70. Even a non-collector can be taught in a few minutes to see the difference be- tween an MS-65 and an MS-66. The proofs also have a much wider spread in quality for some coins. You can see the differences in 1968 quarters at a glance.
To me it seems that common sense says that coins that are beautiful and near perfect would be more highly sought. Those who collect these coins would ask you what's wrong with superb quality, like duh.
I'm not saying that every modern out there is worth the price on the sticker or even what eBay or price guides list. Nor am I saying that the grades by the grading companies are set in stone or immutable. What I'm saying is a wide array of collectors seek a wide array of the moderns. It's hardly surprising that a pricing structure has grown up over the past 30 years. It's hardly surprising that coins that are scarce because of mintage or condition would sell for more than others. It's hardly surprising that prices are based mostly on demand just like the classics.
it appears modern collectors have borrowed too heavily from classic collectors in the sense of wanting the finest known.
When i speak of the finest known 1866-S half eagle, people know that i am referring to a pool of maybe, oh 2-3 coins max?
That number may change by one or two over the years but it will basically remain the same from now to eternity. Unless fakes become perfect ;-)
The modern collector on the other hand wishes for this finest known wash quarter... which must be in a pool of coins numbering among the 100s if not 1000s in the grade below. After all, the mintage was staggering compared to most classics.
I think it is foolish to chase a finest known in such a situation and modern collectors have stolen an idea and warped it to their own fittings.
The coin I need isn't the finest known, likely by a long shot. I'd just like a nice one in MS66. PCGS has holder 3 in MS67, and 60+ in MS66. I own one holdered PCGS MS66 that I'd grade PQ 65. Anyone else looking at the coin wouldn't give it a second glance. So far this month, I've looked at several hundred 1969-P's, and have been looking for several years. I'd happily pay $250 for a coin Laura thought was a MS66, knowing she wouldn't market grade the coin based on the date/mm. Who cares how many PCGS holders.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
it appears modern collectors have borrowed too heavily from classic collectors in the sense of wanting the finest known.
When i speak of the finest known 1866-S half eagle, people know that i am referring to a pool of maybe, oh 2-3 coins max?
That number may change by one or two over the years but it will basically remain the same from now to eternity. Unless fakes become perfect ;-)
The modern collector on the other hand wishes for this finest known wash quarter... which must be in a pool of coins numbering among the 100s if not 1000s in the grade below. After all, the mintage was staggering compared to most classics.
I think it is foolish to chase a finest known in such a situation and modern collectors have stolen an idea and warped it to their own fittings. >>
No. This is not necessarily true. Just because mintages are staggering does not mean any coins were saved. It also doesn't mean that the grade of those made lies on a bell curve. Just because the pop- top is 3 doesn't necessarily mean that the undergrade is even higher much less far higher. The '69 quar- ter to which DHeath refers is hardly common in nice attractive condition in any grade. You can say that seeking highest grade or high grade coins of common dates is a perversion but essentially this is saying that no "common" coin should be collected.
I agree with your statement to some extent. For instance the 1972-D quarter is very well made. Gems are common and the high end of the scale does look something like a bell curve. A very pretty PL MS-66 would be fairly easy to find so will never (in the foreseeable future) be an extremely expensive coin. Shelling out a lot of money for a run of the mill MS-67 or even a nice MS-68 might not be a good idea from the standpoint of future value. Sure, if you want the set in the highest possible grade or the most attractive coins there is little choice but one has to suspect that this is a date that most collectors will just accept as a gimme. They won't spend much effort to improve their specimen when it's choice gem. But a 1982-P quarter hardly falls in this category. True gems are scarce and most available uncs are not up to the minimum standards of most collectors. Finding choice and gem examples is difficult and there are no piles of coins to search. There aren't even any mint sets to search for this date.
It may seem to an outsider that all moderns exist in huge quantities and collectors are pawing through moun- tains of coins in some perverse attempt to find the very highest grade which is barely better than the rest of the mountain but this simply is not the case. Sure there are piles and mountains of moderns. You could haul away truckloads from each coin shop but if you were toi examine these piles you'd quickly find there are many coins that aren't usually represented at all. If you examined these which aren't represented for years then you'd find some are pretty junky. You might look and see millions of modern rolls but unless you collect then you aren't going to see that none of them are 1969 quarter rolls. You aren't going to ever find out that if there were 1969 quarter rolls then all the coins in them look like junk.
This isn't to say that moderns are better to collect or even good to collect. But they can be pretty tough to collect and even though you'll have relatively little competition, when you do find a rarity it can be cheap. You can't much do that with classics any longer. The chances of finding a rarity is slim because someone will have beaten you to it. Even if you get a shot the odds are you'll have to pay a price because the owner knows there will be another customer right behind you who will.
People have always sought collectibles in "mint" condition. They've always sought nice specimens. This is no different with modern collectors.
I agree with cladking on the unliklihood of "making a FIND" in the classics. The 1970's when you could go to a coin shop on a....SATURDAY..... and they were open....AND....had some nice new material...of CLASSICS......are gone.
The "possibility" of hitting a lucky streak on moderns still exists.
Will they "hold up?" I doubt it. It just defies logic to think that, once a guy has made his "registry" points, saner heads won't take a look at the enormous MOUNTAIN of coins extant and actually pause to question the logic of seeking one more grading point.
The whole coin "industry" (luv that term) is grade mad right now. Classics OR modern. That one extra point for bragging rights in a registry is a siren song hard to resist.
The super high end coins are having their heyday. The money chasing them is big and the turnover in gems is enormously enticing for dealers. If they can find a home quickly for one more gem with one more big spender, it's worth it to them to concentrate all their effort into doing exactly that.
There is sure no hoopla over the search for attractive coins for the vast majority of ...collectors. You know, them geeks who will buy a coin that isn't "finest known" but satisfies their eye and penchant for numismatic history if not the same anguish over determining whether or not something may have a "questionable" color even though it is a beautiful coin.
All the dealer gab at shows is geared toward finding another high number coin to offer to Mr. Registry.
The grade mania will pass with the fad of the ultimate brag quotient just as soon as something else strikes the fancy of the big money and they find another area in which to make a great deal of noise over very little.
Meanwhile, the attractive unmolested nice circ coins will still be put away for a very long haul.
<< <i>I agree with cladking on the unliklihood of "making a FIND" in the classics. The 1970's when you could go to a coin shop on a....SATURDAY..... and they were open....AND....had some nice new material...of CLASSICS......are gone.
The "possibility" of hitting a lucky streak on moderns still exists.
Will they "hold up?" I doubt it. It just defies logic to think that, once a guy has made his "registry" points, saner heads won't take a look at the enormous MOUNTAIN of coins extant and actually pause to question the logic of seeking one more grading point.
The whole coin "industry" (luv that term) is grade mad right now. Classics OR modern. That one extra point for bragging rights in a registry is a siren song hard to resist.
The super high end coins are having their heyday. The money chasing them is big and the turnover in gems is enormously enticing for dealers. If they can find a home quickly for one more gem with one more big spender, it's worth it to them to concentrate all their effort into doing exactly that.
There is sure no hoopla over the search for attractive coins for the vast majority of ...collectors. You know, them geeks who will buy a coin that isn't "finest known" but satisfies their eye and penchant for numismatic history if not the same anguish over determining whether or not something may have a "questionable" color even though it is a beautiful coin.
All the dealer gab at shows is geared toward finding another high number coin to offer to Mr. Registry.
The grade mania will pass with the fad of the ultimate brag quotient just as soon as something else strikes the fancy of the big money and they find another area in which to make a great deal of noise over very little.
Meanwhile, the attractive unmolested nice circ coins will still be put away for a very long haul.
IMO. >>
You might be surprised how little I disagree with most of your points. One area of disagreement is the staying power of the moderns in ANY grade. I have to believe these coins are here to stay, or obsolete to stay. They aren't making any more moderns even if some of these to extend over into the ultra-moderns, they still aren't going to be making any more coins before 1999 (or 2007 for that matter). People are and will collect them so there will be demand. The magnitude of this demand is unknowable but if it ever becomes as high as the classics then watch out!
This is a different world than it was in the mid-'60's or even the mid-'90's. In the old days it was just impossible to collect common coins in the highest grades because there was no net to locate them and no grading services to identify them. Even the collecting clubs like PAK were not very ef- ficient at turning up many of the highest grade coins and there were no such clubs for most coins.
Sure, the mania for the highest grades probably will subside but it can't go back to the old days. Too many collectors would step in to buy the condition rare coins if demand waned a great deal. Indeed, I would expect the highest grade coin to stabilize and even firm before being eroded as more collectors decide that gems or near gems were "good enough". In fact as modern collectors look more and more to classics it's hardly impossible that some will seek the same or similar level of quality. Choice and su- perb gem classics could avoid the downdraft altogether.
Oh I think "moderns" will ....stay. I just think that the madness to get the numeral "70" on em will dwindle. They are pretty, available, and most commemorate historic events. And they have matured to the point where a comprehensive collection of them....even in the lowly mint packaging..... would form quite a nice display.
I just think that more people will contemplate the cash required to get ONE 70 and as it approaches the price of the entire set in nice mint packs (no spotty milk duds) they will find great satisfaction in viewing them.
They are attractive and reasonably priced and interesting. I don't put them in the same category as preserved pieces of commercial coinage, but could enjoy looking at them for something other than the number on a slab.
The problem is not with moderns, but rather is more general, with moderns just being one very obvious exemplification of that problem. And that is with the reification of numerical grading (plus an implicit denial in any probabilistic or multivarient grading (even if this denial is explicitly denied!)) and the resultant absurd grade/price scheme and an overreliance on partial information from pop reports. Put simply, any coin with a grade of "x" has a non-trivial probability of being graded at "x+1" or "x-1" at the same service at a different time, or even counterfactually at the same time if different graders were used (or even the same ones!). And this means that a given "x" coin is not necessarily better than a given "x-1" coin, or necessarily worse than an "x+1" coin. And thus, any increase in value (on paper or "real") based on a micrograde difference (or an upgrade) has very little, or usually in fact nothing to do with the coin, but only the attached label. Once people realize just how much the label really means, the label-based prices are due for a steep crash; I consider it inevitable. Sure, there will be some profit taking in the near future, but someone will be the greater fool, the high grade crash will make the 1990 crash look mild.
The other problem is that or use of pop reports are incomplete, and also has to do with the small differences in grade from one point to the next. And that is the explicit or implicit ignoring of underpopulation date. "Pop 3/0" might sound rare, and in fact, in some cases it actually will be a condition rarity. But when there are, say, 567 one point down (and countless others not submitted because to be the 568th will not increase the price enough to justify slabbing), the coin is not a condition rarity, and as the underpop increases, the probability that the 3 at top are in fact the three finest known decreases rapidly. And that just leads back to the first point above. In fact, I propose that condition rarity is better understood using descriptive grades, rather than numerical grades. Further, one should be highly skeptical of a statement of condition rarity when its rarity is very much decreased at the next descriptive grade down.
(As a final aside, I am not even denying that there will not be any moderns which will turn out to be condition rarities. I am sure there are some condition rarities in modern series. But the last two sentences of the last paragraph must be kept in mind when evaluating if a certain issue really does qualify as such. I do think the number of condition rarities among moderns is much much lower than is often stated by modern "apologists.") >>
There were no grading companies before 1986 and still people collected moderns and classics. Why would the variability in grading affect only the moderns while it is the moderns which tend to be easier to grade?
While it's true that price tends to be more grade sensitive with moderns than it is for classics, why should moderns be more adversely affected than classics in the event that collectors no longer care about labels or grades? It would seem that there is an implied assumption that all or most modern collectors care primarily a- bout the assigned grade.
Just because a modern coin exists with a pop 3/0 and there are 567 in the next grade down, how does it follow that all moderns will collapse in price or all pop-top moderns are doomed?
There's no question that collectors are well advised to know something about the coins they collect. This goes double when paying significant premiums for "intangi- bles" like condition, toning, grade rarity, demand or any attribute which is depen- dent on the beliefs of yourself or other collectors. Obviously this applies to all coins and it's the collector who has to decide whether he is willing to accept the risk or even care about it.
I know if I paid a huge premium for a pop 3 (567 in undergrade), I'd be darn sure that the coin is properly graded at the least. But additionally, I'd have studied some of these coins raw and graded to decide if the premium were worth the cost. In ma- ny cases it's possible to find very attractive pieces raw and save not only the pre- mium but even the grading fees. Of course, the more easily you can find such pieces the riskier it is to pay a lot for a graded coin.
Modern coins and collectors really don't need an "apologist". If if they really did take the plunge that so many have so long predicted the coins and collectors still wouldn't need an apologist. There is a lot less hyping in the moderns than in the other coins so few individuals would need to apologize either. People have fun collecting all of the moderns and ideally they all know about the risks to which they are exposed. It is probable that there are still some of these markets that are at levels which can't be maintained in the long term but this applies to some of the classic markets as well. >>
Clad, I now realize my post was a bit general, and not intentionally so. It only applies to low pop moderns where the direct underpop is much larger. Obviously, since I did note that it was more general, it also applies to classics where this is the case. And it will eventually apply to some arbitrarily defined exonumia series as well. I really do think that what I said about certain moderns is just as relevent about certain classics as well.
<< <i>If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs? >>
Plastic is important for classic without a doubt. It serves to handle authentication problems and a reasonable independent grading, since they do actually span a range of grades. I fail to see the value as much inthe NCLT though. To discriminate a rim tick to disqualify from a 70 grade? I think all that is completely nuts. >>
Sure authentication is useful for some commonly counterfeited classics but do most classics fit in that category? If not, why do some dealers have all their classics in slabs, not just the ones that need authentication? As for grades, as long as the grades span a range collectors care about, then the TPG grade is useful. While you may not see much value in NCLT, perhaps many others do. As for some things being completely nuts, some people think any TPG numerical grade is completely nuts. Why do you care if others care about something you don't?
<< <i>Now for modern real coins, I can understand the value for something like SMS or full step Jeffs. >>
Some people think relying on TPGs for Full*** designation is completely nuts as well, given the Presidential Review results for FBLs.
<< <i>Geez, say what you want about how negative my rants are-but at least I keep them short! >>
Thanks for staying away from the flame throwers and dancing genies this time
<< <i>Face it-its only the loyal few "belivers" who contiually write the long rebuttals. >>
What's your point? It's the believers that care about it enough to write a long rebuttal. BTW I don't go out of my way to collect TPG slabbed moderns. I just find it interesting that some collectors/dealers like to criticize other collectors. Can't we all just get along?
<< <i>NO ONE has offered to crack their coins out and sell them raw. Hmmm......Sounds to me like most of the Moderns are overhyped. >>
Yes someone has and he has offered to do it this month as well. You must have either missed the post or have chosen to ignore it. I'll let you look for it since you're claiming it doesn't exist.
<< <i>For the 900,000th time, I am NOT bashing collecting Moderns. I do have a problem with just about ALL of the low pop 69/70's of anything selling for ridiulous prices when there is NO WHOLESALE Market for them. These are coins dealers make and sell, not buy and hold! Ditto for the really watsed stuff like 1969 25C (whatever) in MS67/68. Why will they sell forx if slabbed and virtually NO premium over 25C if raw? Why haven't any raw ones been sold then at major sales-even if they are that "rare". Wake up people, some of you are in dream land! >>
Modern collectors don't seem to care if there's no wholesale market. If you want to get your point across, you need to convince them why a wholesale market is important before moving on to specific moderns that don't have one. Perhaps you should be focusing on that?
<< <i>Sure authentication is useful for some commonly counterfeited classics but do most classics fit in that category? If not, why do some dealers have all their classics in slabs, not just the ones that need authentication? As for grades, as long as the grades span a range collectors care about, then the TPG grade is useful. While you may not see much value in NCLT, perhaps many others do. >>
I completely agree that most of the classic coins that are slabbed never should have been. It makes sense for ones where authentication is an issue or the exceedingly common commodity coins that effectively traded sight-unseen by speculators before the last major market collapse. It is at the point where few trust a raw coin anymore, even if its valuation doesn't suggest a value in slabbing. TPGs have effectively levied a tax on most coins that freely trade on the market. I think they have played the NCLT collectors for fools in wooing them over personally. If you like it, fine. I see absolutely no value whatsoever in slabbing a modern Mint NCLT issue. They look fine and at home to me in their packaging. To each his own on that. (But do people really think that when all or nearly all truly informed and seasoned leaders in numismatics warn about the grade 70 hysteria and price disparity, they are all wrong?)
(But do people really think that when all or nearly all truly informed and seasoned leaders in numismatics warn about the grade 70 hysteria and price disparity, they are all wrong?)
You know, this is a very good point. The 70 hysteria is nuts. But then, the general pricing structure for rare coins is even worse. We are talking price differentials of 4 figures for some Moderns, and 5-figure differentials between grades for some classics. Go figure.
Sometimes it just boils down to whether I'd rather have an overpriced Morgan in MS-65, or a flawless Gold American Eagle in original packaging. If I play the TPG game, so what?
Whether it's a 69 or a 70, it looks pretty good. If it happens to be flawless and grades out to a 70, that's cool. And taking it a step further, if someone wants it much worse than I do, and wants to pay me $5,000 for it, so much the better!
It is NO different for any classic coin. And when you tell someone that they are an idiot for buying what they want (with their own money) you have become the coin police. And a basher. So what's the problem here?
I'm mostly a bullion freak. I don't collect "Moderns" or slabbed "70s" per se. But I defend anyone's right to do so, without being labelled "stupid money." Frankly, it's nobody's business what I buy, but I sure haven't lost money doing it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>But if a slab falls on the floor and cracks open, it's not likely the tragedy that would be faced if it was a PR70DCAM ultramodern. >>
It depends. If the coin is damaged in the fall, the classic tragedy could be much more serious from a dollar perspective. If the coin is not damaged, PR70DCs have been cracked (by mistake), resubmitted and regraded as a 70 with high probability (one of a few submitted).
<< <i>New folks who are dabbling in the modern NCLT probably do not really appreciate liquidity issues, even if they have both bought and sold. If the market does fall from favor and it will in time as a cyclic thing, not having a wholesale backbone as a conduit for all the grade 70 stuff will hurt big time. There mmay be a dealer here or there who will buy a 70 for considerably more than a 69, but they generally are aware of the hot potato side of it and do try to execute a quick profit flip and not inventory it for long. When most of the collectors have exited, you have to be concerned about dealers and their markets and networks. It is not different this time. >>
I hope they learned their lesson from the Internet stock bubble For new collectors, I think it's just safe to assume everything can fall back to intrinsic value. Don't bet on long term collector premiums until you know what you are doing.
When most of the collectors have exited, you have to be concerned about dealers and their markets and networks. It is not different this time.
Coxe, isn't that true for any segment of the market? Marketmakers didn't save classic collectors in the 89 crash. I see the parallel in the NCLT market, as pricing may be driven by investors. I don't believe that's true for coins. JMO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Comments
GOOD!!
<< <i>
<< <i>That $3,000.00 some idiot paid for a widget would be right back to the $25.00 the coin is really worth.
...
And PS---I collect Moderns also, difference here- I buy my ultra moderns from the mint and keep them in their nice government packaging. Are some of them 70's???---maybe, 69's???----maybe, DCAMS???---probably.........get it? And let me let you in on a little secret just between me and you.......A LOT of other people collect these the same way and don't send every stinking new coin they buy off to a slabbing company to get re-holdered...and you can be sure that there are A LOT of high grade examples of those coins being held by collectors----in other words...the "floor" under those high priced plastic moderns is HUGE. I know a few of you understand what I am saying even though it may not be appreciated by those SELLING YOU those very expensive plastic cases.
NUFF said. Go to the Bay and buy a piece of modern plastic from a power seller for hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars, but don't get too upset when you find out that your neighbor has 10 examples of the same coin,same grade, in government plastic, that he/she only paid 20 bucks for. >>
Well said.
My original still in Mint box 1999-W George Washington $5 gold 2-coin set are flawless under 10X scope, beautiful to behold, and it never occurs to me that I should send the coins in for grading.
Of course it would be a different situation if it turns out that the percentage of 70s in the remaining raw population is significantly different than the coins that have been graded. How likely is that?
<< <i>It's not that hard to extrapolate from the population of moderns to the full mintage to get an estimate of how many potential 70s there are out there. I'd be surprised of people bidding high prices on ultra-modern 70s aren't doing that, unless they are in the sheeple category. >>
This is what we call "Probability"
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not that hard to extrapolate from the population of moderns to the full mintage to get an estimate of how many potential 70s there are out there. I'd be surprised of people bidding high prices on ultra-modern 70s aren't doing that, unless they are in the sheeple category. >>
This is what we call "Probability" >>
Yes, and I'd be surprised if people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics.
Posting a single example of a flawless raw coin doesn't provide useful information about the broader population.
<< <i>Yes, and I'd be surprised of people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics. >>
I was on the phone to a freind that was bragging about his Reverse Proof ASEs that he got back from PCGS, after I pointed out what percent of them came back as 70s and what percent had actually been slabbed by PCGS, he promtly sold his. I think history will prove that its a smart move, besides he still has in OGP he is keeping for his collection.. if I am proven to be totally wrong
"I am sorry you are unhappy with the care you recieved, is their anything I can do for you right now, how about some high speed lead therapy?" - A qoute from my wife's nursing forum
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I love the different designs and I'll pass them to my kids or grand kids that will for sure make money since they won't have a dime in them. This is collecting folks and even the classic collector, of which I'm one too, seem to lose sight of that fact at times. Collectables in general in hard times aren't worth a whole lot and they can drop fast when everyone is worrying about paying the bills, something all collectors should keep in mind. Don't get into debt trying to buy these before they're out of sight. What goes up comes down just as hard at some point.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, and I'd be surprised of people aren't making those calculations, both collectors and critics. >>
I was on the phone to a freind that was bragging about his Reverse Proof ASEs that he got back from PCGS, after I pointed out what percent of them came back as 70s and what percent had actually been slabbed by PCGS, he promtly sold his. I think history will prove that its a smart move, besides he still has in OGP he is keeping for his collection.. if I am proven to be totally wrong >>
So let me try a simple math here using 10% as an example:
250,000 ASE Reverse Proof coins struck
10% PCGS-RP70 (10% is based on a small quantity submitted) => 250,000 x 0.10 = 25,000 coins (likely 25K if all are submitted)
85% PCGS-RP69 => 250,000 x 0.85 = 212,500 coins
5% PCGS-RP68 => 250,000 x 0.05 = 12,500 coins
Ratio of 69/70 = 212,500 / 25,000 = 8.5 (8.5 more in quantity RP69 graded and 8.5 less in price)
Therefore price differential between 69/70 = $100 (PCGS-RP69) x 8.5 = $850 (PCGS-RP70)
<< <i>There's nothing wrong with moderns for the collector. I buy the silver dollars, silver proofs, and 1/10 ounce plats every year. Every now and then you hit a home run and many you could get cheaper in the secondary market. I don't have any plans of grading these coins since 99% of them are MS/PF 69's and above.
I love the different designs and I'll pass them to my kids or grand kids that will for sure make money since they won't have a dime in them. This is collecting folks and even the classic collector, of which I'm one too, seem to lose sight of that fact at times. Collectables in general in hard times aren't worth a whole lot and they can drop fast when everyone is worrying about paying the bills, something all collectors should keep in mind. Don't get into debt trying to buy these before they're out of sight. What goes up comes down just as hard at some point.[/q
I agree that what goes up must come down , The only moderns that have some built in protection are the bullion coins that you collect . If and when the next coin market crash happens they are going to fair a lot better than most of the classic coins, except for maybe the top pop classics that most of us cannot afford anyway.
As I said I typically collect but not in the top pop range. In Classic coins or Moderns there's a way to invest and collect. For example Lib/Saint $10's and $20 considered common can be brought for a little over melt and there are many to purchase but don't be suprised if a lot of the so-called common dates are hard to find if your not trying to repeat, as with me. Makes me wonder how many of each year were melted since you see tons of 1924 Saints and 1904 Libs.
$5 Libs aren't bad either alone with rolls of Walkers and Franklins. Near Bulk coins today will be just like the Barber was a few decades ago and you sure don't get many of any of these in bulk bags anymore.
<< <i>Yeah I have picked up a few of the low mintage Libertys and it will be interesting to see what happens to them. The market is COLD on these at the moment >>
When I brought mine in 2001 - 2004 I purchase AU55's to MS63's. The lower grades will do great as gold goes and fade as gold fades. I believe gold has a long way to go, but many think otherwise. If you want to stay around spot on the $20 Libs you need 61's and below and 62's and below on the Saints.
And as I sure you know buy graded coins not raw from PCGS, NGC, ICG or ANACS to avoid fakes.
<< <i>
Of course it would be a different situation if it turns out that the percentage of 70s in the remaining raw population is significantly different than the coins that have been graded. How likely is that? >>
There is a very small possibility. For a very scarce coin the odds are slightly higher
because of the tendency for coins to "bunch up" and the few coins that are near per-
fect could have all gone to the same place and be sitting in storage. High grade
proofs have far less of a tendency to bunch up though than a rare variety. Proof
dies wear out fairly fast so each die probably makes only a few or several high grade
coins before being too worn. This assures a wider dispersal. Mint state gems and
varieties are far more likely to all come from the same die and go to the same place.
Most of the spectacular modern proofs have a very wide dispersal and then collectors
seek the finest for slabbing. I would expect in most all cases the future incidence will
closely mirror the current incidence.
<< <i>Laura could correct the market imbalance in moderns by simply selling some for what she believes they're worth. Prices would immediately correct. All she'd have to do is submit a few coins. She IS a market maker. All talk, no action. She's just a financial adviser to the modern collector, not a market participant. Personally, I'd love it if she'd correct the price of the ones I'm interested in. >>
Disdain is the greatest strenght of the modern market. Oh no, not that
people should be buying coins because of such concerns as market strenght,
but so long as most old time collectors and dealers hold the coins in contempt
there is absolutely no danger they'll suddenly sell them all and ruin the market.
So long as people believe the coins are there for the asking they'll continue to
ignore them and collectors can do what we enjoy most; collect.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Hey, you guys can laugh at me, and I'll feel bad for everyone who ever gets ripped off buying an over priced Modern.
>>
I'll feel sorry for anyone who gets ripped off on any coin.
It's as likely to be greed as ignorance that leads to getting ripped off and there's far more greed in classics than moderns. >>
No kidding, a dealer buys a coin for 20K and turns around and sells it for 27K.
It sure seemed to impact the value of the last one holdered.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
laura is right in my opinion and we who doubt the modern market's spectacular
rise all say it in different ways.
the reason you do not see moderns for sale raw in high grades is
because the plastic is what is adding all the extra value. being PCGS
adds a bit more.
how can anyone argue this point? crack the coins out and they lose
a big percentage of their value. most of them at least.
crack out a 1866-S half eagle and the bidding might be affected by oh, 10-20%
at the most? the darn coin in poor condition always sells for 500+ bucks..
would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them?
PCGS has been around for 20 years. Are you anticipating their demise? If you were gambling, is that the way you'd gamble? Did the people that gambled against PCGS or moderns fare very well for the last 20 years?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them? >>
For "most of them," yes, they would be the same or very similar. Where it makes a difference is in condition rarities but that is the same for classics. Many classic condition rarities may not be the same way sans PCGS plastic. For less expensive coins, the plastic can also be a large percentage of the asking value, for both common classics (e.g. Morgans) and moderns.
Many classics and moderns are the same sans plastic. Many other classics and moderns receive a large part of their market value from plastic.
Is this more of a raw vs. plastic issue than a modern vs. classic issue?
<< <i> The CU price guide shows the 69-P Washington at $250 in MS66.
laura is right in my opinion and we who doubt the modern market's spectacular
rise all say it in different ways.
the reason you do not see moderns for sale raw in high grades is
because the plastic is what is adding all the extra value. being PCGS
adds a bit more.
how can anyone argue this point? crack the coins out and they lose
a big percentage of their value. most of them at least.
crack out a 1866-S half eagle and the bidding might be affected by oh, 10-20%
at the most? the darn coin in poor condition always sells for 500+ bucks..
would a modern be the same way sans its PCGS plastic? most of them? >>
It is true that many moderns would sell fo less outside of the
plastic. But this is more a function of the fact that many moderns'
price is a function of their grade than their scarcity. You can see a
similar effect in classics that are often counterfeited or alterred. See
what an '09-S VDB will bring out of the holder or a 14-D. For that
matter try any classic that is worth far less one grade down from its
holdered grade.
People collect different things with different expectations. But we
expect coins to be exactly what they are purported to be. This means
expert opinion will be more important on some coins than others. The
fact that, overall, more moderns fall into the category than classics
doesn't even have any meaning to those who collect moderns raw.
It also has little importance to many modern collectors who buy them
slabbed too.
TDN's terrific thread about this topic....
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs?
If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs?
If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs?
Plastic is important for classic without a doubt. It serves to handle authentication problems and a reasonable independent grading, since they do actually span a range of grades. I fail to see the value as much inthe NCLT though. To discriminate a rim tick to disqualify from a 70 grade? I think all that is completely nuts. Now for modern real coins, I can understand the value for something like SMS or full step Jeffs.
Plastic is limited however. For rarities and especially condition rarities, a responsible buyer will only use the TPG's assessment as a starting point in evaluating a piece. Anyone buying who puts 100% faith in a TPG tag or doesn't care because they are a registry retard is ignorant at best.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Well said.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
plastic. But this is more a function of the fact that many moderns'
price is a function of their grade than their scarcity. You can see a
similar effect in classics that are often counterfeited or alterred. See
what an '09-S VDB will bring out of the holder or a 14-D. For that
matter try any classic that is worth far less one grade down from its
holdered grade.
People collect different things with different expectations. But we
expect coins to be exactly what they are purported to be. This means
expert opinion will be more important on some coins than others. The
fact that, overall, more moderns fall into the category than classics
doesn't even have any meaning to those who collect moderns raw.
It also has little importance to many modern collectors who buy them
slabbed too.
A lot of people here call submitting high grade coins to PCGS a form
of gambling. One day the grade is this, the next it is that. A top pop
wash quarter that is valued for FOO grade, cracked out may never get
back into that same graded slab upon a raw submission. When there
is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the
hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins
below FOO to get the same grade.
And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
i have a feeling people will understand where i am coming from.
It is difficult for me to argue something that seems so much like common
sense to me. like duh
is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the
hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins
below FOO to get the same grade.
And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
Without beating a dead horse to it's second death, I believe Laura can identify a Washington in MS66, and I don't really care what PCGS grades it, only what she and I grade it. I trust she and I can indeed tell the difference, so I'd imagine your generalization regarding moderns doesn't apply universally, which is the whole point. I'd imagine there are millions of 69-P Washingtons graded MS63, thousands MS65. I'd like one in MS66, and I'll pay a fair price for it raw. I don't see that as risky. Trying to pigeon-hole all moderns, or all modern collectors, is as silly as doing the same with classics. JMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
A lot of people here call submitting high grade coins to PCGS a form
of gambling. One day the grade is this, the next it is that. A top pop
wash quarter that is valued for FOO grade, cracked out may never get
back into that same graded slab upon a raw submission. When there
is a pool of coins that are slabbed right below it that number in the
hundreds, sometimes 1000s? I would begin to worry.
At anytime PCGS could loosen its grading and allow those coins
below FOO to get the same grade. >>
There is not as much variability in grading moderns as in classics. You are right of course that there
can be differences dependent on factors that have nothing to do with grade but generally the problem
in moderns is with the coins that fall in bewteen two grades. With all the spread there is in the value
of moderns across grades there is not a lot of cracking out going on.
<< <i>
And 90% of people cannot tell the two apart anyway.
i have a feeling people will understand where i am coming from.
It is difficult for me to argue something that seems so much like common
sense to me. like duh >>
It's true that most people can't tell a PR-69 from a PR-70 but this doesn't mean there is no difference.
Far more importantly the difference in grades on most all moderns is far greater than the difference be-
tween PR-69 and PR-70. Even a non-collector can be taught in a few minutes to see the difference be-
tween an MS-65 and an MS-66. The proofs also have a much wider spread in quality for some coins. You
can see the differences in 1968 quarters at a glance.
To me it seems that common sense says that coins that are beautiful and near perfect would be more
highly sought. Those who collect these coins would ask you what's wrong with superb quality, like duh.
I'm not saying that every modern out there is worth the price on the sticker or even what eBay or price
guides list. Nor am I saying that the grades by the grading companies are set in stone or immutable.
What I'm saying is a wide array of collectors seek a wide array of the moderns. It's hardly surprising
that a pricing structure has grown up over the past 30 years. It's hardly surprising that coins that are
scarce because of mintage or condition would sell for more than others. It's hardly surprising that prices
are based mostly on demand just like the classics.
it appears modern collectors have borrowed too heavily from classic
collectors in the sense of wanting the finest known.
When i speak of the finest known 1866-S half eagle, people know
that i am referring to a pool of maybe, oh 2-3 coins max?
That number may change by one or two over the years but it
will basically remain the same from now to eternity. Unless fakes
become perfect ;-)
The modern collector on the other hand wishes for this finest known
wash quarter... which must be in a pool of coins numbering among the 100s
if not 1000s in the grade below.
After all, the mintage was staggering compared to most classics.
I think it is foolish to chase a finest known in such a situation and modern
collectors have stolen an idea and warped it to their own fittings.
The coin I need isn't the finest known, likely by a long shot. I'd just like a nice one in MS66. PCGS has holder 3 in MS67, and 60+ in MS66. I own one holdered PCGS MS66 that I'd grade PQ 65. Anyone else looking at the coin wouldn't give it a second glance. So far this month, I've looked at several hundred 1969-P's, and have been looking for several years. I'd happily pay $250 for a coin Laura thought was a MS66, knowing she wouldn't market grade the coin based on the date/mm. Who cares how many PCGS holders.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>hm. starting a new thought.
it appears modern collectors have borrowed too heavily from classic
collectors in the sense of wanting the finest known.
When i speak of the finest known 1866-S half eagle, people know
that i am referring to a pool of maybe, oh 2-3 coins max?
That number may change by one or two over the years but it
will basically remain the same from now to eternity. Unless fakes
become perfect ;-)
The modern collector on the other hand wishes for this finest known
wash quarter... which must be in a pool of coins numbering among the 100s
if not 1000s in the grade below.
After all, the mintage was staggering compared to most classics.
I think it is foolish to chase a finest known in such a situation and modern
collectors have stolen an idea and warped it to their own fittings. >>
No. This is not necessarily true. Just because mintages are staggering does not mean any coins were
saved. It also doesn't mean that the grade of those made lies on a bell curve. Just because the pop-
top is 3 doesn't necessarily mean that the undergrade is even higher much less far higher. The '69 quar-
ter to which DHeath refers is hardly common in nice attractive condition in any grade. You can say that
seeking highest grade or high grade coins of common dates is a perversion but essentially this is saying
that no "common" coin should be collected.
I agree with your statement to some extent. For instance the 1972-D quarter is very well made. Gems are
common and the high end of the scale does look something like a bell curve. A very pretty PL MS-66 would
be fairly easy to find so will never (in the foreseeable future) be an extremely expensive coin. Shelling out
a lot of money for a run of the mill MS-67 or even a nice MS-68 might not be a good idea from the standpoint
of future value. Sure, if you want the set in the highest possible grade or the most attractive coins there is
little choice but one has to suspect that this is a date that most collectors will just accept as a gimme. They
won't spend much effort to improve their specimen when it's choice gem. But a 1982-P quarter hardly falls
in this category. True gems are scarce and most available uncs are not up to the minimum standards of most
collectors. Finding choice and gem examples is difficult and there are no piles of coins to search. There aren't
even any mint sets to search for this date.
It may seem to an outsider that all moderns exist in huge quantities and collectors are pawing through moun-
tains of coins in some perverse attempt to find the very highest grade which is barely better than the rest of
the mountain but this simply is not the case. Sure there are piles and mountains of moderns. You could haul
away truckloads from each coin shop but if you were toi examine these piles you'd quickly find there are many
coins that aren't usually represented at all. If you examined these which aren't represented for years then
you'd find some are pretty junky. You might look and see millions of modern rolls but unless you collect then
you aren't going to see that none of them are 1969 quarter rolls. You aren't going to ever find out that if there
were 1969 quarter rolls then all the coins in them look like junk.
This isn't to say that moderns are better to collect or even good to collect. But they can be pretty tough to
collect and even though you'll have relatively little competition, when you do find a rarity it can be cheap. You
can't much do that with classics any longer. The chances of finding a rarity is slim because someone will have
beaten you to it. Even if you get a shot the odds are you'll have to pay a price because the owner knows
there will be another customer right behind you who will.
People have always sought collectibles in "mint" condition. They've always sought nice specimens. This is no
different with modern collectors.
The "possibility" of hitting a lucky streak on moderns still exists.
Will they "hold up?" I doubt it. It just defies logic to think that, once a guy has made his "registry" points, saner heads won't take a look at the enormous MOUNTAIN of coins extant and actually pause to question the logic of seeking one more grading point.
The whole coin "industry" (luv that term
The super high end coins are having their heyday. The money chasing them is big and the turnover in gems is enormously enticing for dealers. If they can find a home quickly for one more gem with one more big spender, it's worth it to them to concentrate all their effort into doing exactly that.
There is sure no hoopla over the search for attractive coins for the vast majority of ...collectors. You know, them geeks who will buy a coin that isn't "finest known" but satisfies their eye and penchant for numismatic history if not the same anguish over determining whether or not something may have a "questionable" color even though it is a beautiful coin.
All the dealer gab at shows is geared toward finding another high number coin to offer to Mr. Registry.
The grade mania will pass with the fad of the ultimate brag quotient just as soon as something else strikes the fancy of the big money and they find another area in which to make a great deal of noise over very little.
Meanwhile, the attractive unmolested nice circ coins will still be put away for a very long haul.
IMO.
<< <i>I agree with cladking on the unliklihood of "making a FIND" in the classics. The 1970's when you could go to a coin shop on a....SATURDAY..... and they were open....AND....had some nice new material...of CLASSICS......are gone.
The "possibility" of hitting a lucky streak on moderns still exists.
Will they "hold up?" I doubt it. It just defies logic to think that, once a guy has made his "registry" points, saner heads won't take a look at the enormous MOUNTAIN of coins extant and actually pause to question the logic of seeking one more grading point.
The whole coin "industry" (luv that term
The super high end coins are having their heyday. The money chasing them is big and the turnover in gems is enormously enticing for dealers. If they can find a home quickly for one more gem with one more big spender, it's worth it to them to concentrate all their effort into doing exactly that.
There is sure no hoopla over the search for attractive coins for the vast majority of ...collectors. You know, them geeks who will buy a coin that isn't "finest known" but satisfies their eye and penchant for numismatic history if not the same anguish over determining whether or not something may have a "questionable" color even though it is a beautiful coin.
All the dealer gab at shows is geared toward finding another high number coin to offer to Mr. Registry.
The grade mania will pass with the fad of the ultimate brag quotient just as soon as something else strikes the fancy of the big money and they find another area in which to make a great deal of noise over very little.
Meanwhile, the attractive unmolested nice circ coins will still be put away for a very long haul.
IMO. >>
You might be surprised how little I disagree with most of your points. One area of disagreement
is the staying power of the moderns in ANY grade. I have to believe these coins are here to stay,
or obsolete to stay. They aren't making any more moderns even if some of these to extend over
into the ultra-moderns, they still aren't going to be making any more coins before 1999 (or 2007
for that matter). People are and will collect them so there will be demand. The magnitude of this
demand is unknowable but if it ever becomes as high as the classics then watch out!
This is a different world than it was in the mid-'60's or even the mid-'90's. In the old days it was
just impossible to collect common coins in the highest grades because there was no net to locate
them and no grading services to identify them. Even the collecting clubs like PAK were not very ef-
ficient at turning up many of the highest grade coins and there were no such clubs for most coins.
Sure, the mania for the highest grades probably will subside but it can't go back to the old days. Too
many collectors would step in to buy the condition rare coins if demand waned a great deal. Indeed,
I would expect the highest grade coin to stabilize and even firm before being eroded as more collectors
decide that gems or near gems were "good enough". In fact as modern collectors look more and more
to classics it's hardly impossible that some will seek the same or similar level of quality. Choice and su-
perb gem classics could avoid the downdraft altogether.
I just think that more people will contemplate the cash required to get ONE 70 and as it approaches the price of the entire set in nice mint packs (no spotty milk duds) they will find great satisfaction in viewing them.
They are attractive and reasonably priced and interesting. I don't put them in the same category as preserved pieces of commercial coinage, but could enjoy looking at them for something other than the number on a slab.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The problem is not with moderns, but rather is more general, with moderns just being one very obvious exemplification of that problem. And that is with the reification of numerical grading (plus an implicit denial in any probabilistic or multivarient grading (even if this denial is explicitly denied!)) and the resultant absurd grade/price scheme and an overreliance on partial information from pop reports. Put simply, any coin with a grade of "x" has a non-trivial probability of being graded at "x+1" or "x-1" at the same service at a different time, or even counterfactually at the same time if different graders were used (or even the same ones!). And this means that a given "x" coin is not necessarily better than a given "x-1" coin, or necessarily worse than an "x+1" coin. And thus, any increase in value (on paper or "real") based on a micrograde difference (or an upgrade) has very little, or usually in fact nothing to do with the coin, but only the attached label. Once people realize just how much the label really means, the label-based prices are due for a steep crash; I consider it inevitable. Sure, there will be some profit taking in the near future, but someone will be the greater fool, the high grade crash will make the 1990 crash look mild.
The other problem is that or use of pop reports are incomplete, and also has to do with the small differences in grade from one point to the next. And that is the explicit or implicit ignoring of underpopulation date. "Pop 3/0" might sound rare, and in fact, in some cases it actually will be a condition rarity. But when there are, say, 567 one point down (and countless others not submitted because to be the 568th will not increase the price enough to justify slabbing), the coin is not a condition rarity, and as the underpop increases, the probability that the 3 at top are in fact the three finest known decreases rapidly. And that just leads back to the first point above. In fact, I propose that condition rarity is better understood using descriptive grades, rather than numerical grades. Further, one should be highly skeptical of a statement of condition rarity when its rarity is very much decreased at the next descriptive grade down.
(As a final aside, I am not even denying that there will not be any moderns which will turn out to be condition rarities. I am sure there are some condition rarities in modern series. But the last two sentences of the last paragraph must be kept in mind when evaluating if a certain issue really does qualify as such. I do think the number of condition rarities among moderns is much much lower than is often stated by modern "apologists.") >>
There were no grading companies before 1986 and still people collected moderns
and classics. Why would the variability in grading affect only the moderns while it
is the moderns which tend to be easier to grade?
While it's true that price tends to be more grade sensitive with moderns than it is
for classics, why should moderns be more adversely affected than classics in the
event that collectors no longer care about labels or grades? It would seem that
there is an implied assumption that all or most modern collectors care primarily a-
bout the assigned grade.
Just because a modern coin exists with a pop 3/0 and there are 567 in the next
grade down, how does it follow that all moderns will collapse in price or all pop-top
moderns are doomed?
There's no question that collectors are well advised to know something about the
coins they collect. This goes double when paying significant premiums for "intangi-
bles" like condition, toning, grade rarity, demand or any attribute which is depen-
dent on the beliefs of yourself or other collectors. Obviously this applies to all coins
and it's the collector who has to decide whether he is willing to accept the risk or
even care about it.
I know if I paid a huge premium for a pop 3 (567 in undergrade), I'd be darn sure
that the coin is properly graded at the least. But additionally, I'd have studied some
of these coins raw and graded to decide if the premium were worth the cost. In ma-
ny cases it's possible to find very attractive pieces raw and save not only the pre-
mium but even the grading fees. Of course, the more easily you can find such pieces
the riskier it is to pay a lot for a graded coin.
Modern coins and collectors really don't need an "apologist". If if they really did take
the plunge that so many have so long predicted the coins and collectors still wouldn't
need an apologist. There is a lot less hyping in the moderns than in the other coins
so few individuals would need to apologize either. People have fun collecting all of
the moderns and ideally they all know about the risks to which they are exposed. It
is probable that there are still some of these markets that are at levels which can't
be maintained in the long term but this applies to some of the classic markets as well. >>
Clad, I now realize my post was a bit general, and not intentionally so. It only applies to low pop moderns where the direct underpop is much larger. Obviously, since I did note that it was more general, it also applies to classics where this is the case. And it will eventually apply to some arbitrarily defined exonumia series as well. I really do think that what I said about certain moderns is just as relevent about certain classics as well.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
You give moderns far more press than any of us could.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
<< <i>If plastic isn't important for classics, how come many major dealers seem to have all their classics in slabs?
Plastic is important for classic without a doubt. It serves to handle authentication problems and a reasonable independent grading, since they do actually span a range of grades. I fail to see the value as much inthe NCLT though. To discriminate a rim tick to disqualify from a 70 grade? I think all that is completely nuts. >>
Sure authentication is useful for some commonly counterfeited classics but do most classics fit in that category? If not, why do some dealers have all their classics in slabs, not just the ones that need authentication? As for grades, as long as the grades span a range collectors care about, then the TPG grade is useful. While you may not see much value in NCLT, perhaps many others do. As for some things being completely nuts, some people think any TPG numerical grade is completely nuts. Why do you care if others care about something you don't?
<< <i>Now for modern real coins, I can understand the value for something like SMS or full step Jeffs. >>
Some people think relying on TPGs for Full*** designation is completely nuts as well, given the Presidential Review results for FBLs.
<< <i>Geez, say what you want about how negative my rants are-but at least I keep them short! >>
Thanks for staying away from the flame throwers and dancing genies this time
<< <i>Face it-its only the loyal few "belivers" who contiually write the long rebuttals. >>
What's your point? It's the believers that care about it enough to write a long rebuttal. BTW I don't go out of my way to collect TPG slabbed moderns. I just find it interesting that some collectors/dealers like to criticize other collectors. Can't we all just get along?
<< <i>NO ONE has offered to crack their coins out and sell them raw. Hmmm......Sounds to me like most of the Moderns are overhyped. >>
Yes someone has and he has offered to do it this month as well. You must have either missed the post or have chosen to ignore it. I'll let you look for it since you're claiming it doesn't exist.
<< <i>For the 900,000th time, I am NOT bashing collecting Moderns. I do have a problem with just about ALL of the low pop 69/70's of anything selling for ridiulous prices when there is NO WHOLESALE Market for them. These are coins dealers make and sell, not buy and hold! Ditto for the really watsed stuff like 1969 25C (whatever) in MS67/68. Why will they sell forx if slabbed and virtually NO premium over 25C if raw? Why haven't any raw ones been sold then at major sales-even if they are that "rare". Wake up people, some of you are in dream land! >>
Modern collectors don't seem to care if there's no wholesale market. If you want to get your point across, you need to convince them why a wholesale market is important before moving on to specific moderns that don't have one. Perhaps you should be focusing on that?
<< <i>Sure authentication is useful for some commonly counterfeited classics but do most classics fit in that category? If not, why do some dealers have all their classics in slabs, not just the ones that need authentication? As for grades, as long as the grades span a range collectors care about, then the TPG grade is useful. While you may not see much value in NCLT, perhaps many others do. >>
I completely agree that most of the classic coins that are slabbed never should have been. It makes sense for ones where authentication is an issue or the exceedingly common commodity coins that effectively traded sight-unseen by speculators before the last major market collapse. It is at the point where few trust a raw coin anymore, even if its valuation doesn't suggest a value in slabbing. TPGs have effectively levied a tax on most coins that freely trade on the market. I think they have played the NCLT collectors for fools in wooing them over personally. If you like it, fine. I see absolutely no value whatsoever in slabbing a modern Mint NCLT issue. They look fine and at home to me in their packaging. To each his own on that. (But do people really think that when all or nearly all truly informed and seasoned leaders in numismatics warn about the grade 70 hysteria and price disparity, they are all wrong?)
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
You know, this is a very good point. The 70 hysteria is nuts. But then, the general pricing structure for rare coins is even worse. We are talking price differentials of 4 figures for some Moderns, and 5-figure differentials between grades for some classics. Go figure.
Sometimes it just boils down to whether I'd rather have an overpriced Morgan in MS-65, or a flawless Gold American Eagle in original packaging. If I play the TPG game, so what?
Whether it's a 69 or a 70, it looks pretty good. If it happens to be flawless and grades out to a 70, that's cool. And taking it a step further, if someone wants it much worse than I do, and wants to pay me $5,000 for it, so much the better!
It is NO different for any classic coin. And when you tell someone that they are an idiot for buying what they want (with their own money) you have become the coin police. And a basher. So what's the problem here?
I'm mostly a bullion freak. I don't collect "Moderns" or slabbed "70s" per se. But I defend anyone's right to do so, without being labelled "stupid money." Frankly, it's nobody's business what I buy, but I sure haven't lost money doing it.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>But if a slab falls on the floor and cracks open, it's not likely the tragedy that would be faced if it was a PR70DCAM ultramodern. >>
It depends. If the coin is damaged in the fall, the classic tragedy could be much more serious from a dollar perspective. If the coin is not damaged, PR70DCs have been cracked (by mistake), resubmitted and regraded as a 70 with high probability (one of a few submitted).
<< <i>New folks who are dabbling in the modern NCLT probably do not really appreciate liquidity issues, even if they have both bought and sold. If the market does fall from favor and it will in time as a cyclic thing, not having a wholesale backbone as a conduit for all the grade 70 stuff will hurt big time. There mmay be a dealer here or there who will buy a 70 for considerably more than a 69, but they generally are aware of the hot potato side of it and do try to execute a quick profit flip and not inventory it for long. When most of the collectors have exited, you have to be concerned about dealers and their markets and networks. It is not different this time. >>
I hope they learned their lesson from the Internet stock bubble
Coxe, isn't that true for any segment of the market? Marketmakers didn't save classic collectors in the 89 crash. I see the parallel in the NCLT market, as pricing may be driven by investors. I don't believe that's true for coins. JMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor