Well said Jay... a few of us have been making this point for some time... but the koolaid drinkers are gathering around the punchbowl anyway. Cheers, RickO
Well said. I know what I like, and I don't buy the other stuff. Moreover, due to financial constraints, I don't even buy most of what I like.
Theoretically, I agree that a grading service with 20 years of experience should have a good handle on what the high and low ends for a given coin look like for a given grade, thus enabling them to make a legitimate call on a PQ designation. The problem lies in the fact that there are coins in any given grade that belong in holders of an adjacent grade, even if the errors being made today are very small. I've looked at MS65 generic Saints and the quantity availble at any medium to large show make it very easy to (a) quickly buy one to fill a hole and (b) compare several and buy one that is obviously the best. It's also not hard to find MS64 coins nicer than some of the MS65s and some MS66s worse than the MS65 you finally bought. I noticed the same with Boone halves when I was looking for one at the ANA show this summer. Were PCGS to start using a PQ designation, the effect would be that there would now be coins in holders that belonged in holders two grading steps away, and the sight-unseen bid sheets would be expanded to include "low-end PQ" coins. For those of us that actually look at coins before we buy them, this can be summed up by "BFD - I know what I like, and I don't buy the other stuff." For those that don't, the implied increase in precision without an actual increase in accuracy of grade will lead to their increased confusion, not that I feel terribly sorry for them, however. Only once this overlap between grades for coins currently available on the market (not just those freshly graded) is reduced such that it becomes easy to sort a handful of coins by grade assigned by looking only at the coin will it make sense to "officially" designate some of those coins PQ for the grade. Until then, I know what I like, and I don't buy the other stuff. Moreover, due to financial constraints, I don't even buy most of what I like.
I wonder how things would go if CAC had a coin board, and David Hall posted. Lets say he had used the CAC service for some of his coins but he began posting about a new service that PCGS was going to offer that would place a special designation on the label of PQ coins. Do you think their moderator would run off that "good" customer?
I really like Jay's initial post and I haven't even read the thread yet! One thing's for sure, Jay's monied like I wish I would be, but beyond that - he is a serious and knowledgable numismatist who really enjoys his coins AND knows them very well. He has no need of "sticker approval" and, for the level I collect at, neither have I.
i would be more inclined to embrace ventures in the big bad Coin World that were described by their originators more accurately. most are purported to be in some way helping the collector and, thus, helping the hobby. just once i'd like a group to come up with an idea and state plainly that the hope is to make money for themselves at the expense of the hobby. the attempted dupery is what i think most get worked up about and it seems that it's getting harder to dupe the average collector nowadays, with the resultant negative feedback and need to "defend the kingdom" which has raised it's ugly head with this latest one. the talk i hear out-and-about concerning this latest effort is that it's laughable and a scam.
granted, the thin slice of non-forum opinion i'm exposed to may not be representative of the hobby as a whole, but it is a substantial overall opinion of unbiased collectors/dealers that choose to weigh in. Geez, just this weekend i overheard the still typical "grading services and holdered coins are just a scam" comment by a dealer to a collector at his table, this 20 some years after the advent of grading services!!!!! it follows that if a large percentage of hobbyists haven't yet embraced TPG's they won't embrace the next layer foisted upom them.
I don't see anyone getting anything foisted upon them. Those who want it will do it, those who don't won't. Personally doesn't matter a cat's hairball one way or another to me.
<< <i>I don't see anyone getting anything foisted upon them. Those who want it will do it, those who don't won't. Personally doesn't matter a cat's hairball one way or another to me. >>
I agree Mike.
What irks me is the messenger and the message used to introduce this new idea.
There's NO crisis or gross neglect in the TPG coin market. There's no collusion as I read on a website's Market Report. There's bitterness and personal attacks. This scorched-earth approach hurts collecting, the market and us. What makes a currency worth anything? What makes people buy coins in holders? Trust. And that trust has been maligned, dismissed and lambasted by someone who is known to be hypocritical, self-righteous and just plain mean. I loathe the negativity that has been spread like ripe fertilizer at the expense of everyone, including the "grader's-grader". I'm sure that the marketing was not designed to be "let's stir fear and distrust and capitalize on it".
Again, if labeling a coin as PQ by a trusted grader is available tat's cool. But as an enhancement, not as a lie detector. I voted yes for PCGS to do the PQ thing.
as i replied to Mike via PM, by it's very nature a "foisting" isn't generally known when it's taking place. those being had by this new scheme won't realize it till sometime in the future. you don't go into something knowing you're being duped, do you??
Absolutely bottom line is your own eyes when it comes to buying coins. I have been collecting along time so I am comfortable with my grading and am a big boy when I am wrong but here is the thing.....I am not a professional who views zillions of coins every year. J.A. is and I still think there is a place for the new unnamed service and believe their product will be successful and bring a premium.......so Jay, I have to take the other side of the trade on this one.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>pharmer; "Collecting coins is an art that takes a good eye, experience and objectivity, developed over time, as a hobby should."
I complety concur. I thought saint said that, just in different words. jws >>
I understood your sarcasm.
I'm really pleased to hear that what I'm feeling is so prevalent. The "silent majority" is speaking out here, and your comments towards me are humbling.
I think PCGS does a good job grading coins, it ain't easy ! The problem is some people only look at marks and if they see some on a coin with a high grade they say it's overgraded. Others may focus on some other aspect and if it is not to their liking same thing. I had some coins I consigned to a very knowledgeable dealer who knows me well enough to opine they were way overgraded and was shocked when he sold them right away for good prices. But I liked them and felt they were properly graded. The difference was they had some marks and were MS67 but they had a lovely look to them, like they were recently minted. So TPGs have to take everything into account while individuals put more weight on a certain aspect. People with less experience tend to focus on marks. The OP has posted several times two Saints with the same date, same grade. The general idea was that the coin he owned was far superior to the coin he did not own. While pictures are difficult I often liked the "wrong coin" because it had strong eye appeal. Coin grading is subjective and always will be but PCGS has, as saintguru says, made many people more comfortable with coin purchases.
Yep...and the coin that I said was better was MUCH better.
Pictures lie...and strangely, with really original gold, the surfaces on the best coins can photo poorly. My 1927-S has a beautiful "velvety" surface that looks rough in a photo, but in hand looks like the coin is pure silk.
Comments
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
No trans fatty acids, Bruce.
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
No trans fatty acids, Bruce.
I'm not judgemental, I don't care what you do with fattie trannies...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
No trans fatty acids, Bruce.
I'm not judgemental, I don't care what you do with fattie trannies... >>
my bad....here I thought you were asking to play.....
<< <i>if i speak my mind i will get this thread *poofed* so i will just shut up. >>
As soon as I locate mine I will speak it.
<< <i>after a post like that i am reminded why i'd take one MS Saint over a few PR Trade Dollars, even if in a metaphorical kind of way!!!
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
<< <i>if i speak my mind i will get this thread *poofed* so i will just shut up. >>
x2 but i will say, saint i couldnt have said it better myself
Theoretically, I agree that a grading service with 20 years of experience should have a good handle on what the high and low ends for a given coin look like for a given grade, thus enabling them to make a legitimate call on a PQ designation. The problem lies in the fact that there are coins in any given grade that belong in holders of an adjacent grade, even if the errors being made today are very small. I've looked at MS65 generic Saints and the quantity availble at any medium to large show make it very easy to (a) quickly buy one to fill a hole and (b) compare several and buy one that is obviously the best. It's also not hard to find MS64 coins nicer than some of the MS65s and some MS66s worse than the MS65 you finally bought. I noticed the same with Boone halves when I was looking for one at the ANA show this summer. Were PCGS to start using a PQ designation, the effect would be that there would now be coins in holders that belonged in holders two grading steps away, and the sight-unseen bid sheets would be expanded to include "low-end PQ" coins. For those of us that actually look at coins before we buy them, this can be summed up by "BFD - I know what I like, and I don't buy the other stuff." For those that don't, the implied increase in precision without an actual increase in accuracy of grade will lead to their increased confusion, not that I feel terribly sorry for them, however. Only once this overlap between grades for coins currently available on the market (not just those freshly graded) is reduced such that it becomes easy to sort a handful of coins by grade assigned by looking only at the coin will it make sense to "officially" designate some of those coins PQ for the grade. Until then, I know what I like, and I don't buy the other stuff. Moreover, due to financial constraints, I don't even buy most of what I like.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>"Every coin is a grade higher in the hands of the owner."
--David Hall
Hey all my franklin proofs that are in 67 holders are all 69's and all my cameo coins are ultra cameo
This is a "winky**winky" thread.
<< <i>
This allows me to save more money and brings up more confidence in my own grading skills. (ballpark is good enough for me
Thank you from our sponsors.
Now we bring you back to our regular program!
<< <i>That was impressive, Jay - now about that carrot....
Just tell her to bend over and you pull it out FAST!!
<< <i>
<< <i>That was impressive, Jay - now about that carrot....
Just tell her to bend over and you pull it out FAST!!
Sweet!
<< <i>Must be sending some Saints in for regrades.
Nah - they said "17 times is enough, we're gonna start downgrading them"!
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
Meow! Fsssttt!
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
Meow! Fsssttt! >>
It's ok - if someone ain't taking shots at him, Jay feels left out...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
Meow! Fsssttt! >>
It's ok - if someone ain't taking shots at him, Jay feels left out... >>
That's 100% correct.
granted, the thin slice of non-forum opinion i'm exposed to may not be representative of the hobby as a whole, but it is a substantial overall opinion of unbiased collectors/dealers that choose to weigh in. Geez, just this weekend i overheard the still typical "grading services and holdered coins are just a scam" comment by a dealer to a collector at his table, this 20 some years after the advent of grading services!!!!! it follows that if a large percentage of hobbyists haven't yet embraced TPG's they won't embrace the next layer foisted upom them.
<< <i>
and nice use of emoticons
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>I don't see anyone getting anything foisted upon them. Those who want it will do it, those who don't won't. Personally doesn't matter a cat's hairball one way or another to me. >>
I agree Mike.
What irks me is the messenger and the message used to introduce this new idea.
There's NO crisis or gross neglect in the TPG coin market. There's no collusion as I read on a website's Market Report. There's bitterness and personal attacks. This scorched-earth approach hurts collecting, the market and us. What makes a currency worth anything? What makes people buy coins in holders? Trust. And that trust has been maligned, dismissed and lambasted by someone who is known to be hypocritical, self-righteous and just plain mean. I loathe the negativity that has been spread like ripe fertilizer
Again, if labeling a coin as PQ by a trusted grader is available tat's cool. But as an enhancement, not as a lie detector. I voted yes for PCGS to do the PQ thing.
<< <i>EXCELLENT POST Jay
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Should anyone believe that, I have some valauble ocean front property for sale in AZ. jws
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Camelot
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>saintguru; I disagree with every word you posted and completely dismiss your premise.
Should anyone believe that, I have some valauble ocean front property for sale in AZ. jws >>
He started with this line. You disagree with it?:
"Collecting coins is an art that takes a good eye, experience and objectivity, developed over time, as a hobby should."
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>What the hell is this new "numis-insecurity" that has plagued this place and the market in the last 6 months? ..... >>
Fantastic post Jay...the kind of post that makes me really appreciate this message board. I agree with you completely too!
By the way, the first post was compelling enough that I read every other post in this lengthy, but informative thread.
You've compiled a set that is amazing, because of your diligence, discipline, patience, and an eye for the stunner.
Who cares about a silly sticker, you did your homework, and will prevail.
I complety concur. I thought saint said that, just in different words. jws
<< <i>
<< <i>Oh, lookie - a SaintGuru lovefest. Break out the Crisco... >>
Meow! Fsssttt! >>
Damn gotta go back and read the complete thread now.
Herb
<< <i>pharmer; "Collecting coins is an art that takes a good eye, experience and objectivity, developed over time, as a hobby should."
I complety concur. I thought saint said that, just in different words. jws >>
I understood your sarcasm.
I'm really pleased to hear that what I'm feeling is so prevalent. The "silent majority" is speaking out here, and your comments towards me are humbling.
<< <i>What the hell . . . . .
.....Fire away.
Jay Brahin/Saintguru >>
You left out, "Hit me with your best shot! . . . . ."
Pictures lie...and strangely, with really original gold, the surfaces on the best coins can photo poorly. My 1927-S has a beautiful "velvety" surface that looks rough in a photo, but in hand looks like the coin is pure silk.
By the way:
"Every coin is a grade higher in the hands of the owner."
--David Hall
That is true, unless people are going for a P01 coin, then ownership SUBTRACTS a point or 2.
<< <i>"velvety" >>
Did you mean Velveeta?
<< <i>
<< <i>"velvety" >>
Did you mean Velveeta?
No...THIS would be Velveeta....