MS 63 or MS64 doesn't matter which is correct, it's NOT pq (and shouldn't have a sticker) because of the spots. Looks like the fox is guarding the hen house.
"What Separates the Grade from Premium Quality [ -- ] In every field, there are a select few that represent the best of the best. Coins are no exception. Now there's an easy way to identify premium quality coins within any particular grade. Just look for the CAC verification sticker."
But Rick Snow is right, I think. It's in the consortium's best interest to police itself...
"The solution is simple - sell it to the CAC market-makers and watch it show up in the next auction without the sticker. I'm sure they'll buy in all their mistakes, as well as all the others they sticker. This is the good thing about this program, IMO. They are labeling the coins they want. Sell it to them.
[...] This sticker thing IS a market-making scheme. So use it to your advantage."
I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.
"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
There are subjective grades and there are objective people. Be objective and understand what subjective means. A coin is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand?
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
Not at all. There are plenty of biodiots out there. And price certainly shouldn't be used to determine grade by ANY grading company.
Edited to add: The reverse logic could be used that when you get a rip, say you bought a 65 trade dollar at 63 money, the coin must only be a 63.
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
That's his quote that YOU supplied
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days
Couldn't it be argued that such a stance is simply another form of gradeflation? I know there's a lot of junk out there, but now if a coin is what it's supposed to be, it's really P.Q.? Certainly JA is a lot smarter than I am so I'm probably missing something but what's wrong with just calling a spade a spade?
<< <i>Basically you're saying that JA determined the coin to be PQ because unknown bidders bid the coin up.
If I am getting a CAC opinion, I want CAC's opinion not an unknown bidders. >>
That was my first thought, but upon further reflection I concluded that the statement simply means that the market agrees with CAC's determination, not that they made that determination based on the auction results.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
Where on earth is he getting 5X??? This coin sold for $3,737.50 in 2005 (check the Heritage auction). Current Coin World Trends is $4500, Numismedia retail is $3,660, and PCGS Price Guide is $3,500. And according to my records, the PCGS Price guide in 2004 for this date in 63 was $3900 so the value of this date/grade has been decreasing over the years.
-- That was my first thought, but upon further reflection I concluded that the statement simply means that the market agrees with CAC's determination, not that they made that determination based on the auction results. --
Right. I'm assuming that the coin passed muster without CAC's knowledge or consideration of its market history. Edited to add Russ's quote.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
>>
Although I have no idea how much "bid in 2005" was, let's assume the coin bid for $1,500 in 63 back in 2005 (less than half retail at the time), that would mean the coin sold for $7,500? And it then upgrades to a coin that RETAILS for $5,000 - $6,000? That makes no sense at all.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
>>
Although I have no idea how much "bid in 2005" was, let's assume the coin bid for $1,500 in 63 back in 2005 (less than half retail at the time), that would mean the coin sold for $7,500? And it then upgrades to a coin that RETAILS for $5,000 - $6,000? That makes no sense at all. >>
JA's secretary "John, Bruce is on the phone again!"
I still say that grading buffalo nickels is like throwing darts.
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
If these types of comments don't illustrate why grading and pricing shouldn't be done by the same company, please take me out back and shoot me.
Basically you're saying that JA determined the coin to be PQ because unknown bidders bid the coin up.
If I am getting a CAC opinion, I want CAC's opinion not an unknown bidders.
That was my first thought, but upon further reflection I concluded that the statement simply means that the market agrees with CAC's determination, not that they made that determination based on the auction results.
The "market" is a cohesive group of coin marketers, who are dictating prices based on unpublished data for a coin that changes grades depending upon who owns it. Same old story, it seems.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
In general, I would. And considering it sold back in 2005 for $900 LESS than the PCGS MS63 that sold four months earlier in MS63, I'd say the buyers saw the same thing that I saw, that the coin was mearly a typical MS63 and not a PQ MS64.
Well, just got the equipment in and I can start my own stickering firm now. Here is one of the workers that is collecting the material for the stickers.
This is a very dumb ass thread. - Laura Sperber - Tuesday January 09, 2007 11:16 AM
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
No! Could be 2 bidiots who want a coin for the registry/plastic. I think, and Bruce, you know I haven't been tearing at the CAC so it isn't like I have an agenda, that to be stickered, and have it mean anything, the coin needs to be seen sight in-hand and evaluated visually. To do so by auction prices demeans it and it shows desperation and a problem with the whole stickering campaign.
I don't think you can read into that quote that price was used to determine stickerability.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>If this gets nuked for some reason, Shamika's thread ATS is going strong, although someone there seems pretty touchy about the issue. >>
Dang, I can't remember my freak'n password for ATS. If I could, I'd add the post debunking the "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!" which seems to be a big issue justifying the PQ'ness of this coin.
<< <i>If this gets nuked for some reason, Shamika's thread ATS is going strong, although someone there seems pretty touchy about the issue. >>
Dang, I can't remember my freak'n password for ATS. If I could, I'd add the post debunking the "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!" which seems to be a big issue justifying the PQ'ness of this coin. >>
They're sorta ganging up on that physics guy, but he's holding his own.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Interesting, looks like it sold for $500 BELOW the 18 month average for this coin in this grade. To me, this suggests the market is saying the coin is not PQ.
And how does it stack up against the other MS64's Heritage references in the sale? On the very low end in my opinion.
Although I can believe the coin is a 63 as PCGS originally graded it, I really don't have a big problem with PCGS now grading the coin a 64 after resubmission. But to call it PQ is incorrect and not supported by any auction prices that I see.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
Was he wearing chest waders?? What a line of BS!!!
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
This is very misleading, or at the least very confusing. The "other Albanese" appears to be hyping these as "PQ for the grade" which, for the most part, they are not.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
This is very misleading, or at the least very confusing. The "other Albanese" appears to be hyping these as "PQ for the grade" which, for the most part, they are not. >>
Actually, they are BOTH are hyping these coins as PQ for the grade. Albanese Rare Coins states right in their listing "CAC stickered for premium quality" while CAC states on their website "(we) will only award our sticker to those coins that meet our standards for premium quality".
Well now that CAC stickered coins are making their way into the market, we're finally getting confirmation that this program is simply another method to separate sheeple from their money, nothing more.
I predict that ultimately, assuming this venture even stays alive, that CAC stickers will elicit a collective shrug from dealers.
Seller: "It has a CAC sticker, therefore it's primo!"
They can always claim it traded internally among dealers at 5x and 2x.
The CAC sticker is clearly a racket, promoted by the same people selling coins. Too much conflict of interest, and if the market accepted the CAC sticker then counterfeiting would begin. At the Baltimore Show, the only ones I saw using the sticker were Legend, their case was filled with stickered PCGS coins.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
Was he wearing chest waders?? What a line of BS!!! >>
I almost had to go purchase a pair simply to read that.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
The market demonstrated the grade of the coin based on the bids it was receiving? That's pretty much exactly what that quote is saying. This doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of examples of coins going for considerable over sheet for various reasons, so based on this quote, those coins then must be worthy of higher grades?
Maybe I'm interpreting that wrong, and if so, please enlighten me as to what that quote is really supposed to mean.
<< <i>At the Baltimore Show, the only ones I saw using the sticker were Legend, their case was filled with stickered PCGS coins. >>
Did they have any raw slabs? If so, how did they look? I would be suspicious of any raw slabs that any dealer who specializes in CAC stickered slabs might have in his case.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
The market demonstrated the grade of the coin based on the bids it was receiving? That's pretty much exactly what that quote is saying. This doesn't make much sense. >>
There's no evidence that "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64" is even true. Auction records in 2005 when this coin sold as a 63 and earlier this year when this coin sold as a 64 debunk this statement.
<< <i>The CAC sticker is clearly a racket, promoted by the same people selling coins. Too much conflict of interest. >>
Worse than that, it is a way of starting a grading company on the cheap where most of the work has been done, grading, authentication, encapsulation, branding etc.., all they have to do is slap a sticker on it, charge more than the original grading company and sell it for more. I have more respect for SGS than CAC!
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
This guy ATS has a new admirerer - me. physics-fan3.14 is saying it better than I've been able to express it:
Sure. There are two important things that ticked me off. (certain abbreviations have been redacted):
1. It's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ.
To me, this sounds like gradeflation. Solid for the grade means it should be middle of the road - a standard MS64. PQ to me means the upper range of the grade, a 64/65 coin that might have something that tipped the balance towards 64. Yes, the holders are all over the place. But there should be a set of standards, and that was the whole point of the XXX. If you start saying that the solid MS64s are actually PQ, almost 65, then you are inflating things. If you then get an actual PQ 64, you are far more likely to inflate that to 65. And I really don't see how saying that the holders are all over the place implies that solid for the grade actually means PQ.
2. this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
This is market grading! I am against market grading. If the coin is an MS-63 against a certain set of standards, then it should be an MS-63 no matter what price it brings. Yes, it might have nice eye appeal. Yes, it might bring 64 or 65 money, but if according to the set of standards it is MS-63, that shouldn't change based on how much some person is willing to pay for it.
According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have. Thus it must be PQ. There is no set of standards involved here, there is no criteria for establishing what is PQ besides the fact that some collector was willing to pay more for it. To me, this is completely arbitrary and not something worth investing time or money in. There might have been alot of advertising for the auction it was sold in, there might have been some crazy guy that wanted it, there are a whole lot of reasons why it could have sold for more than it should have besides just being PQ. What happens if a truly PQ coin sells for less than it should have? Is this coin thus not worthy of the sticker?
Thus, I have made up my mind that the XXX is not all that it is cracked up to be. Please, discuss, and tell me what you think.
There sure is alot of mincing of words and sidestepping going on over there in response to physics-fan. Kinda like "that depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Well, just got the equipment in and I can start my own stickering firm now. Here is one of the workers that is collecting the material for the stickers.
>>
absofreakinlutely HILARIOUS!!! FUNNIEST PICTURE ON THE BOARD IN MONTHS!!!
<< <i>Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
i am flat-out stupefied by the absurdity of this statement. shockingly absurd.... i'm so flabbergasted i can't figure out what kind of analogy could be used to show the inane shallowness of that statement.
Comments
<< <i>I think the CAC stickered coins have a market for collectors who haven't the foggiest notion of what a PQ coin is. >>
Based on this coin, they'll still be clueless as to what PQ is.
From the CAC site:
"What Separates the Grade from Premium Quality [ -- ] In every field, there are a select few that represent the best of the best. Coins are no exception. Now there's an easy way to identify premium quality coins within any particular grade. Just look for the CAC verification sticker."
But Rick Snow is right, I think. It's in the consortium's best interest to police itself...
"The solution is simple - sell it to the CAC market-makers and watch it show up in the next auction without the sticker. I'm sure they'll buy in all their mistakes, as well as all the others they sticker. This is the good thing about this program, IMO. They are labeling the coins they want. Sell it to them.
[...] This sticker thing IS a market-making scheme. So use it to your advantage."
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand?
<< <i>
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
Not at all. There are plenty of biodiots out there. And price certainly shouldn't be used to determine grade by ANY grading company.
Edited to add: The reverse logic could be used that when you get a rip, say you bought a 65 trade dollar at 63 money, the coin must only be a 63.
Who said it was? Oh, yeah - pharmer.
Basically you're saying that JA determined the coin to be PQ because unknown bidders bid the coin up.
If I am getting a CAC opinion, I want CAC's opinion not an unknown bidders.
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
That's his quote that YOU supplied
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Couldn't it be argued that such a stance is simply another form of gradeflation? I know there's a lot of junk out there, but now if a coin is what it's supposed to be, it's really P.Q.? Certainly JA is a lot smarter than I am so I'm probably missing something but what's wrong with just calling a spade a spade?
<< <i>Basically you're saying that JA determined the coin to be PQ because unknown bidders bid the coin up.
If I am getting a CAC opinion, I want CAC's opinion not an unknown bidders. >>
That was my first thought, but upon further reflection I concluded that the statement simply means that the market agrees with CAC's determination, not that they made that determination based on the auction results.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
Where on earth is he getting 5X??? This coin sold for $3,737.50 in 2005 (check the Heritage auction). Current Coin World Trends is $4500, Numismedia retail is $3,660, and PCGS Price Guide is $3,500. And according to my records, the PCGS Price guide in 2004 for this date in 63 was $3900 so the value of this date/grade has been decreasing over the years.
Right. I'm assuming that the coin passed muster without CAC's knowledge or consideration of its market history. Edited to add Russ's quote.
<< <i>
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
>>
Although I have no idea how much "bid in 2005" was, let's assume the coin bid for $1,500 in 63 back in 2005 (less than half retail at the time), that would mean the coin sold for $7,500? And it then upgrades to a coin that RETAILS for $5,000 - $6,000? That makes no sense at all.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
>>
Although I have no idea how much "bid in 2005" was, let's assume the coin bid for $1,500 in 63 back in 2005 (less than half retail at the time), that would mean the coin sold for $7,500? And it then upgrades to a coin that RETAILS for $5,000 - $6,000? That makes no sense at all. >>
JA's secretary "John, Bruce is on the phone again!"
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
If these types of comments don't illustrate why grading and pricing shouldn't be done by the same company, please take me out back and shoot me.
Basically you're saying that JA determined the coin to be PQ because unknown bidders bid the coin up.
If I am getting a CAC opinion, I want CAC's opinion not an unknown bidders.
That was my first thought, but upon further reflection I concluded that the statement simply means that the market agrees with CAC's determination, not that they made that determination based on the auction results.
The "market" is a cohesive group of coin marketers, who are dictating prices based on unpublished data for a coin that changes grades depending upon who owns it. Same old story, it seems.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
In general, I would. And considering it sold back in 2005 for $900 LESS than the PCGS MS63 that sold four months earlier in MS63, I'd say the buyers saw the same thing that I saw, that the coin was mearly a typical MS63 and not a PQ MS64.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
<< <i>"this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64"
So it's the price it brought that determines it's stickerability? That's a new blush. >>
Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
No! Could be 2 bidiots who want a coin for the registry/plastic. I think, and Bruce, you know I haven't been tearing at the CAC so it isn't like I have an agenda, that to be stickered, and have it mean anything, the coin needs to be seen sight in-hand and evaluated visually.
To do so by auction prices demeans it and it shows desperation and a problem with the whole stickering campaign.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>If this gets nuked for some reason, Shamika's thread ATS is going strong, although someone there seems pretty touchy about the issue. >>
Dang, I can't remember my freak'n password for ATS. If I could, I'd add the post debunking the "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!" which seems to be a big issue justifying the PQ'ness of this coin.
2007 Heritage sale as MS64
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>
<< <i>If this gets nuked for some reason, Shamika's thread ATS is going strong, although someone there seems pretty touchy about the issue. >>
Dang, I can't remember my freak'n password for ATS. If I could, I'd add the post debunking the "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!" which seems to be a big issue justifying the PQ'ness of this coin. >>
They're sorta ganging up on that physics guy, but he's holding his own.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Here's the link for the 2007 Heritage sale after the upgrade:
2007 Heritage sale as MS64 >>
Interesting, looks like it sold for $500 BELOW the 18 month average for this coin in this grade. To me, this suggests the market is saying the coin is not PQ.
And how does it stack up against the other MS64's Heritage references in the sale? On the very low end in my opinion.
Although I can believe the coin is a 63 as PCGS originally graded it, I really don't have a big problem with PCGS now grading the coin a 64 after resubmission. But to call it PQ is incorrect and not supported by any auction prices that I see.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
Was he wearing chest waders?? What a line of BS!!!
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
This is very misleading, or at the least very confusing. The "other Albanese" appears to be hyping these as "PQ for the grade" which, for the most part, they are not.
<< <i>
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
This is very misleading, or at the least very confusing. The "other Albanese" appears to be hyping these as "PQ for the grade" which, for the most part, they are not. >>
Actually, they are BOTH are hyping these coins as PQ for the grade. Albanese Rare Coins states right in their listing "CAC stickered for premium quality" while CAC states on their website "(we) will only award our sticker to those coins that meet our standards for premium quality".
<< <i>Unfortunately, the coin is barely a 63 in my opinion. >>
Agreed, it's an ugly coin. CAC or not I wouldn't touch it....much like I wouldn't touch anything else in Albanese's inventory.
<< <i>CAC or not I wouldn't touch it....much like I wouldn't touch anything else in Albanese's inventory. >>
Albanese is okay in my book, I just don't care for this coin.
I predict that ultimately, assuming this venture even stays alive, that CAC stickers will elicit a collective shrug from dealers.
Seller: "It has a CAC sticker, therefore it's primo!"
Dealer: "So what. I offer greysheet bid."
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
The CAC sticker is clearly a racket, promoted by the same people selling coins. Too much
conflict of interest, and if the market accepted the CAC sticker then counterfeiting would begin.
At the Baltimore Show, the only ones I saw using the sticker were Legend, their case was
filled with stickered PCGS coins.
Free Trial
<< <i>+1 >>
fc, that is one of the most positive things I've seen you type around here
<< <i>
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there. >>
Was he wearing chest waders?? What a line of BS!!!
You gotta love "Spin".
<< <i>Great thread. Shamika, you're right--that coin is 63, not 64. >>
but Guy, it's stickered!!!!
sometimes I really love this place. Today is one of those days.
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
The market demonstrated the grade of the coin based on the bids it was receiving? That's pretty much exactly what that quote is saying. This doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of examples of coins going for considerable over sheet for various reasons, so based on this quote, those coins then must be worthy of higher grades?
Maybe I'm interpreting that wrong, and if so, please enlighten me as to what that quote is really supposed to mean.
Edit for clarity.
<< <i>At the Baltimore Show, the only ones I saw using the sticker were Legend, their case was
filled with stickered PCGS coins. >>
Did they have any raw slabs? If so, how did they look? I would be suspicious of any raw slabs that any dealer who specializes in CAC stickered slabs might have in his case.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Bingo.
<< <i>
<< <i>I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:
this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64 >>
The market demonstrated the grade of the coin based on the bids it was receiving? That's pretty much exactly what that quote is saying. This doesn't make much sense. >>
There's no evidence that "this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64" is even true. Auction records in 2005 when this coin sold as a 63 and earlier this year when this coin sold as a 64 debunk this statement.
<< <i>The CAC sticker is clearly a racket, promoted by the same people selling coins. Too much conflict of interest. >>
Worse than that, it is a way of starting a grading company on the cheap where most of the work has been done, grading, authentication, encapsulation, branding etc.., all they have to do is slap a sticker on it, charge more than the original grading company and sell it for more. I have more respect for SGS than CAC!
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
Sure. There are two important things that ticked me off. (certain abbreviations have been redacted):
1. It's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ.
To me, this sounds like gradeflation. Solid for the grade means it should be middle of the road - a standard MS64. PQ to me means the upper range of the grade, a 64/65 coin that might have something that tipped the balance towards 64. Yes, the holders are all over the place. But there should be a set of standards, and that was the whole point of the XXX. If you start saying that the solid MS64s are actually PQ, almost 65, then you are inflating things. If you then get an actual PQ 64, you are far more likely to inflate that to 65. And I really don't see how saying that the holders are all over the place implies that solid for the grade actually means PQ.
2. this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64
This is market grading! I am against market grading. If the coin is an MS-63 against a certain set of standards, then it should be an MS-63 no matter what price it brings. Yes, it might have nice eye appeal. Yes, it might bring 64 or 65 money, but if according to the set of standards it is MS-63, that shouldn't change based on how much some person is willing to pay for it.
According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have. Thus it must be PQ. There is no set of standards involved here, there is no criteria for establishing what is PQ besides the fact that some collector was willing to pay more for it. To me, this is completely arbitrary and not something worth investing time or money in. There might have been alot of advertising for the auction it was sold in, there might have been some crazy guy that wanted it, there are a whole lot of reasons why it could have sold for more than it should have besides just being PQ. What happens if a truly PQ coin sells for less than it should have? Is this coin thus not worthy of the sticker?
Thus, I have made up my mind that the XXX is not all that it is cracked up to be. Please, discuss, and tell me what you think.
There sure is alot of mincing of words and sidestepping going on over there in response to physics-fan. Kinda like "that depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I knew it would happen.
I DID NOT STICKER THAT COIN!
<< <i>Well, just got the equipment in and I can start my own stickering firm now. Here is one of the workers that is collecting the material for the stickers.
absofreakinlutely HILARIOUS!!! FUNNIEST PICTURE ON THE BOARD IN MONTHS!!!
<< <i>Absent any other info [pics are not a good determination of quality of a mid grade unc coin], wouldn't you agree that price realized in auction is a good indication of how the coin looks in hand? >>
i am flat-out stupefied by the absurdity of this statement. shockingly absurd.... i'm so flabbergasted i can't figure out what kind of analogy could be used to show the inane shallowness of that statement.
this is a great thread!
K S
-Paul