<< <i>I think Rick's point was made. Based upon the assigned grade (MS64+RB) the coin in question underperformed in the auction therefore driving down the price for future sales 64+ coins. Leading me to believe that the market has determined that coin was overgraded. >>
I think that he (and Charmy and Brian, who agreed) made a similar point. They are copper specialists, and know their customer bases. And all 3 indicated that they don't care for the + grade on this coin, almost certainly because they think it would be difficult to sell for 64+ money.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line. >>
That kind of market grading by both major TPGs actually persisted through to about the middle of this last decade. From what I recall, there are MS65 Morgans graded as late as 2003/2004 that would probably be lucky to make MS64, today. Condition-wise, both major TPGs grade a lot stricter, today. The experience you relate, I'll call, quite typical, and the reason for those stricter standards.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I don't understand this. My understanding of a "sight unseen" auction is it's only open to bidding off online pictures. From these online pictures, even the missing detail in the top through middle feathers is in plain view and apparent. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know what it is.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I don't understand this. My understanding of a "sight unseen" auction is it's only open to bidding off online pictures. From these online pictures, even the missing detail in the top through middle feathers is in plain view and apparent. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know what it is. >>
Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided.
<< <i>Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided. >>
Mark, can you please explain your first sentence a little better? When a dealer posts a sight-unseen bid, isn't he or she going to be basing that off pictures? When you then say those bids are subject to being "hit" by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels, you're going too fast for me, there, as well, and I'd appreciate it if you'd explain more precisely what you mean by that.
<< <i>Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided. >>
Mark, can you please explain your first sentence a little better? When a dealer posts a sight-unseen bid, isn't he or she going to be basing that off pictures? When you then say those bids are subject to being "hit" by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels, you're going too fast for me, there, as well, and I'd appreciate it if you'd explain more precisely what you mean by that. >>
CCE is an electronic trading network, where participants may post sight seen and/or sight unseen bid and/or ask prices for various coins. The bids can be for 1 coin or for quantities of coins.
If a person posts a sight-unseen bid, it means that he will buy the coin at his bid price, regardless of what it looks like. And if a seller chooses to sell it, he merely confirms the transaction and ships the coin. If, on the other hand, a person posts a sight-seen bid, it means that he has the right to inspect the coin, in-hand, before obligating himself to purchase it. In that case, if a seller wants to sell at the sight-seen bid, he ships the coin and the bidder passes or plays, after he sees it.
There are no images posted in either of the above scenarios. And in most cases, understandably, sight unseen bids tend to be lower than sight-seen bids.
<< <i>If a person posts a sight-unseen bid, it means that he will buy the coin at his bid price, regardless of what it looks like. And if a seller chooses to sell it, he merely confirms the transaction and ships the coin. >>
Aha! Then, there is an issue with this severely understruck coin transacting at a +. I think I can see I'm in over my head, now, so I think I'll just get out of the way and let you good folks sort this one out. I'll thank you for your explanation, though, Mark.
With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics. >>
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it?
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics. >>
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it? >>
Not to speak for TDN, but I think his point after doing a little research on Heritage and using the PCGS price guide is that this 100+ post thread is arguing over $50 as the price difference between a 64 and 64+ for this particular coin.
Now to speak for myself, I can't friggin believe I just wasted my time reading this entire thread only to find out that OP is either blind, has memory lapses, Alzheimer's, foot in mouth disease, bad typing skills, bad organizational skills, a grudge against PCGS, something else, or a combo of some or all of these items. He must be a member of the PNG
<< <i>Not to speak for TDN, but I think his point after doing a little research on Heritage and using the PCGS price guide is that this 100+ post thread is arguing over $50 as the price difference between a 64 and 64+ for this particular coin.
Now to speak for myself, I can't friggin believe I just wasted my time reading this entire thread only to find out that OP is either blind, has memory lapses, Alzheimer's, foot in mouth disease, bad typing skills, bad organizational skills, a grudge against PCGS, something else, or a combo of some or all of these items. He must be a member of the PNG >>
Dbcoin, I get TDN's point, but I think it's collateral to the gravamen of Rick's complaint. This is a freak coin, let's face it. To me, as I said, it's a technical MS65, all day long. Notwithstanding that, though, it's atypical of what a reasonable buyer would expect, even in a market MS64.
I think I'm of the opinion, now, just take the "+" off it, and it'll be fine. In other words, don't let this coin go on blind buys. The coin has too severe a strike issue for that, and this case only erodes buyer confidence in that blind-buying system (which is the real issue, here, as I see it).
Thats one of those coins that when the dealer is selling it he wants 65plus money but if you were selling it he would point out the weak strike and say he can only give you 63 money!
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics. >>
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it? >>
I hear ya, but IMO he's wrong and that's what I'm stating. Just cuz he values strike so highly doesn't mean the coin isn't accurately graded and that it won't be prized by a potential buyer. Personally, I absolutely LOVE the coin as a 64+ RB.
If anyone buys a Plus (+) graded PCGS coin and believes that the coin is overgraded and should not have received the + all you have to do is send it in to us. PCGS has the best grading guarantee in the business.
We will review the coin and if we agree we will offer to buy the coin or downgrade it and write a check for the difference in value. We are committed to a very high standard for + coins. If we don't agree with you we will explain, but we might still buy it if you are a collector (we are less lenient with dealers).
PCGS has very strict standards for + graded coins and we will stand behind every coin graded as such. Guaranteed!!
Forget about the mistakes made in this thread or the fact that we are probably only talking about a difference of less than $100 in value. I belive the OP had good intentions but none of us can be sure of the facts because you cannot grade a coin from a photograph. This all could have been taken care of with a simple phone call or email.
Comments
<< <i>I think Rick's point was made. Based upon the assigned grade (MS64+RB) the coin in question underperformed in the auction therefore driving down the price for future sales 64+ coins. Leading me to believe that the market has determined that coin was overgraded. >>
I think that he (and Charmy and Brian, who agreed) made a similar point. They are copper specialists, and know their customer bases. And all 3 indicated that they don't care for the + grade on this coin, almost certainly because they think it would be difficult to sell for 64+ money.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line. >>
That kind of market grading by both major TPGs actually persisted through to about the middle of this last decade. From what I recall, there are MS65 Morgans graded as late as 2003/2004 that would probably be lucky to make MS64, today. Condition-wise, both major TPGs grade a lot stricter, today. The experience you relate, I'll call, quite typical, and the reason for those stricter standards.
Yes, I agree. Lets tell CCE (owned by CU) to get rid of sight-unseen trading in low pop "plus" coins.
Also, if you want to talk about the finer points of grading problem coins, then start another thread. Here is my thoughts on the subject
CoinGuy1, I won't respond to your post, if only to keep the discussion on topic and friendly.
Yes, SIR! I'll hop right on that. /eyeroll
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I don't understand this. My understanding of a "sight unseen" auction is it's only open to bidding off online pictures. From these online pictures, even the missing detail in the top through middle feathers is in plain view and apparent. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know what it is.
<< <i>
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I don't understand this. My understanding of a "sight unseen" auction is it's only open to bidding off online pictures. From these online pictures, even the missing detail in the top through middle feathers is in plain view and apparent. If I'm missing something, I'd like to know what it is. >>
Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided.
<< <i>Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided. >>
Mark, can you please explain your first sentence a little better? When a dealer posts a sight-unseen bid, isn't he or she going to be basing that off pictures? When you then say those bids are subject to being "hit" by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels, you're going too fast for me, there, as well, and I'd appreciate it if you'd explain more precisely what you mean by that.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dealers who post sight-unseen bids on CCE, the electronic trading network, are subject to having their bids hit by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels.
That is not an auction venue. And no images are provided. >>
Mark, can you please explain your first sentence a little better? When a dealer posts a sight-unseen bid, isn't he or she going to be basing that off pictures? When you then say those bids are subject to being "hit" by sellers who have coins they want to dispose of at those bid levels, you're going too fast for me, there, as well, and I'd appreciate it if you'd explain more precisely what you mean by that. >>
CCE is an electronic trading network, where participants may post sight seen and/or sight unseen bid and/or ask prices for various coins. The bids can be for 1 coin or for quantities of coins.
If a person posts a sight-unseen bid, it means that he will buy the coin at his bid price, regardless of what it looks like. And if a seller chooses to sell it, he merely confirms the transaction and ships the coin. If, on the other hand, a person posts a sight-seen bid, it means that he has the right to inspect the coin, in-hand, before obligating himself to purchase it. In that case, if a seller wants to sell at the sight-seen bid, he ships the coin and the bidder passes or plays, after he sees it.
There are no images posted in either of the above scenarios. And in most cases, understandably, sight unseen bids tend to be lower than sight-seen bids.
<< <i>If a person posts a sight-unseen bid, it means that he will buy the coin at his bid price, regardless of what it looks like. And if a seller chooses to sell it, he merely confirms the transaction and ships the coin. >>
Aha! Then, there is an issue with this severely understruck coin transacting at a +. I think I can see I'm in over my head, now, so I think I'll just get out of the way and let you good folks sort this one out. I'll thank you for your explanation, though, Mark.
Nearly Full Red
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it?
<< <i>
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it? >>
Not to speak for TDN, but I think his point after doing a little research on Heritage and using the PCGS price guide is that this 100+ post thread is arguing over $50 as the price difference between a 64 and 64+ for this particular coin.
Now to speak for myself, I can't friggin believe I just wasted my time reading this entire thread only to find out that OP is either blind, has memory lapses, Alzheimer's, foot in mouth disease, bad typing skills, bad organizational skills, a grudge against PCGS, something else, or a combo of some or all of these items. He must be a member of the PNG
<< <i>Not to speak for TDN, but I think his point after doing a little research on Heritage and using the PCGS price guide is that this 100+ post thread is arguing over $50 as the price difference between a 64 and 64+ for this particular coin.
Now to speak for myself, I can't friggin believe I just wasted my time reading this entire thread only to find out that OP is either blind, has memory lapses, Alzheimer's, foot in mouth disease, bad typing skills, bad organizational skills, a grudge against PCGS, something else, or a combo of some or all of these items. He must be a member of the PNG >>
Dbcoin, I get TDN's point, but I think it's collateral to the gravamen of Rick's complaint. This is a freak coin, let's face it. To me, as I said, it's a technical MS65, all day long. Notwithstanding that, though, it's atypical of what a reasonable buyer would expect, even in a market MS64.
I think I'm of the opinion, now, just take the "+" off it, and it'll be fine. In other words, don't let this coin go on blind buys. The coin has too severe a strike issue for that, and this case only erodes buyer confidence in that blind-buying system (which is the real issue, here, as I see it).
<< <i>
<< <i>With regards to the price realized: the last 3 64RB's to sell at Heritage in the past year have averaged appx $1,000 price realized. The PCGS price guide lists the non + coin at $1150 ... leading one to believe it's about 15% high. The + coin is listed at $1350 [nowhere near halfway in between a 64 and 65 price, btw] so if it's the same 15% high you're looking at a fair value of just under $1150. The coin in question sold for just under $1050 ... higher than the average price realized for a non + coin but lower than the appx true list value of a + coin. Since the difference is on the order of $50-100, and we're talking a single point of reference not to mention the difference between Heritage and others' prices realized - it certainly can be portrayed any way you wish to construe it. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, I think it's abundantly clear at this stage what Rick's beef with this coin receiving a "+" designation is. If anything, perhaps he just didn't articulate it well enough. The problem is, these bidders, relying on the "+" designation, are buying in the blind. And, this coin is so severely understruck, it's atypical of what they reasonably would expect to receive. At the same time, that undermines confidence in this "+," or blind, bidding system. That's what I see, now, after Mark's explanation, and why I now think Rick's beef is valid. In fact, this system is a "confidence game," quite literally...isn't it? >>
I hear ya, but IMO he's wrong and that's what I'm stating. Just cuz he values strike so highly doesn't mean the coin isn't accurately graded and that it won't be prized by a potential buyer. Personally, I absolutely LOVE the coin as a 64+ RB.
We will review the coin and if we agree we will offer to buy the coin or downgrade it and write a check for the difference in value. We are committed to a very high standard for + coins. If we don't agree with you we will explain, but we might still buy it if you are a collector (we are less lenient with dealers).
PCGS has very strict standards for + graded coins and we will stand behind every coin graded as such. Guaranteed!!
Forget about the mistakes made in this thread or the fact that we are probably only talking about a difference of less than $100 in value. I belive the OP had good intentions but none of us can be sure of the facts because you cannot grade a coin from a photograph. This all could have been taken care of with a simple phone call or email.
Enough said.