<< <i>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was 55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money. So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
Coin "doctoring" is not going to stop, lets be realistic. Just as the services might arguably be getting better at detecting altered surfaces, the people who enhance coins are also improving the quality of their work, exponentially in some cases. So when someone outs a coin that was messed with maybe ten years ago, odds of him detecting one that was played with more recently (by an expert, not your ebay frying pan arse-clown) is probably close to nil.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just is what it is. If you can't detect the work, how are you going to stop it? You can rail all you want about it, I think the realists understand this and accept it as a part of the present state of the coin business. I know a lot of you won't like this, but how in the world can you possibly stop something you can't see?
As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done improperly the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin.
Anyways, enuf of my pre-dawn ramblings. Point I'm trying to make is that doctoring may be a black and white issue in a perfect world. don't know about you, but that's not the world I live in.
I think the obvious takeaway for those contemplating purchasing or investing in very expensive coins is that there is no certainty. The coins purchased today may well be revealed to be the albatrosses in their collection in 10 years. What is OK today may not be in the future if the past is any indication. Consider the evolution of the hobby over the last few decades, and the continuing tightening around what is acceptable and most desirable. There is evidence in this thread that good collectors and dealers, with great eyes and plenty of experience, have been fooled despite their expertise. Major dealers have buried some clients and caused them to abandon the hobby. Despite the emergence of the TPGs and CAC, the hobby is apparently still under eminent threat from profiteers. This has been a scary and cautionary thread.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Sorry, but I don't feel the need to testify for you or GreenieJr. You are free to disagree, but kindly don't be rude about it. >>
With all due respect, you and your partner have shown a pattern of making vague statements that shine a negative light on other dealers, the grading services, numismatic professional organizations, etc. When anyone calls you out and asks for specifics, you invariably refuse to provide them. It gets rather tiresome.
Frankly, if I were a wealthy individual who knew nothing about coins, I would not be attracted to the hobby by most of what I read on your web site, in terms of either content or presentation. I'm quite sure you couldn't care less, and that's really fine. No need for a response. >>
With all due respect in return, when I post I provide enough information to illuminate the point I'm trying to make. Although some may wish more details, they just aren't necessary and the desire for them just clutters up the conversation. As for the rest of your opinion stated above - you are absolutely right about my opinion of your opinion.
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate.
" Are stock brokers, car dealers and art dealers "irresponsible" to lead customers to buy?"
Of course not. But when 'leading' or salesmanship involves failure to disclose or some form of outright misrepresentation, then a line should be drawn. Of course, if that were to happen, many coins would not sell and many dealers would see significant declines in sales. There is a dirty undercurrent in the business end of the hobby, just as is the case with other types of collectibles. This is why I tell beginning collectors that determining who the 'good' dealers are should rank very high in priority.
Regarding collectors who exit the hobby because of bad interactions with dealers: it happens more than many realize. I have personally witnessed almost two dozen collectors bring their collections into various coin shops, only to discover that what they had was doctored, counterfeit, or seriously overgraded (and I saw the coins in hand). The allure of numismatics can be powerful, and not just because of financial considerations. I was one of many who were sold misrepresented coins decades ago (the sellers were well-known dealers)---and I left the hobby for an extended period. The history and design aspects of coins eventually brought me back. But many leave for good, and this is not good for the hobby.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was 55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money. So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school. >>
I remember seeing Dick Osburn and his inventory at the Baltimore show. I bought a couple of coins from him at what I considered to be fairly strong prices, but at the time I was looking to complete my type set with Mint State graded material that really was Mint State and not dipped white.
In general he had a large stock of Mint State graded coins that generally had an original look to them. The trouble was the coins were toned but the toning was what I would call "tarnish." It was not beautiful, but it was the normal stuff you see on an original or "original now" coin that did not become "a toner" for those who pay huge premiums for such things.
I can easily see where those coins would not bring high prices at auction. They were far from stunning, and they fell into the category of coins that often get dipped so that those who prefer white coins would buy them.
As a former dealer I can tell you that there are a lot of the collectors out there who want white coins. It does not matter how much time you take explaining to them that such coins have been dipped, they don't want toned coins. This, in part, is one of the reasons why those coins did not get CAC stickers. CAC approves of coins that are properly graded and are marketable.
You purists may not like that last word, but it is economic fact of life. It does not matter that the technical grade is correct as much as how easy it is to sell the coin to the next customer. This figures into wholesale prices too. Properly graded, but blasé or unattractive coins are often not easy to sell on any level. This was part of the problem with the Osburn coins in that auction.
To show you what I mean, here is an Osburn 1854 With Arrows quarter that is graded NGC MS-64. Judge the coin for yourself. My accessment is that it is Choice Mint State, but it's not a coin that "jumps out at you."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was 55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money. So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school. >>
Okay, I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here. I have seen the DO inventory at multiple shows, online, etc., and I thought that it was expansive but, in general, not high quality for the grade or price. Perhaps his own collection reflected this, too. That said, he was one of the nicest guys on the bourse, and I believe that helped him win a loyal following.
BTW, this has been one of the best Legend-centric threads that I can remember. There has been relatively little bashing and overall excellent contributions from some of the forum members that I respect the most.
One thing that collectors don't realize about the Seated quarters and half dollars, even if you are only buying type coins, which is what I was doing, finding nice, true Mint State examples is tough. The 19th century collectors could afford to save half dimes and dimes, but when it came to quarters and half dollars, it didn't take much of a collection to reach the level of "real money." A dollar was worth a lot more back then than it is now.
Therefore true Mint State Seated coins that are attractive don't show up every day. A lot of the pieces have only average eye appeal at best. In addition the mint did not go out of its way to make great coins. The mint was a factory making a product for commerce, not a works of art. Therefore many of these coins were indifferently made, especially when the mintages were high as it was for the 1853 Arrows and Rays coins.
All of this I learned when I was upgrading my collection from AU pieces to Mint State pieces. Unless I was willing to pay 5-figure prices for these types, which I wasn't, the coins I collected were shall we say "average."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate. >>
I completely agree with you Rick. Take the market for 10 Indians and Saints. There are basically 2 people supporting the market with bids 2-3X current levels of non-cac coins. What if something were to happen to either or both of them. What happens to the market? Does it completely collapse? What happens if JA decides that he doesn't need the stress and aggravation that we as an industry cause him and he stops stickering coins?
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate."
Rick/ TDN - There is a lot of "stuff" contained in the above paragraph. First, I think we all will agree that collectors can and WILL lose money purchasing coins from even the most reputable dealers - Agreed? This money can and will be lost on low end coins (dogs) as well as solid for the grade coins. If the coin is a "dog" because of doctoring, at least the collector will have a fighting chance to recoup his purchase price using the grading guarantee - right? Well maybe .... I know you guys don't deal in moderns, but a quick story ... a ""dog" modern (in my view) just sold at auction for well over $20,000 with a Price Guide value of $4,000 (at opening bid of $1). One of these "low pop" coins on paper that helps with a registry set (classic and modern registry set guys both make this mistake as we know). The coin was not a perfect 70 (where an MS69 is worth less than $100) and I even alerted the grading company about the coin. Still, the coin sold for more than 5x the Price Guide value and now (a week later) the Price Guide reflects the price paid for the "dog" coin. "Stuff like this just KILLS {ME} on a visceral level !! What can you do about it?
1. The owners of these problem coins often want to flip the "hot potato" rather than DO THE RIGHT THING. These dealers include some of the Largest Household names and I personally question how reputable they are by their very actions. 2. The auction companies do not want to describe these coins for what they are! WHY? If they care so much about revealing reserves, etc. to protect bidders, then why not totally protect the buyers with accurate descriptions? 3. The buyers are often times entirely uneducated ... plain and simple. Even worse, sometimes they are just idiots! How do you fix that? 4. The grading companies need to be even more vigilant in buying off the market the problem coins but are not there entirely yet in my opinion. They're working on it to be sure.
Combine 1,2,3 and 4 and folks ... WELCOME TO THE WILD WEST of coin buying and selling.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I want to come to Dick O's aid, not that he needs it.
I have purchased from him, and one of the coins he sold me was an NGC CBH in top grade. We discussed his attempt to cross it to PCGS, and the reason for the DNC finding. He had purchased it in auction, paying almost PC money for an NGC 65, and I agreed to buy it at his cost.
It did cross at PC 64, and remains tied for top pop (only 64 at the time, now one more 64- sold in 2011 for more than I paid for the NGC 65)
I have received 2 offers to buy it at more than I paid Dick. All think it should 65, but PCGS. It will one day.
I do not recall Dick ever hyping a coin beyond its apparent condition. He was always straight with me.
But I have lost significant amounts on the other TPG coins I bought early in the game( 1990's). The difference in quality was not revealed as well as it is today.
More than a couple of points (I have more but can't remember them all right now.)
1) The idea that dipping is doctoring was discussed thoroughly (and more) when formulating the PNG coin doctoring definition. a) It would be be technically accurate to describe dipping as doctoring based on the loss of a few(?) microns of "original skin". b) Dipping (immersion in an acid, typically thioureic) is "market acceptable" to a degree that is virtually global. I related that I know multiple dealers who have dealt with multi-hundred bag deals of silver $1. Their experiential base informs them of what is accepted by the public. They keep track of what sells for premiums as well as discounts. c) When characterizing dipping as doctoring one broadens the scope of the doctoring definition to a point approaching hysteria. d) A point made earlier. The devaluation of coins currently on the market by tagging slabs as containing a dipped coin is just not going to fly. Get real, or at least realistic. This is an ivory-tower arguement.
2) There are numerous market participants (including JA) who think the the threat to the market from overgraded coins is orders of magnitiude greater than that of doctored coins.
3) While there is much talk on this forum about education, I can only relate my own disappointing experience with forum membership on this subject. After lurking for a couple of years my dear friend MrE push me to post. I did. I think I've originated one thread in my entire tenure here. Something along the lines of "ColonelJessup's 1000th post giveaway is...." followed inside the thread by "not a giveaway but a donation." I offered to match any and all contributions up to $1000 made to the Florence Schook School of Education", which runs the Summer Seminars at ANA. I posted the address for contributions at ANA and had ANA set up a special account for PCGS Forum donations. Total contributions from Forum members who were not dealers = $0.00. In disgust I didn't post for a year. Some self-righteous indignation, some ego. BTW Laurie contributed $1000 to get us over the top.
4) There has been a bit of controversy about coin doctors teaching at ANA. Coin doctors usually are dealers who've been pros for decades, some long before TPGs. They bought from the public in their own B&Ms and offices and noticed that some coins they liked were discounted and/or rejected by their peers ((the market). So they got curious, and screwed with coins to see what effects could be produced by "less-than-conventional"' means. They not only knew their dates, mint-marks and rarities, but their planchets (variable as they might be by date, series, and mint. In finding out how they might have been fooled, they found out what might fool others. And those coins became "market-acceptable". Some still are; some are not. The vast majority of people don't know. And don't care. Unless their self-interest is affected. (human nature, dontcha know). I've taught at ANA Summer, as have quite a few others here. The instructors know who the doctors are. On account of, per Pogo, the "we have met the enemy, and they are us." The doctors, and some who aren't, discuss problem coins and doctoring in class with their students. I was personally singled out for "teaching doctoring" because I used an hour of class time to show both before and after what coins looked like having been processed. Limited to dip, sulfur and bleach. Several key market players objected. I'm still teaching. ANA thinks my students are way ahead of from where they started off. What's a scandal to some is a a learning opportunity to others. Education is still a key. But see point #3 above, even if it is purely anecdotal.
5) I love the quality of the coins in Legend's inventory. Laurie's learned a lot over the years. But. as with many other posters here, I don't have much sympathy for ignorant people who think their dealer has done their due diligence for them. And, as exquisite as TDN's collection is, it has very little to do with the mainstream of numismatics. Mega-coins and maxi-coins are neither the objects of numismatic desire for the vast majority of collectors nor for anything like a significant fraction (well below 10% overall dollar volume less bullion, and I made that number up). I have no doubt that Laurie's visceral outrage is sincere. But, by dollar volume oif sales, it's easy to conclude that she's servicing the 1%. As amazing as the 1794 may be, it's an outlier. But excellent publicity for the overall concept. However, this makes her marketing platform more susceptible to consequences from negative publicity than virtually anyone's. So, as sincere as she is, she's got personal/professional skin in the game. Let's not be naive. Everyone is self-promoting.
Another anecdote: About 10 years ago I was approached on the bourse floor at Long Beach by man who said he'd seen me buying coins at auction and liked what I bought. So we went to my table and talked a bit. The (edited and paraphrased) colloquy: "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a thoracic surgeon.""How long have you been collecting". "About a year and a half, but before I started, I must have read 50 books and articles". How much have you spent?" "About a million and a half dollars". I then played "show and tell" with a few coins from inventory. Cool stuff. He found fault with every one. I got to the point whre I said "Doc, I really don't think we can work together. We have enough disagreements that, sooner or later, you're going to be disappointed". "Why, what do you mean?" Already irritated by his ignorance and his arrogance I responded "Well, how would you deal with an second-year resident coming into your operating room and telling you how to do your job". Some people think their brilliance is transportable because of great core competence. Very few of us are polymaths. I characterize myself as a "multi-talented idiot-savant"
Laurie earns every buck she makes.
So if you want the absolute ultimate best without having much an idea of what makes it special compared to many many others and get disappointed, you have set yourself up IMNSHO.
To stay on topic (Dale **giggle**). Since billionaires have only one vote (in ANA elections) and their interests don't dovetail with the 99%, I don't expect much interest in Laurie's candidacy from the general membership.
Say yea or nay on ANA, but they work to satisfy their mission statement. Greatest good for the greatest number. If you don't think they do enough good for enough people to merit your money, so be it.
But the discourse on both sides, especially those whose earlier posts evidence some agreement with some of my observations, make this one of the best threads I've seen in quite some time.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>Coin "doctoring" is not going to stop, lets be realistic. Just as the services might arguably be getting better at detecting altered surfaces, the people who enhance coins are also improving the quality of their work, exponentially in some cases. So when someone outs a coin that was messed with maybe ten years ago, odds of him detecting one that was played with more recently (by an expert, not your ebay frying pan arse-clown) is probably close to nil.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just is what it is. If you can't detect the work, how are you going to stop it? You can rail all you want about it, I think the realists understand this and accept it as a part of the present state of the coin business. I know a lot of you won't like this, but how in the world can you possibly stop something you can't see?
As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done improperly the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin.
Anyways, enuf of my pre-dawn ramblings. Point I'm trying to make is that doctoring may be a black and white issue in a perfect world. don't know about you, but that's not the world I live in. >>
The big difference between dipping and putting is that if the dipping is done properly, the coin can be stable if it is properly stored. Putting will always go bad from what I have read.
Have I had coins go bad in the holder because of dipping. Yes, and it's a pain in the butt. But I think that putting is far worse because it is used to get an artificial grade increase. Dipping is often for esthetic reasons.
BTW this 1875-S Twenty Cent has obviously been dipped. I've owned since 1995, and it has not changed.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
As Bill Jones noted, most 19th century mint state silver coins (ex Morgans) tend to be drab and unexciting in fully original condition, seated coins especially. The more exciting colors and patterns have tended to come from outside influences (dipping and retoning, album storage, active label inserts in holders, etc.). Probably 90% of the 19th century silver market are drab and unexciting coins. Those unexciting, but totally problem free and in high-demand circs have the same general look as the untouched choice and gem uncs. Prior to the TPG's nearly all decent seated coins had that look. Today, with a few decades of a new techniques, there are a lot more "exciting" seated and bust coins out there. DO doesn't need help from anyone as he was buying what he liked and what was probably standard original stuff. When Legend marketed the Evergreen collection in 2002, the majority of those coins had the standard unexciting look from decades of storage in paper envelopes. Many had to be dipped as they were just too dark. From my view point dipping doesn't mean "improvement." And dipping DO's half dollar set wouldn't have improved things one bit. Probably would have made the outcome even worse. My point about the DO collection was that a seasoned dealer got those results. The majority of collectors probably couldn't have done any better in whatever area they chose to collect in. This forum doesn't represent the majority of collectors...just a few hundred to a thousand of them. Working with a dealer doesn't guarantee a collector success. It's going to take a combination of finding the right dealer and educating yourself to the max. Not an easy thing to do. No amount of hobby regulation is going to help you dodge the bullets. As soon as one land mine is removed from your path, another one is placed directly in front of you. Been that way since I've been around. Don't expect it to change.
" My point about the DO collection was that a seasoned dealer got those results. The majority of collectors probably couldn't have done any better in whatever area they chose to collect in."
It's also useful to note that Dick likely acquired those coins at wholesale prices, not what a typical collector would have had to pay.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>" My point about the DO collection was that a seasoned dealer got those results. The majority of collectors probably couldn't have done any better in whatever area they chose to collect in."
It's also useful to note that Dick likely acquired those coins at wholesale prices, not what a typical collector would have had to pay. >>
I would agree. But the prices they sold for in 2011 were well below any reasonable wholesale levels from 2002-2008....I know, I was buying those same types of coins. If he made money, the coins would have had to have been bought almost entirely during 1995-2002. It's also possible that a couple of the really big dollar coins could have compensated for the low results on many weaker coins. But my recollection from the sale was that most of the key dates and rarities did sort of poorly too. I recall 6-12 strong prices out of 155 coins. I had some seated halves in that same sale and they did poorly as well....fetching less than 2002 prices. It was a combination of a very fussy market, wrong holders, low end-higher pop coins, and a thin specialty market. In those same ANA sales, a run of colorful, stickered proof 66/67 seated halves brought phenomenal money ($25K to $35K each). I was stunned by those prices as well for coins that couldn't have fetched those same numbers in 2007-2008. It's a very tricky market now where only the top 5% or top 1% coins are under intense demand and pushing into new highs. You can have a top 1% coin, but if it's not in the right holder, it will fetch fetch 15-30% less. The NGC MS67 1792 half disme just proved that same point again.
<< <i>As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done IMPROPERLY the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin. >>
This implies that most dipping jobs turn in the holder and ruin the coin. They don't. Properly dipped coins don't turn in the holder. Most "experts" know that you have to neutralize the acid after you dip a coin, then rinse. Not just a rinse, but a neutralizing stage before the thorough rinse. If one isn't an "expert," one shouldn't be dipping coins. The idiots that are dipping at the rate of 5 coins per minute, not even rinsing, do ruin a lot of coins. So do careless or unknowing amateurs (dealers and collectors alike).
A key difference between putty and dipping is that putty can be proven; it can be detected on the surface of the coin (with the Sniffer immediately, with the naked eye soon thereafter). Proper dipping can't be proven, because there is no residue left on the surface of the coin. The Sniffer would have nothing to detect. Bright white coins can be suspected of having been dipped, but can't be proven.
Even most "properly" dipped coins will eventually turn. It may take 5 or even 10 yrs, but eventually the coin will start to turn golden brown. At least that's my experiences with dipped gem MS seated coinage. Not all of them will turn, but the majority will. And like any piece of silver, nothing is going to stay white forever, even if the utmost care was taken in the dipping process. You can slow the change, but it cannot be stopped short of storage in a totally inert environment such as a perfect vacuum. Undipped original coins have a thin protective layer of barely perceptible oxidation to protect them. A freshly dipped coin has a very active surface just waiting to react. One of the best examples I can recall is the gem 1866-s MS66 seated quarter that came out of the B&R 1977 Harold Blauvelt sale. The coin was very bright and obviously dipped. I purchased that coin in 1988 and it still didn't have any obvious toning back on it. It still looked too bright too, even 11 years later. That coin came to market again in the past 5-6 years and had since developed a nasty carbon spot on the obverse. It took 30 years but it happened. The coin is a shadow of its former self imo, even if still the finest known. More than likely the coin was considered "ugly" or too dark back in the 1960's or 1970's and got dipped. It probably had the typical yellow brown urine color that so many orig seated quarters get. At some point it will have to be conserved or dipped again to try and remove that ugly spot. Maybe the coin should have been left alone from day one...."ugly" toning and all? But with the hobby in general now fully trained to demand white coins, the rest is inevitable.
<< <i>Even most "properly" dipped coins will eventually turn. It may take 5 or even 10 yrs, but eventually the coin will start to turn golden brown. >>
Very true RR, but many refer to it as "re-toning" when a properly dipped coin takes on color again, and it can be attractive. That light golden re-toning color can be the same telltale sign of a previous dip as a bright white coin; it has a distinctive appearance.
To me, "turning" is the brownish, splotchy, always ugly look when the dipping acid hasn't been neutralized properly. Or, it can be white water spots that show up after the coin was dipped and improperly rinsed, but not patted dry thoroughly.
Easily one of the best posts I have ever read, from CJ.
Thanks.
More than a couple of points (I have more but can't remember them all right now.)
1) The idea that dipping is doctoring was discussed thoroughly (and more) when formulating the PNG coin doctoring definition. a) It would be be technically accurate to describe dipping as doctoring based on the loss of a few(?) microns of "original skin". b) Dipping (immersion in an acid, typically thioureic) is "market acceptable" to a degree that is virtually global. I related that I know multiple dealers who have dealt with multi-hundred bag deals of silver $1. Their experiential base informs them of what is accepted by the public. They keep track of what sells for premiums as well as discounts. c) When characterizing dipping as doctoring one broadens the scope of the doctoring definition to a point approaching hysteria. d) A point made earlier. The devaluation of coins currently on the market by tagging slabs as containing a dipped coin is just not going to fly. Get real, or at least realistic. This is an ivory-tower arguement.
2) There are numerous market participants (including JA) who think the the threat to the market from overgraded coins is orders of magnitiude greater than that of doctored coins.
3) While there is much talk on this forum about education, I can only relate my own disappointing experience with forum membership on this subject. After lurking for a couple of years my dear friend MrE push me to post. I did. I think I've originated one thread in my entire tenure here. Something along the lines of "ColonelJessup's 1000th post giveaway is...." followed inside the thread by "not a giveaway but a donation." I offered to match any and all contributions up to $1000 made to the Florence Schook School of Education", which runs the Summer Seminars at ANA. I posted the address for contributions at ANA and had ANA set up a special account for PCGS Forum donations. Total contributions from Forum members who were not dealers = $0.00. In disgust I didn't post for a year. Some self-righteous indignation, some ego. BTW Laurie contributed $1000 to get us over the top.
4) There has been a bit of controversy about coin doctors teaching at ANA. Coin doctors usually are dealers who've been pros for decades, some long before TPGs. They bought from the public in their own B&Ms and offices and noticed that some coins they liked were discounted and/or rejected by their peers ((the market). So they got curious, and screwed with coins to see what effects could be produced by "less-than-conventional"' means. They not only knew their dates, mint-marks and rarities, but their planchets (variable as they might be by date, series, and mint. In finding out how they might have been fooled, they found out what might fool others. And those coins became "market-acceptable". Some still are; some are not. The vast majority of people don't know. And don't care. Unless their self-interest is affected. (human nature, dontcha know). I've taught at ANA Summer, as have quite a few others here. The instructors know who the doctors are. On account of, per Pogo, the "we have met the enemy, and they are us." The doctors, and some who aren't, discuss problem coins and doctoring in class with their students. I was personally singled out for "teaching doctoring" because I used an hour of class time to show both before and after what coins looked like having been processed. Limited to dip, sulfur and bleach. Several key market players objected. I'm still teaching. ANA thinks my students are way ahead of from where they started off. What's a scandal to some is a a learning opportunity to others. Education is still a key. But see point #3 above, even if it is purely anecdotal.
5) I love the quality of the coins in Legend's inventory. Laurie's learned a lot over the years. But. as with many other posters here, I don't have much sympathy for ignorant people who think their dealer has done their due diligence for them. And, as exquisite as TDN's collection is, it has very little to do with the mainstream of numismatics. Mega-coins and maxi-coins are neither the objects of numismatic desire for the vast majority of collectors nor for anything like a significant fraction (well below 10% overall dollar volume less bullion, and I made that number up). I have no doubt that Laurie's visceral outrage is sincere. But, by dollar volume oif sales, it's easy to conclude that she's servicing the 1%. As amazing as the 1794 may be, it's an outlier. But excellent publicity for the overall concept. However, this makes her marketing platform more susceptible to consequences from negative publicity than virtually anyone's. So, as sincere as she is, she's got personal/professional skin in the game. Let's not be naive. Everyone is self-promoting.
Another anecdote: About 10 years ago I was approached on the bourse floor at Long Beach by man who said he'd seen me buying coins at auction and liked what I bought. So we went to my table and talked a bit. The (edited and paraphrased) colloquy: "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a thoracic surgeon.""How long have you been collecting". "About a year and a half, but before I started, I must have read 50 books and articles". How much have you spent?" "About a million and a half dollars". I then played "show and tell" with a few coins from inventory. Cool stuff. He found fault with every one. I got to the point whre I said "Doc, I really don't think we can work together. We have enough disagreements that, sooner or later, you're going to be disappointed". "Why, what do you mean?" Already irritated by his ignorance and his arrogance I responded "Well, how would you deal with an second-year resident coming into your operating room and telling you how to do your job". Some people think their brilliance is transportable because of great core competence. Very few of us are polymaths. I characterize myself as a "multi-talented idiot-savant"
Laurie earns every buck she makes.
So if you want the absolute ultimate best without having much an idea of what makes it special compared to many many others and get disappointed, you have set yourself up IMNSHO.
To stay on topic (Dale **giggle**). Since billionaires have only one vote (in ANA elections) and their interests don't dovetail with the 99%, I don't expect much interest in Laurie's candidacy from the general membership.
Say yea or nay on ANA, but they work to satisfy their mission statement. Greatest good for the greatest number. If you don't think they do enough good for enough people to merit your money, so be it.
But the discourse on both sides, especially those whose earlier posts evidence some agreement with some of my observations, make this one of the best threads I've seen in quite some time.
------------------------- Partially blind former world-class grader with friends in low places.
Edited: Thursday February 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM by ColonelJessup
Thanks for your post Seth. It's useful to get your perspective.
A few of observations.
Dipping: I agree that classifying dipping as doctoring raises a lot of issues. At the same time, a number of groups including the PNG and PCGS appear to have said that they do not consider dipping to be doctoring. When I've seen dipping brought up as doctoring, many times it is used as a way to say we cannot do anything about things like putty, lasers, artificial heads, artificial frost, etc. because we don't want to address dipping. I agree with those that say we can and should address doctoring while leaving dipping out of the conversation.
Doctors: The part of the hobby that seems to say those in the know are aware of who the doctors are but they can't be named is interesting and adds a layer of opaqueness to the hobby. I think it would be useful to move the hobby towards having named coin restoration experts who are proud of their services, such as Allen Stockton, like in other hobbies.
Billionaires: Your comment regarding billionaires seems to imply you think only billionaires are concerned with doctoring. I don't agree with this.
Laura: I did not see Laura mention dipping in her article but she did mention the PCGS lawsuit. I feel the types of doctoring mentioned in the PCGS lawsuit are a danger to the hobby and should be addressed. When I hear people say we cannot address those techniques and they are simply part of the hobby, I can see how some collectors would get discouraged. I think the ANA should address doctoring more directly (not including dipping). I wish Laura, PCGS, PNG and hopefully the ANA the best in combating doctoring.
I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW How can we convince the TPG to do anything? What they do now pretty much works. One is a publicly traded company. I dont think they will be pushed around. How can we convince dealers that the way TPGs have been doing things for decades is wrong and we need to gut the system? How can we convince the 99% of collectors not affected by coin doctoring that they need to change their collecting habits? How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers? How can we convince the auction companies do anything? They have no incentive of any kind to do any of the stuff she is asking for? How can we convince the 99% of collectors to care about the elite 1%? How do we actually make a positive impact on the hobby rather than just give it all lip service?
<< <i>I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW How can we convince the TPG to do anything? What they do now pretty much works. One is a publicly traded company. I dont think they will be pushed around. How can we convince dealers that the way TPGs have been doing things for decades is wrong and we need to gut the system? How can we convince the 99% of collectors not affected by coin doctoring that they need to change their collecting habits? How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers? How can we convince the auction companies do anything? They have no incentive of any kind to do any of the stuff she is asking for? How can we convince the 99% of collectors to care about the elite 1%? How do we actually make a positive impact on the hobby rather than just give it all lip service? >>
made more sense than mine in one-tenth the time
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>If Jr thinks Laura only cares about the 1% or thinks coin doctoring only affects the 1%, then he just doesn't get it. >>
OK I will concede, maybe it effects the top 5%. Remember, there is this giant world out there of people buying state quarters, low grade circ coins, cleaned coins, damaged coins, problem coins and the stuff that I am sure you don't want to be bothered with. That makes up a vast majority of our hobby. The people here for the most part represent the top 10% of the hobby. Rather than attacking a single point why don't you actually answer the questions rather than attacking them? TDN you don't have to answer seeing that you are not running. On the other hand, since you represent someone running, maybe you will answer.
I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW
You might also ask how Laura has been able to accomplish all that she has. The answer: She is a super-hard-working super-genius. Just as she has succeeded greatly in business, perhaps she can accomplish similarly great things on the ANA Board. In other words, just because the rest of us can't figure out "how" does not mean that Laura cannot figure it out.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic. Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Ok, here's an idea that does what Laura is proposing, but I think it would be extremely negative to the hobby if implemented.
Get Julian Assange (or someone else) to start a Wiki-Leaks-style web site for doctored coins. Contributors can anonymously post doctored coins that they saw in upcoming auctions, Heritage, Morphy-Legend, Stack-Bowers, Goldbergs and of course, eBay. They can also post doctored coins that they see in dealers cases at shows or on web sites. They can post doctored coins in registry sets both here and ATS. Once a coin gets listed it can't be removed. The coins could be tracked as to who owns them now and where they are being sold.
<< <i> I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW
You might also ask how Laura has been able to accomplish all that she has. The answer: She is a super-hard-working super-genius. Just as she has succeeded greatly in business, perhaps she can accomplish similarly great things on the ANA Board. In other words, just because the rest of us can't figure out "how" does not mean that Laura cannot figure it out. >>
This. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>If Jr thinks Laura only cares about the 1% or thinks coin doctoring only affects the 1%, then he just doesn't get it. >>
OK I will concede, maybe it effects the top 5%. Remember, there is this giant world out there of people buying state quarters, low grade circ coins, cleaned coins, damaged coins, problem coins and the stuff that I am sure you don't want to be bothered with. That makes up a vast majority of our hobby. The people here for the most part represent the top 10% of the hobby. Rather than attacking a single point why don't you actually answer the questions rather than attacking them? TDN you don't have to answer seeing that you are not running. On the other hand, since you represent someone running, maybe you will answer. >>
Laura and I have not talked about specifics of her candidacy. However I'm of the opinion that its better to try and succeed or fail than to do nothing at all.
As far as dismissing her ideas because they don't apply to the run of the mill pluck state quarters from circulation collector - I think that's just silly.
<< <i>Ok, here's an idea that does what Laura is proposing, but I think it would be extremely negative to the hobby if implemented.
Get Julian Assange (or someone else) to start a Wiki-Leaks-style web site for doctored coins. Contributors can anonymously post doctored coins that they saw in upcoming auctions, Heritage, Morphy-Legend, Stack-Bowers, Goldbergs and of course, eBay. They can also post doctored coins that they see in dealers cases at shows or on web sites. They can post doctored coins in registry sets both here and ATS. Once a coin gets listed it can't be removed. The coins could be tracked as to who owns them now and where they are being sold. >>
And on the next tab a Wiki-Leaks list of coin doctors and their "mules."
It seems we need to break this down into separate subtitles so the totality of what is being discussed receives the deserved attention-
Doctoring/enhancing/dipping/restoration
The concept of an original surfaces designation has been suggested by a certain member here for years. This concept has been suggested in writing to PCGS, NCGS and ANACS years go and the response has been nothing more than excuses. Originality is not rewarded and doctoring is- that is the bottom line for those of you that have tuned in late.
Laura- I appreciate and agree with you on several things. Why not endorse an Original Surfaces designation?? Such a move would likely help in the battle to prevent doctoring and enhancing for profit.
Having a note as to restoration is NOT ENOUGH as that note is created after the so-called conservation is done. In some instances conservation is needed-however, lets separate the real crap, those coins that have been enhanced and still viewed as market acceptable from those that are truly original. THE MARKET MENTALITY NEEDS TO CHANGE- WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CHANGE THAT?
The problem is not just the doctors and those that enhance, but the need to reward and recognize originality.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Why not endorse an Original Surfaces designation?? Such a move would likely help in the battle to prevent doctoring and enhancing for profit. >>
With regards to Original Surfaces, couldn't something like ATS does for Ancients be done? Just put a little box in the corner and rank it 5/5 for totally original and 1/5 for stripped or something (or and A/B/C), etc.
<< <i>How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers? >>
maybe they couold be reduced to million dollar lawsuits by having a "approved dealer list" with a list of must do's including things like having a stated return policy, no doctoring, fees stated up front, etc.
so when someone is removed off the list for doctoring, no one knows. the reputation damage is thus limited since it could be any one of many things.
Auction Houses should have capable numismatists on staff. The idea of shifting any exposure to the Auction Houses for this problem will likely lead to the end of auction houses as we currently know them.
Lets not develop a mentality that Auction houses are the ones with the tools to most effectively address this problem. It is NOT necessary to destroy the auction houses in order to rid the hobby ofdoctoring. The argument that the Auction House should have liability for this problem is like a Dead herring in the moonlight... it shines, but it stinks.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
My reservations have less to do with her competency than the target audience of ANA. My awareness of the truer demographics of ANA came as I got feedback from my Auction Results columns for The Numismatist a couple of years ago. Read them and see the shift from my kind of coin, now Laurie's kind of coin, several of which I highlighted withoiut mentioning 8 or 888, to that of the vast majority of the membership, who enjoy a good story of a battle or a Founding Father and a bit of practical advise, some photos of the five mintmark plavcements on 16-D 10cs, and a little something in currency or from foreign shores. Down with the plebs who treasure an R.6 Bust Half variety in XF45 with no more than 15 better. Or a sense of relief that they're now clearer about what a nice MS64 Morgan looks like.
I'm wondering if 5% of ANA collectors are TPG submitters. And how many vote. How many collector members for ATS and PCGS combined? Throw in all the dealer members for both TPGs and my guess is still below 10% of total membership. Karl Rove has lost his chops. The Koch brothers, even the poor one, the real collector, won't take his calls any more. I don't see it, but it's not my path. I've been felt out from time to time, but those friends also agree that, in formal committee settings with people I often think should know better, I do not play well with others. And a lot of it, under any circumstances, would bore me.
She should by all means run. If she doesn't make it, the effort will still have been worthwhile. As will it be every step of the way. She should follow her bliss. As with all of life, it's an adventure. She'll never know unless she tries.
There is much we all have yet to learn of the ineffable processes of the Universe. It's not all Mandelbrot and Descartes. There's heuristics and the discontinuities of chaos hanging out around every corner
I watch The Big Bang Theory. And went to an excellent high school. So I know Shrodinger's Cat and the Amazonian Butterfly.
She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat. The mystery of the Law of Unintended Consequences when subjected to the stressors of "shock and awe", as applied to the electoral and political processes.
I'm just saying doctoring prevention is not a fruitful area for hedge-fund managers and Crossroads contributors (anyone know their Robert Johnson? And that bargain?) to leverage their effort. ANA is not, for them, a very useful tool. The TPGs are self-policing for their own enlightenend self-interest as well as to maintain an orderly market for their product. This is part of TPG service. The number of outliers and their aggregate value are decreasing as market demand has shifted to more solidly defensible grades. The market is policed by the TPGs to the satisfaction level of the individual players of the market, supporting pricing expectations. Your demographic deals in items that are, by their very nature, so thinly and irregularly traded that values are incalculable when more sophisticated mathematical processes and models are utilized. The market is bid and ask, not Daniel Negreanu all in. How many billionaires scraped at the bottom of the Forbes 400 last year? Carlos Helu Slim buys art. Buffett and Gates play bridge together. Everyone has a different hobby,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
CJ, You should have been an academic. I'm impressed---Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger? Everybody but Fermat and Goedel. I think I will appropriate your line, "She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat." I hope you don't mind. May the Snark be with you. I'm definitely a fan.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>CJ, You should have been an academic. I'm impressed---Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger? Everybody but Fermat and Goedel. I think I will appropriate your line, "She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat." I hope you don't mind. May the Snark be with you. I'm definitely a fan. >>
Somehow he artfully worked in Daniel Negreanu with Carlos Slim, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Well played and all the NAFTA nations accounted for to boot.
Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger?
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Indeed---this is very revealing. Fractals to Cartesian coordinates/analytic geometry to indeterminacy. Exactly what I would expect from someone who spent (spends?) much of his life grading coins, especially the indeterminacy part.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>There is much we all have yet to learn of the ineffable processes of the Universe. It's not all Mandelbrot and Descartes. There's heuristics and the discontinuities of chaos hanging out around every corner I watch The Big Bang Theory. And went to an excellent high school. So I know Shrodinger's Cat and the Amazonian Butterfly. >>
We've hardly scratched the surface Herr Oberst.
The coins as inanimate objects really don't have much to say, all we have is our perception of them.
However, Schrödinger's Cat has his own take on the situation: Viennese Meow
1) Sorry about Shrodinger or Shroedinger. My keyboard has no umlaut. 2) Sometimes I wake in the middle of the night. I read a post of mine and its responses, and I realize how much of my life I've wasted
Nice to get one of the other sides of the story JHD. Maybe I can get back to sleep now by counting alternate universes. Dreaming about Electric Sheep ain't getting it done lately
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
<< <i>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was
55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for
stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices
realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money.
So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie
collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have
done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best
that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good
over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong
or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only
assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just is what it is. If you can't detect the work, how are you going to stop it? You can rail all you want about it, I think the realists understand this and accept it as a part of the present state of the coin business. I know a lot of you won't like this, but how in the world can you possibly stop something you can't see?
As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done improperly the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin.
Anyways, enuf of my pre-dawn ramblings. Point I'm trying to make is that doctoring may be a black and white issue in a perfect world. don't know about you, but that's not the world I live in.
siliconvalleycoins.com
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry, but I don't feel the need to testify for you or GreenieJr. You are free to disagree, but kindly don't be rude about it. >>
With all due respect, you and your partner have shown a pattern of making vague statements
that shine a negative light on other dealers, the grading services, numismatic professional
organizations, etc. When anyone calls you out and asks for specifics, you invariably refuse
to provide them. It gets rather tiresome.
Frankly, if I were a wealthy individual who knew nothing about coins, I would not be attracted
to the hobby by most of what I read on your web site, in terms of either content or presentation.
I'm quite sure you couldn't care less, and that's really fine. No need for a response. >>
With all due respect in return, when I post I provide enough information to illuminate the point I'm trying to make. Although some may wish more details, they just aren't necessary and the desire for them just clutters up the conversation. As for the rest of your opinion stated above - you are absolutely right about my opinion of your opinion.
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate.
Of course not. But when 'leading' or salesmanship involves failure to disclose or some form of outright misrepresentation, then a line should be drawn.
Of course, if that were to happen, many coins would not sell and many dealers would see significant declines in sales. There is a dirty undercurrent in the
business end of the hobby, just as is the case with other types of collectibles. This is why I tell beginning collectors that determining who the 'good' dealers are
should rank very high in priority.
Regarding collectors who exit the hobby because of bad interactions with dealers: it happens more than many realize. I have personally witnessed almost two dozen
collectors bring their collections into various coin shops, only to discover that what they had was doctored, counterfeit, or seriously overgraded (and I saw the coins in
hand). The allure of numismatics can be powerful, and not just because of financial considerations. I was one of many who were sold misrepresented coins decades ago (the
sellers were well-known dealers)---and I left the hobby for an extended period. The history and design aspects of coins eventually brought me back. But many leave for good, and this is not good for the hobby.
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>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was
55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for
stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices
realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money.
So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie
collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have
done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best
that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good
over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong
or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only
assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school. >>
I remember seeing Dick Osburn and his inventory at the Baltimore show. I bought a couple of coins from him at what I considered to be fairly strong prices, but at the time I was looking to complete my type set with Mint State graded material that really was Mint State and not dipped white.
In general he had a large stock of Mint State graded coins that generally had an original look to them. The trouble was the coins were toned but the toning was what I would call "tarnish." It was not beautiful, but it was the normal stuff you see on an original or "original now" coin that did not become "a toner" for those who pay huge premiums for such things.
I can easily see where those coins would not bring high prices at auction. They were far from stunning, and they fell into the category of coins that often get dipped so that those who prefer white coins would buy them.
As a former dealer I can tell you that there are a lot of the collectors out there who want white coins. It does not matter how much time you take explaining to them that such coins have been dipped, they don't want toned coins. This, in part, is one of the reasons why those coins did not get CAC stickers. CAC approves of coins that are properly graded and are marketable.
You purists may not like that last word, but it is economic fact of life. It does not matter that the technical grade is correct as much as how easy it is to sell the coin to the next customer. This figures into wholesale prices too. Properly graded, but blasé or unattractive coins are often not easy to sell on any level. This was part of the problem with the Osburn coins in that auction.
To show you what I mean, here is an Osburn 1854 With Arrows quarter that is graded NGC MS-64. Judge the coin for yourself. My accessment is that it is Choice Mint State, but it's not a coin that "jumps out at you."
<< <i>
<< <i>Hard to believe that a 500k sale was lost due to earlier issues. This surgeon finally made it to the right place got crushed on prior SLABBED coins and now runs off?? Should have been a new chapter in his life, no way every coin in his collection was crap.
Here's a better example. The Osburn collection of approx 150 PF/MS seated halves that was sold at auction at the summer ANA sale in 2011. The breakdown of slabbed coins was
55% NGC and 45% PCGS. Of the coins listed only 3% of the NGC coins stickered, 38% for PCGS....combined sticker rate of 19%. I have to assume that all the coins were presented for
stickering. Maybe they weren't. But the 13-1 ratio of PCGS to NGC stickering was very unusual imo. I don't know how such a ratio could have been achieved. It baffles me. The prices
realized on these coins was very poor, and especially the 80 or so non-stickered NGC coins. The collection must have netted a few hundred thousand dollars which is serious money.
So here was a collection assembled by a knowledgeable dealer,an insider in the seated coin trade, having access to a huge number of coins over many years. This was not newbie
collector or investor. I don't know if the seller profited, or lost money on these coins, just that the prices realized were stunningly low for the assigned grades. How would a newbie have
done purchasing from the same sources? I'd bet that some collectors considering building or just having started a seated coin set might look at these results and say, "if that's the best
that an educated and experienced specialist dealer can do, why should I attempt it?"
I can't explain the results nor can I even state the grading proficiency of the owner since I've never worked with him before. I just know that the results achieved were not good
over a multi-year period by a very seasoned dealer/collector. Not every coin in the collection was low end as I noted half a dozen or so coins out of the 150 that realized very strong
or runaway prices. But the vast majority received very weak prices (ie low end money). I was shocked by the large number of coins realizing next grade down money. I can only
assume that buyers felt the coins were 1 grade lower too. >>
I totally agree with what you posted above and was perplexed myself. I do know at that time he had 100' s of coins and and maybe he dumped most of the lower end material that he had?? He was semi local to me and i saw him at many of the smaller local shows. I bought a few lower end coins from him over the years as i felt he was pricing his wares rather high. He seemed to know seated and early coinage and to be honest he and his wife were always friendly and willing to take the time to talk/show you any of the coins. His caSES were so filled with seated coins it was actually hard to see them. They were stacked 4 high and then only 20 percent showed on the rest. He and his wife Ruth were a couple of the nicest collector dealers at the smaller venues and i assume he ran with the nationals from time to time or full time after he was done at Nasa and she no longer taught school. >>
Okay, I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here. I have seen the DO inventory at multiple shows, online, etc., and I thought that it was expansive but, in general, not high quality for the grade or price. Perhaps his own collection reflected this, too. That said, he was one of the nicest guys on the bourse, and I believe that helped him win a loyal following.
Therefore true Mint State Seated coins that are attractive don't show up every day. A lot of the pieces have only average eye appeal at best. In addition the mint did not go out of its way to make great coins. The mint was a factory making a product for commerce, not a works of art. Therefore many of these coins were indifferently made, especially when the mintages were high as it was for the 1853 Arrows and Rays coins.
All of this I learned when I was upgrading my collection from AU pieces to Mint State pieces. Unless I was willing to pay 5-figure prices for these types, which I wasn't, the coins I collected were shall we say "average."
<< <i>TDN wrote:
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate. >>
I completely agree with you Rick. Take the market for 10 Indians and Saints. There are basically 2 people supporting the market with bids 2-3X current levels of non-cac coins. What if something were to happen to either or both of them. What happens to the market? Does it completely collapse? What happens if JA decides that he doesn't need the stress and aggravation that we as an industry cause him and he stops stickering coins?
It has less to do with wanting to make a sale in the short term and more to do with wanting to keep customers in the hobby long term. I can't count the number of times a Legend customer has shown us a coin purchased elsewhere that was doctored. Just recently, a $500k+ sale was lost and the customer is exiting the hobby because he found out his previous purchase from a very reputable dealer was a dog and he's going to lose significant money. Stuff like this just KILLS Laura on a visceral level.
It makes many of us mad when a collector gets screwed. Should that coin be removed from the market and destroyed. It has a value and probably should have been sold at a steep discount.
But, what then? maybe the guy who buys it at a discount sells it as a wholesome coin. Does it matter whether it is a collector or a dealer? Where does it stop. Is it just a case of not asking the proper price? Maybe it is a problem with overcharging, or not discounting for problems.
What about overcharging for a wholesome coin? Asking 3X the market because a coin has a CAC sticker. Will the market reward the buyer when the coin is sold later?
Also a "very reputable dealer" would have helped the collector get most or all of his money back, so I don't agree with the definition of the seller as very reputable. Maybe "very well known" is more appropriate."
Rick/ TDN - There is a lot of "stuff" contained in the above paragraph. First, I think we all will agree that collectors can and WILL lose money purchasing coins from even the most reputable dealers - Agreed? This money can and will be lost on low end coins (dogs) as well as solid for the grade coins. If the coin is a "dog" because of doctoring, at least the collector will have a fighting chance to recoup his purchase price using the grading guarantee - right? Well maybe .... I know you guys don't deal in moderns, but a quick story ... a ""dog" modern (in my view) just sold at auction for well over $20,000 with a Price Guide value of $4,000 (at opening bid of $1). One of these "low pop" coins on paper that helps with a registry set (classic and modern registry set guys both make this mistake as we know). The coin was not a perfect 70 (where an MS69 is worth less than $100) and I even alerted the grading company about the coin. Still, the coin sold for more than 5x the Price Guide value and now (a week later) the Price Guide reflects the price paid for the "dog" coin. "Stuff like this just KILLS {ME} on a visceral level !! What can you do about it?
1. The owners of these problem coins often want to flip the "hot potato" rather than DO THE RIGHT THING. These dealers include some of the Largest Household names and I personally question how reputable they are by their very actions.
2. The auction companies do not want to describe these coins for what they are! WHY? If they care so much about revealing reserves, etc. to protect bidders, then why not totally protect the buyers with accurate descriptions?
3. The buyers are often times entirely uneducated ... plain and simple. Even worse, sometimes they are just idiots! How do you fix that?
4. The grading companies need to be even more vigilant in buying off the market the problem coins but are not there entirely yet in my opinion. They're working on it to be sure.
Combine 1,2,3 and 4 and folks ... WELCOME TO THE WILD WEST of coin buying and selling.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
I have purchased from him, and one of the coins he sold me was an NGC CBH in top grade. We discussed his
attempt to cross it to PCGS, and the reason for the DNC finding. He had purchased it in auction, paying almost PC money for an
NGC 65, and I agreed to buy it at his cost.
It did cross at PC 64, and remains tied for top pop (only 64 at the time, now one more 64- sold in 2011 for more than I paid for the NGC 65)
I have received 2 offers to buy it at more than I paid Dick. All think it should 65, but PCGS. It will one day.
I do not recall Dick ever hyping a coin beyond its apparent condition. He was always straight with me.
But I have lost significant amounts on the other TPG coins I bought early in the game( 1990's). The difference
in quality was not revealed as well as it is today.
1) The idea that dipping is doctoring was discussed thoroughly (and more) when formulating the PNG coin doctoring definition.
a) It would be be technically accurate to describe dipping as doctoring based on the loss of a few(?) microns of "original skin".
b) Dipping (immersion in an acid, typically thioureic) is "market acceptable" to a degree that is virtually global. I related that I know multiple dealers who have dealt with multi-hundred bag deals of silver $1. Their experiential base informs them of what is accepted by the public. They keep track of what sells for premiums as well as discounts.
c) When characterizing dipping as doctoring one broadens the scope of the doctoring definition to a point approaching hysteria.
d) A point made earlier. The devaluation of coins currently on the market by tagging slabs as containing a dipped coin is just not going to fly. Get real, or at least realistic. This is an ivory-tower arguement.
2) There are numerous market participants (including JA) who think the the threat to the market from overgraded coins is orders of magnitiude greater than that of doctored coins.
3) While there is much talk on this forum about education, I can only relate my own disappointing experience with forum membership on this subject. After lurking for a couple of years my dear friend MrE push me to post. I did. I think I've originated one thread in my entire tenure here. Something along the lines of "ColonelJessup's 1000th post giveaway is...." followed inside the thread by "not a giveaway but a donation." I offered to match any and all contributions up to $1000 made to the Florence Schook School of Education", which runs the Summer Seminars at ANA. I posted the address for contributions at ANA and had ANA set up a special account for PCGS Forum donations. Total contributions from Forum members who were not dealers = $0.00. In disgust I didn't post for a year. Some self-righteous indignation, some ego.
BTW Laurie contributed $1000 to get us over the top.
4) There has been a bit of controversy about coin doctors teaching at ANA.
Coin doctors usually are dealers who've been pros for decades, some long before TPGs. They bought from the public in their own B&Ms and offices and noticed that some coins they liked were discounted and/or rejected by their peers ((the market). So they got curious, and screwed with coins to see what effects could be produced by "less-than-conventional"' means. They not only knew their dates, mint-marks and rarities, but their planchets (variable as they might be by date, series, and mint. In finding out how they might have been fooled, they found out what might fool others. And those coins became "market-acceptable". Some still are; some are not. The vast majority of people don't know. And don't care. Unless their self-interest is affected. (human nature, dontcha know). I've taught at ANA Summer, as have quite a few others here. The instructors know who the doctors are. On account of, per Pogo, the "we have met the enemy, and they are us." The doctors, and some who aren't, discuss problem coins and doctoring in class with their students. I was personally singled out for "teaching doctoring" because I used an hour of class time to show both before and after what coins looked like having been processed. Limited to dip, sulfur and bleach. Several key market players objected. I'm still teaching. ANA thinks my students are way ahead of from where they started off. What's a scandal to some is a a learning opportunity to others.
Education is still a key. But see point #3 above, even if it is purely anecdotal.
5) I love the quality of the coins in Legend's inventory. Laurie's learned a lot over the years. But. as with many other posters here, I don't have much sympathy for ignorant people who think their dealer has done their due diligence for them. And, as exquisite as TDN's collection is, it has very little to do with the mainstream of numismatics. Mega-coins and maxi-coins are neither the objects of numismatic desire for the vast majority of collectors nor for anything like a significant fraction (well below 10% overall dollar volume less bullion, and I made that number up). I have no doubt that Laurie's visceral outrage is sincere. But, by dollar volume oif sales, it's easy to conclude that she's servicing the 1%. As amazing as the 1794 may be, it's an outlier. But excellent publicity for the overall concept. However, this makes her marketing platform more susceptible to consequences from negative publicity than virtually anyone's. So, as sincere as she is, she's got personal/professional skin in the game. Let's not be naive. Everyone is self-promoting.
Another anecdote: About 10 years ago I was approached on the bourse floor at Long Beach by man who said he'd seen me buying coins at auction and liked what I bought. So we went to my table and talked a bit. The (edited and paraphrased) colloquy: "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a thoracic surgeon.""How long have you been collecting". "About a year and a half, but before I started, I must have read 50 books and articles". How much have you spent?" "About a million and a half dollars". I then played "show and tell" with a few coins from inventory. Cool stuff. He found fault with every one. I got to the point whre I said "Doc, I really don't think we can work together. We have enough disagreements that, sooner or later, you're going to be disappointed". "Why, what do you mean?" Already irritated by his ignorance and his arrogance I responded "Well, how would you deal with an second-year resident coming into your operating room and telling you how to do your job". Some people think their brilliance is transportable because of great core competence. Very few of us are polymaths. I characterize myself as a "multi-talented idiot-savant"
Laurie earns every buck she makes.
So if you want the absolute ultimate best without having much an idea of what makes it special compared to many many others and get disappointed, you have set yourself up IMNSHO.
To stay on topic (Dale
Say yea or nay on ANA, but they work to satisfy their mission statement. Greatest good for the greatest number. If you don't think they do enough good for enough people to merit your money, so be it.
But the discourse on both sides, especially those whose earlier posts evidence some agreement with some of my observations, make this one of the best threads I've seen in quite some time.
<< <i>Coin "doctoring" is not going to stop, lets be realistic. Just as the services might arguably be getting better at detecting altered surfaces, the people who enhance coins are also improving the quality of their work, exponentially in some cases. So when someone outs a coin that was messed with maybe ten years ago, odds of him detecting one that was played with more recently (by an expert, not your ebay frying pan arse-clown) is probably close to nil.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just is what it is. If you can't detect the work, how are you going to stop it? You can rail all you want about it, I think the realists understand this and accept it as a part of the present state of the coin business. I know a lot of you won't like this, but how in the world can you possibly stop something you can't see?
As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done improperly the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin.
Anyways, enuf of my pre-dawn ramblings. Point I'm trying to make is that doctoring may be a black and white issue in a perfect world. don't know about you, but that's not the world I live in.
The big difference between dipping and putting is that if the dipping is done properly, the coin can be stable if it is properly stored. Putting will always go bad from what I have read.
Have I had coins go bad in the holder because of dipping. Yes, and it's a pain in the butt. But I think that putting is far worse because it is used to get an artificial grade increase. Dipping is often for esthetic reasons.
BTW this 1875-S Twenty Cent has obviously been dipped. I've owned since 1995, and it has not changed.
and patterns have tended to come from outside influences (dipping and retoning, album storage, active label inserts in holders, etc.). Probably 90% of the 19th century silver market
are drab and unexciting coins. Those unexciting, but totally problem free and in high-demand circs have the same general look as the untouched choice and gem uncs. Prior to the TPG's
nearly all decent seated coins had that look. Today, with a few decades of a new techniques, there are a lot more "exciting" seated and bust coins out there. DO doesn't need help from
anyone as he was buying what he liked and what was probably standard original stuff. When Legend marketed the Evergreen collection in 2002, the majority of those coins had the
standard unexciting look from decades of storage in paper envelopes. Many had to be dipped as they were just too dark. From my view point dipping doesn't mean "improvement."
And dipping DO's half dollar set wouldn't have improved things one bit. Probably would have made the outcome even worse. My point about the DO collection was that a seasoned
dealer got those results. The majority of collectors probably couldn't have done any better in whatever area they chose to collect in. This forum doesn't represent the majority of
collectors...just a few hundred to a thousand of them. Working with a dealer doesn't guarantee a collector success. It's going to take a combination of finding the right dealer and
educating yourself to the max. Not an easy thing to do. No amount of hobby regulation is going to help you dodge the bullets. As soon as one land mine is removed from your path,
another one is placed directly in front of you. Been that way since I've been around. Don't expect it to change.
It's also useful to note that Dick likely acquired those coins at wholesale prices, not what a typical collector would have had to pay.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>" My point about the DO collection was that a seasoned dealer got those results. The majority of collectors probably couldn't have done any better in whatever area they chose to collect in."
It's also useful to note that Dick likely acquired those coins at wholesale prices, not what a typical collector would have had to pay. >>
I would agree. But the prices they sold for in 2011 were well below any reasonable wholesale levels from 2002-2008....I know, I was buying those same types of coins.
If he made money, the coins would have had to have been bought almost entirely during 1995-2002. It's also possible that a couple of the really big dollar coins could have
compensated for the low results on many weaker coins. But my recollection from the sale was that most of the key dates and rarities did sort of poorly too. I recall 6-12
strong prices out of 155 coins. I had some seated halves in that same sale and they did poorly as well....fetching less than 2002 prices. It was a combination of a very fussy
market, wrong holders, low end-higher pop coins, and a thin specialty market. In those same ANA sales, a run of colorful, stickered proof 66/67 seated halves brought phenomenal
money ($25K to $35K each). I was stunned by those prices as well for coins that couldn't have fetched those same numbers in 2007-2008. It's a very tricky market now where only
the top 5% or top 1% coins are under intense demand and pushing into new highs. You can have a top 1% coin, but if it's not in the right holder, it will fetch fetch 15-30% less. The
NGC MS67 1792 half disme just proved that same point again.
<< <i>As far as dipping goes: Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, if done IMPROPERLY the coin is possibly going to change after a period of time in the holder. So someone dips out a 19th century silver proof, gets it holdered and CAC'd, gets his coin sold at auction. Fast forward a few years, the guy who bought the coin discovers the coin has turned splotchy and ugly in the holder. So someone please explain to me how this is any different than the putty guy doing the face of a ten indian and having it turn in the holder a few years later? Oh, I get it, dipping is ok but putty is not, even though the results may end up being the same, a ruined coin? I don't think either process is ok, my point is one is sanctioned by the services and CAC, the other is not, but the results are the same in a few years, a ruined coin. >>
This implies that most dipping jobs turn in the holder and ruin the coin. They don't. Properly dipped coins don't turn in the holder. Most "experts" know that you have to neutralize the acid after you dip a coin, then rinse. Not just a rinse, but a neutralizing stage before the thorough rinse. If one isn't an "expert," one shouldn't be dipping coins. The idiots that are dipping at the rate of 5 coins per minute, not even rinsing, do ruin a lot of coins. So do careless or unknowing amateurs (dealers and collectors alike).
A key difference between putty and dipping is that putty can be proven; it can be detected on the surface of the coin (with the Sniffer immediately, with the naked eye soon thereafter). Proper dipping can't be proven, because there is no residue left on the surface of the coin. The Sniffer would have nothing to detect. Bright white coins can be suspected of having been dipped, but can't be proven.
gem MS seated coinage. Not all of them will turn, but the majority will. And like any piece of silver, nothing is going to stay white forever, even if the utmost care was taken in the
dipping process. You can slow the change, but it cannot be stopped short of storage in a totally inert environment such as a perfect vacuum. Undipped original coins have a thin
protective layer of barely perceptible oxidation to protect them. A freshly dipped coin has a very active surface just waiting to react. One of the best examples I can recall is the gem
1866-s MS66 seated quarter that came out of the B&R 1977 Harold Blauvelt sale. The coin was very bright and obviously dipped. I purchased that coin in 1988 and it still didn't have
any obvious toning back on it. It still looked too bright too, even 11 years later. That coin came to market again in the past 5-6 years and had since developed a nasty carbon spot on
the obverse. It took 30 years but it happened. The coin is a shadow of its former self imo, even if still the finest known. More than likely the coin was considered "ugly" or too dark
back in the 1960's or 1970's and got dipped. It probably had the typical yellow brown urine color that so many orig seated quarters get. At some point it will have to be conserved
or dipped again to try and remove that ugly spot. Maybe the coin should have been left alone from day one...."ugly" toning and all? But with the hobby in general now fully trained to
demand white coins, the rest is inevitable.
<< <i>Even most "properly" dipped coins will eventually turn. It may take 5 or even 10 yrs, but eventually the coin will start to turn golden brown. >>
Very true RR, but many refer to it as "re-toning" when a properly dipped coin takes on color again, and it can be attractive. That light golden re-toning color can be the same telltale sign of a previous dip as a bright white coin; it has a distinctive appearance.
To me, "turning" is the brownish, splotchy, always ugly look when the dipping acid hasn't been neutralized properly. Or, it can be white water spots that show up after the coin was dipped and improperly rinsed, but not patted dry thoroughly.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Thanks.
More than a couple of points (I have more but can't remember them all right now.)
1) The idea that dipping is doctoring was discussed thoroughly (and more) when formulating the PNG coin doctoring definition.
a) It would be be technically accurate to describe dipping as doctoring based on the loss of a few(?) microns of "original skin".
b) Dipping (immersion in an acid, typically thioureic) is "market acceptable" to a degree that is virtually global. I related that I know multiple dealers who have dealt with multi-hundred bag deals of silver $1. Their experiential base informs them of what is accepted by the public. They keep track of what sells for premiums as well as discounts.
c) When characterizing dipping as doctoring one broadens the scope of the doctoring definition to a point approaching hysteria.
d) A point made earlier. The devaluation of coins currently on the market by tagging slabs as containing a dipped coin is just not going to fly. Get real, or at least realistic. This is an ivory-tower arguement.
2) There are numerous market participants (including JA) who think the the threat to the market from overgraded coins is orders of magnitiude greater than that of doctored coins.
3) While there is much talk on this forum about education, I can only relate my own disappointing experience with forum membership on this subject. After lurking for a couple of years my dear friend MrE push me to post. I did. I think I've originated one thread in my entire tenure here. Something along the lines of "ColonelJessup's 1000th post giveaway is...." followed inside the thread by "not a giveaway but a donation." I offered to match any and all contributions up to $1000 made to the Florence Schook School of Education", which runs the Summer Seminars at ANA. I posted the address for contributions at ANA and had ANA set up a special account for PCGS Forum donations. Total contributions from Forum members who were not dealers = $0.00. In disgust I didn't post for a year. Some self-righteous indignation, some ego.
BTW Laurie contributed $1000 to get us over the top.
4) There has been a bit of controversy about coin doctors teaching at ANA.
Coin doctors usually are dealers who've been pros for decades, some long before TPGs. They bought from the public in their own B&Ms and offices and noticed that some coins they liked were discounted and/or rejected by their peers ((the market). So they got curious, and screwed with coins to see what effects could be produced by "less-than-conventional"' means. They not only knew their dates, mint-marks and rarities, but their planchets (variable as they might be by date, series, and mint. In finding out how they might have been fooled, they found out what might fool others. And those coins became "market-acceptable". Some still are; some are not. The vast majority of people don't know. And don't care. Unless their self-interest is affected. (human nature, dontcha know). I've taught at ANA Summer, as have quite a few others here. The instructors know who the doctors are. On account of, per Pogo, the "we have met the enemy, and they are us." The doctors, and some who aren't, discuss problem coins and doctoring in class with their students. I was personally singled out for "teaching doctoring" because I used an hour of class time to show both before and after what coins looked like having been processed. Limited to dip, sulfur and bleach. Several key market players objected. I'm still teaching. ANA thinks my students are way ahead of from where they started off. What's a scandal to some is a a learning opportunity to others.
Education is still a key. But see point #3 above, even if it is purely anecdotal.
5) I love the quality of the coins in Legend's inventory. Laurie's learned a lot over the years. But. as with many other posters here, I don't have much sympathy for ignorant people who think their dealer has done their due diligence for them. And, as exquisite as TDN's collection is, it has very little to do with the mainstream of numismatics. Mega-coins and maxi-coins are neither the objects of numismatic desire for the vast majority of collectors nor for anything like a significant fraction (well below 10% overall dollar volume less bullion, and I made that number up). I have no doubt that Laurie's visceral outrage is sincere. But, by dollar volume oif sales, it's easy to conclude that she's servicing the 1%. As amazing as the 1794 may be, it's an outlier. But excellent publicity for the overall concept. However, this makes her marketing platform more susceptible to consequences from negative publicity than virtually anyone's. So, as sincere as she is, she's got personal/professional skin in the game. Let's not be naive. Everyone is self-promoting.
Another anecdote: About 10 years ago I was approached on the bourse floor at Long Beach by man who said he'd seen me buying coins at auction and liked what I bought. So we went to my table and talked a bit. The (edited and paraphrased) colloquy: "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a thoracic surgeon.""How long have you been collecting". "About a year and a half, but before I started, I must have read 50 books and articles". How much have you spent?" "About a million and a half dollars". I then played "show and tell" with a few coins from inventory. Cool stuff. He found fault with every one. I got to the point whre I said "Doc, I really don't think we can work together. We have enough disagreements that, sooner or later, you're going to be disappointed". "Why, what do you mean?" Already irritated by his ignorance and his arrogance I responded "Well, how would you deal with an second-year resident coming into your operating room and telling you how to do your job". Some people think their brilliance is transportable because of great core competence. Very few of us are polymaths. I characterize myself as a "multi-talented idiot-savant"
Laurie earns every buck she makes.
So if you want the absolute ultimate best without having much an idea of what makes it special compared to many many others and get disappointed, you have set yourself up IMNSHO.
To stay on topic (Dale **giggle**). Since billionaires have only one vote (in ANA elections) and their interests don't dovetail with the 99%, I don't expect much interest in Laurie's candidacy from the general membership.
Say yea or nay on ANA, but they work to satisfy their mission statement. Greatest good for the greatest number. If you don't think they do enough good for enough people to merit your money, so be it.
But the discourse on both sides, especially those whose earlier posts evidence some agreement with some of my observations, make this one of the best threads I've seen in quite some time.
-------------------------
Partially blind former world-class grader with friends in low places.
Edited: Thursday February 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM by ColonelJessup
A few of observations.
Dipping: I agree that classifying dipping as doctoring raises a lot of issues. At the same time, a number of groups including the PNG and PCGS appear to have said that they do not consider dipping to be doctoring. When I've seen dipping brought up as doctoring, many times it is used as a way to say we cannot do anything about things like putty, lasers, artificial heads, artificial frost, etc. because we don't want to address dipping. I agree with those that say we can and should address doctoring while leaving dipping out of the conversation.
Doctors: The part of the hobby that seems to say those in the know are aware of who the doctors are but they can't be named is interesting and adds a layer of opaqueness to the hobby. I think it would be useful to move the hobby towards having named coin restoration experts who are proud of their services, such as Allen Stockton, like in other hobbies.
Billionaires: Your comment regarding billionaires seems to imply you think only billionaires are concerned with doctoring. I don't agree with this.
Laura: I did not see Laura mention dipping in her article but she did mention the PCGS lawsuit. I feel the types of doctoring mentioned in the PCGS lawsuit are a danger to the hobby and should be addressed. When I hear people say we cannot address those techniques and they are simply part of the hobby, I can see how some collectors would get discouraged. I think the ANA should address doctoring more directly (not including dipping). I wish Laura, PCGS, PNG and hopefully the ANA the best in combating doctoring.
How can we convince the TPG to do anything? What they do now pretty much works. One is a publicly traded company. I dont think they will be pushed around.
How can we convince dealers that the way TPGs have been doing things for decades is wrong and we need to gut the system?
How can we convince the 99% of collectors not affected by coin doctoring that they need to change their collecting habits?
How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers?
How can we convince the auction companies do anything? They have no incentive of any kind to do any of the stuff she is asking for?
How can we convince the 99% of collectors to care about the elite 1%?
How do we actually make a positive impact on the hobby rather than just give it all lip service?
<< <i>I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW
How can we convince the TPG to do anything? What they do now pretty much works. One is a publicly traded company. I dont think they will be pushed around.
How can we convince dealers that the way TPGs have been doing things for decades is wrong and we need to gut the system?
How can we convince the 99% of collectors not affected by coin doctoring that they need to change their collecting habits?
How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers?
How can we convince the auction companies do anything? They have no incentive of any kind to do any of the stuff she is asking for?
How can we convince the 99% of collectors to care about the elite 1%?
How do we actually make a positive impact on the hobby rather than just give it all lip service? >>
made more sense than mine in one-tenth the time
<< <i>If Jr thinks Laura only cares about the 1% or thinks coin doctoring only affects the 1%, then he just doesn't get it. >>
OK I will concede, maybe it effects the top 5%. Remember, there is this giant world out there of people buying state quarters, low grade circ coins, cleaned coins, damaged coins, problem coins and the stuff that I am sure you don't want to be bothered with. That makes up a vast majority of our hobby. The people here for the most part represent the top 10% of the hobby. Rather than attacking a single point why don't you actually answer the questions rather than attacking them? TDN you don't have to answer seeing that you are not running. On the other hand, since you represent someone running, maybe you will answer.
You might also ask how Laura has been able to accomplish all that she has. The answer: She is a super-hard-working super-genius. Just as she has succeeded greatly in business, perhaps she can accomplish similarly great things on the ANA Board. In other words, just because the rest of us can't figure out "how" does not mean that Laura cannot figure it out.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Get Julian Assange (or someone else) to start a Wiki-Leaks-style web site for doctored coins. Contributors can anonymously post doctored coins that they saw in upcoming auctions, Heritage, Morphy-Legend, Stack-Bowers, Goldbergs and of course, eBay. They can also post doctored coins that they see in dealers cases at shows or on web sites. They can post doctored coins in registry sets both here and ATS. Once a coin gets listed it can't be removed. The coins could be tracked as to who owns them now and where they are being sold.
<< <i> I went and reread what Laura wrote and while conceptually the ideas are nice it still comes down to 3 big letters. HOW
You might also ask how Laura has been able to accomplish all that she has. The answer: She is a super-hard-working super-genius. Just as she has succeeded greatly in business, perhaps she can accomplish similarly great things on the ANA Board. In other words, just because the rest of us can't figure out "how" does not mean that Laura cannot figure it out. >>
This. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>If Jr thinks Laura only cares about the 1% or thinks coin doctoring only affects the 1%, then he just doesn't get it. >>
OK I will concede, maybe it effects the top 5%. Remember, there is this giant world out there of people buying state quarters, low grade circ coins, cleaned coins, damaged coins, problem coins and the stuff that I am sure you don't want to be bothered with. That makes up a vast majority of our hobby. The people here for the most part represent the top 10% of the hobby. Rather than attacking a single point why don't you actually answer the questions rather than attacking them? TDN you don't have to answer seeing that you are not running. On the other hand, since you represent someone running, maybe you will answer. >>
Laura and I have not talked about specifics of her candidacy. However I'm of the opinion that its better to try and succeed or fail than to do nothing at all.
As far as dismissing her ideas because they don't apply to the run of the mill pluck state quarters from circulation collector - I think that's just silly.
<< <i>Ok, here's an idea that does what Laura is proposing, but I think it would be extremely negative to the hobby if implemented.
Get Julian Assange (or someone else) to start a Wiki-Leaks-style web site for doctored coins. Contributors can anonymously post doctored coins that they saw in upcoming auctions, Heritage, Morphy-Legend, Stack-Bowers, Goldbergs and of course, eBay. They can also post doctored coins that they see in dealers cases at shows or on web sites. They can post doctored coins in registry sets both here and ATS. Once a coin gets listed it can't be removed. The coins could be tracked as to who owns them now and where they are being sold. >>
And on the next tab a Wiki-Leaks list of coin doctors and their "mules."
It seems we need to break this down into separate subtitles so the totality of what is being discussed receives the deserved attention-
Doctoring/enhancing/dipping/restoration
The concept of an original surfaces designation has been suggested by a certain member here for years. This concept has been suggested in writing to PCGS, NCGS and ANACS years go and the response has been nothing more than excuses. Originality is not rewarded and doctoring is- that is the bottom line for those of you that have tuned in late.
Laura- I appreciate and agree with you on several things. Why not endorse an Original Surfaces designation?? Such a move would likely help in the battle to prevent doctoring and enhancing for profit.
Having a note as to restoration is NOT ENOUGH as that note is created after the so-called conservation is done. In some instances conservation is needed-however, lets separate the real crap, those coins that have been enhanced and still viewed as market acceptable from those that are truly original. THE MARKET MENTALITY NEEDS TO CHANGE- WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CHANGE THAT?
The problem is not just the doctors and those that enhance, but the need to reward and recognize originality.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Why not endorse an Original Surfaces designation?? Such a move would likely help in the battle to prevent doctoring and enhancing for profit. >>
With regards to Original Surfaces, couldn't something like ATS does for Ancients be done? Just put a little box in the corner and rank it 5/5 for totally original and 1/5 for stripped or something (or and A/B/C), etc.
<< <i>How can you convince the board to risk more multimillion dollar lawsuits from blackballing dealers? >>
maybe they couold be reduced to million dollar lawsuits by having a "approved dealer list" with a list of must do's including things like having a stated return policy, no doctoring, fees stated up front, etc.
so when someone is removed off the list for doctoring, no one knows. the reputation damage is thus limited since it could be any one of many things.
Auction Houses should have capable numismatists on staff. The idea of shifting any exposure to the Auction Houses for this problem will likely lead to the end of auction houses as we currently know them.
Lets not develop a mentality that Auction houses are the ones with the tools to most effectively address this problem. It is NOT necessary to destroy the auction houses in order to rid the hobby ofdoctoring. The argument that the Auction House should have liability for this problem is like a Dead herring in the moonlight... it shines, but it stinks.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm wondering if 5% of ANA collectors are TPG submitters. And how many vote. How many collector members for ATS and PCGS combined? Throw in all the dealer members for both TPGs and my guess is still below 10% of total membership. Karl Rove has lost his chops. The Koch brothers, even the poor one, the real collector, won't take his calls any more. I don't see it, but it's not my path. I've been felt out from time to time, but those friends also agree that, in formal committee settings with people I often think should know better, I do not play well with others. And a lot of it, under any circumstances, would bore me.
She should by all means run. If she doesn't make it, the effort will still have been worthwhile. As will it be every step of the way. She should follow her bliss. As with all of life, it's an adventure. She'll never know unless she tries.
There is much we all have yet to learn of the ineffable processes of the Universe. It's not all Mandelbrot and Descartes. There's heuristics and the discontinuities of chaos hanging out around every corner
I watch The Big Bang Theory. And went to an excellent high school. So I know Shrodinger's Cat and the Amazonian Butterfly.
She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat. The mystery of the Law of Unintended Consequences when subjected to the stressors of "shock and awe", as applied to the electoral and political processes.
I'm just saying doctoring prevention is not a fruitful area for hedge-fund managers and Crossroads contributors (anyone know their Robert Johnson? And that bargain?) to leverage their effort. ANA is not, for them, a very useful tool. The TPGs are self-policing for their own enlightenend self-interest as well as to maintain an orderly market for their product. This is part of TPG service. The number of outliers and their aggregate value are decreasing as market demand has shifted to more solidly defensible grades. The market is policed by the TPGs to the satisfaction level of the individual players of the market, supporting pricing expectations. Your demographic deals in items that are, by their very nature, so thinly and irregularly traded that values are incalculable when more sophisticated mathematical processes and models are utilized. The market is bid and ask, not Daniel Negreanu all in. How many billionaires scraped at the bottom of the Forbes 400 last year? Carlos Helu Slim buys art. Buffett and Gates play bridge together. Everyone has a different hobby,
You should have been an academic. I'm impressed---Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger? Everybody but Fermat and Goedel.
I think I will appropriate your line, "She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat."
I hope you don't mind. May the Snark be with you. I'm definitely a fan.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
and with the TPGs looking out for TPG coins, who is out there looking out over the rest?
I guess the ANA is a glorified library after all?
<< <i>CJ,
You should have been an academic. I'm impressed---Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger? Everybody but Fermat and Goedel.
I think I will appropriate your line, "She should definitely open the box and check out what emerges from the quantum soup as the next generation of Cat."
I hope you don't mind. May the Snark be with you. I'm definitely a fan.
Somehow he artfully worked in Daniel Negreanu with Carlos Slim, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Well played and all the NAFTA nations accounted for to boot.
Mandelbrot to Descartes to Schroedinger?
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Indeed---this is very revealing. Fractals to Cartesian coordinates/analytic geometry to indeterminacy.
Exactly what I would expect from someone who spent (spends?) much of his life grading coins, especially the indeterminacy part.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>There is much we all have yet to learn of the ineffable processes of the Universe. It's not all Mandelbrot and Descartes. There's heuristics and the discontinuities of chaos hanging out around every corner I watch The Big Bang Theory. And went to an excellent high school. So I know Shrodinger's Cat and the Amazonian Butterfly. >>
We've hardly scratched the surface Herr Oberst.
The coins as inanimate objects really don't have much to say, all we have is our perception of them.
However, Schrödinger's Cat has his own take on the situation: Viennese Meow
2) Sometimes I wake in the middle of the night. I read a post of mine and its responses, and I realize how much of my life I've wasted
Nice to get one of the other sides of the story JHD. Maybe I can get back to sleep now by counting alternate universes. Dreaming about Electric Sheep ain't getting it done lately
<< <i> 2) Sometimes I wake in the middle of the night. I read a post of mine and its responses, and I realize how much of my life I've wasted >>
If it's any consolation you have plenty of company my friend.