<< <i>Sorry, but the World's Strongest Buyer (tm) won't take the chance that the coin will not sticker due to being doctored. He is willing to verbally say done deal contingent upon the sticker, tho. >>
After thinking about it more, if I were fortunate enough to have the "World's Strongest Buyer" as one of my clients I'd probably do just about anything within reason to keep that business >>
So I'm curious how one goes about forcing a coin into a lower-graded holder?
I would never downgrade a coin just so it could get a green sticker. I would rather have a coin grading 65 than a 64 with a sticker any day (all else being equal). That's silly and can't think of any example where a coin in a grade higher would sell for less than a coin graded lower with a green sticker... all else being equal (no wild toning on one, or PL or other factor). I really thought this thread was a joke until I started reading some of the responses.
This does happen with some NGC coins. I had a pop 1, finest known, NGC CAC'd coin in MS67. I saw an equivalent PCGS 66+ CAC coin sell for within 10% of my coin. The PCGS coin had no superior eye appeal, and was not rarer. My only conclusion was that it would have made sense to cross my coin at a lower grade or just crack it out. Had it gone 66+ it may well have earned a gold sticker in the process. In any case it would have then been eligible for finest known status on the PCGS Registry side as well where it probably could have fetched more money than it did in the NGC 67 holder. On this coin, the sticker was far less relevant than the holder it was in.
High 64 money is now what the market pays for low end 65 coins. At least that's my experience over the past 4 yrs with gem 19th century silver type. One glaring example is NGC MS65 bust halves. They don't bring anywhere near 65 money unless very solid for the grade and stickered. About the only way you'll find such coins is if they are in NGC MS66 holders. In the case of bust halves, I'd probably rather have an attractive stickered PCGS MS65 vs. a non-stickered NGC MS66. It's not out of the ordinary to see PCGS MS65's fetch more than NGC MS66 bust halves of the same date. In a nutshell, unstickered pieces that are low end sell for 64+ money. This is how I see the gem 19th century market. I certainly don't like it. But I have to play by the current rules, not the rules from 1986-1990 or any other ones that I think should be in play. By all means, buy the coin first....but never ignore the holder/stickers and the effects they may have on future price/liquidity. And if you're buying low end 65 coins, ensure you're paying no more than 64+ money for them. If the market had remained tight all along, those never would have ended up in 65 holders in the first place. The few exceptions to that are generic coins like gem common date Saints and Morgans where sight-unseen trading is very significant. One doesn't have to "force" a low end coin into a lower holder. Either cross them or crack them out and things will take care of themself....I promise.
<< <i>One doesn't have to "force" a low end coin into a lower holder. Either cross them or crack them out and things will take care of themself....I promise. >>
I was under the impression that the hypothetical coins under discussion were graded by the same TPG. Just because the higher-graded coin doesn't meet the sticker factory's standards doesn't mean it'll downgrade if resubmitted to the same TPG.
<< <i>I would buy the NICER coin regardless of the bean or the grade. >>
Isn't price a major consideration? What if the nicer coin was only slightly nicer yet was much, much more expensive?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>The only place a green sticker matters is in a large, well-promoted online auction. PERIOD. >>
I'm sorry, but this statement is patently false. There are a number of instances where I have stated that I would buy a certain coin IF IT STICKERS. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Therefore, the sticker matters at times other than what you asserted.
PERIOD. >>
Yes, I did jump the gun a bit with that statement. Green stickers also matter when selling to uncertain collectors that aren't that confident in their grading ability within that series
I know that you are talking tongue in cheek somewhat, but I feel that I must point out that I am an excellent grader within my series ... and still cannot detect much of what the coin doctors can do these days. I won the PCGS Grading contest one year and was second the next - and recognize my limitations.
Those that would forego a second opinion on an expensive coin because of $20 [or an anti sticker philosophy] are just nuts IMO.
Are you pulling our collective legs? By definition, Green CAC means a premium quality of the grade given by the TPG. A grade higher is just that. Do people really buy green beanies?
Bryce M great post and correction on a prior erroneous statement.
TDN I totally agree with you. On an expensive coin why wouldn't you want not only the TPG grade but the affirmation that the coin is an "A" or very high "B" coin for the grade opinion given. Grading by the TPG's is an opinion, review by CAC is an opinion. What each of us personally grade a coin at is an opinion. Having said that on a scarce to rare coin what is wrong with more then one opinion?
If it's financially viable to do so why not get a 2nd opinion!
One of the key words here though is economic. With the cost of grading, CAC verification, shipping etc. and margins in Numismatics it only makes sense to go through this process on more expensive coins. Granted if you examine actual sales records, a CAC stickered coin nearly always sells for more then a non-stickered example so that price differential often takes care of the CAC verification cost.
I know many dealers, myself included have suggested to CAC that they create an "economy" review tier, say at the $7 cost level so that less expensive coins can be reviewed for a lower price economically.
Just a thought on the OP question. Pre-CAC I had an opportunity to purchase a pretty tough date in my series I was working on at the time in my collecting days. The choice was between a MS63 and MS64 example, both were single digit pops and the same dealer had both coins. I had a registry set and it took me half an hour to decide, looking, strolling the bourse, thinking about what I was feeling inside. I liked the 63 better as a 63 then the 64 as a 64. I wound up buying the 63, paying strongly for it and was very pleased with it. Later when it came time to sell my collection that coin also stickered and I made a modest profit on it. I can't say what would have happened to the 64 as I didn't buy it or track it, and it likely would have sold for more $ then the 63. But I was very pleased with the 63 and it turned out well.
This discussion needs to concentrate on which series/grades are really in need of the 2nd opinion, and where it is truly valuable. And where it is not .
I really doubt that JA, and other advocates of the CAC approval, think that circ low grade coins, like an 1831 bust half in VF 30 need a green bean, to either price the coin or market it.
But an expensive coin, be it a gold rarity, and a 1792 half disme that is toned, can never be questioned re additional expert opinions on originality and unnatural surfaces. Before a whale or anyone else puts up thousands( perhaps millions) to own it.
The problem I see, TDN, is the absolutism you feel, and convey regularly, on this forum.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry, but the World's Strongest Buyer (tm) won't take the chance that the coin will not sticker due to being doctored. He is willing to verbally say done deal contingent upon the sticker, tho. >>
After thinking about it more, if I were fortunate enough to have the "World's Strongest Buyer" as one of my clients I'd probably do just about anything within reason to keep that business
So I'm curious how one goes about forcing a coin into a lower-graded holder?
This does happen with some NGC coins. I had a pop 1, finest known, NGC CAC'd coin in MS67. I saw an equivalent PCGS 66+ CAC coin sell for within 10% of my coin. The PCGS coin had no superior eye appeal, and was not rarer. My only conclusion was that it would have made sense to cross my coin at a lower grade or just crack it out. Had it gone 66+ it may well have earned a gold sticker in the process. In any case it would have then been eligible for finest known status on the PCGS Registry side as well where it probably could have fetched more money than it did in the NGC 67 holder. On this coin, the sticker was far less relevant than the holder it was in.
High 64 money is now what the market pays for low end 65 coins. At least that's my experience over the past 4 yrs with gem 19th century silver type. One glaring example is NGC MS65 bust halves. They don't bring anywhere near 65 money unless very solid for the grade and stickered. About the only way you'll find such coins is if they are in NGC MS66 holders. In the case of bust halves, I'd probably rather have an attractive stickered PCGS MS65 vs. a non-stickered NGC MS66. It's not out of the ordinary to see PCGS MS65's fetch more than NGC MS66 bust halves of the same date. In a nutshell, unstickered pieces that are low end sell for 64+ money. This is how I see the gem 19th century market. I certainly don't like it. But I have to play by the current rules, not the rules from 1986-1990 or any other ones that I think should be in play. By all means, buy the coin first....but never ignore the holder/stickers and the effects they may have on future price/liquidity. And if you're buying low end 65 coins, ensure you're paying no more than 64+ money for them. If the market had remained tight all along, those never would have ended up in 65 holders in the first place. The few exceptions to that are generic coins like gem common date Saints and Morgans where sight-unseen trading is very significant. One doesn't have to "force" a low end coin into a lower holder. Either cross them or crack them out and things will take care of themself....I promise.
<< <i>One doesn't have to "force" a low end coin into a lower holder. Either cross them or crack them out and things will take care of themself....I promise.
I was under the impression that the hypothetical coins under discussion were graded by the
same TPG. Just because the higher-graded coin doesn't meet the sticker factory's standards
doesn't mean it'll downgrade if resubmitted to the same TPG.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
<< <i>I would buy the NICER coin regardless of the bean or the grade. >>
Isn't price a major consideration? What if the nicer coin was only slightly nicer yet was much, much more expensive?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Is it worth 1 point downgrade to get a green sticker?? >>
If you like stickers, maybe.
There is a vending machine in my daughter's middle school that sells quite a variety of them.
Some are even holographic-lookin'.
PS-
That gentle gibe was not really directed at the OP, who was posting a serious question.
It was merely my reflexive reaction to my perceived absurdity of the whole sticker thing.
But there's that old movie quote that says, "don't hate the player, hate the game".
I don't hate either. I just fail to understand, is all. And it's all too easy to ridicule something one does not understand.
So I retract my ridicule because I've got a strong hunch that the coins involved are way above my pecking order in the numismatic food chain.
And if I collected such material (rarities, early gold, high-end 19th century proof type), then maybe I'd have a different take on stickers.
As you were.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
99% of the time - No. There are exceptions though.
I would guess you are comparing a low end 65 to a high-end 64. I hope!
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>The only place a green sticker matters is in a large, well-promoted online auction. PERIOD. >>
I'm sorry, but this statement is patently false. There are a number of instances where I have stated that I would buy a certain coin IF IT STICKERS. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Therefore, the sticker matters at times other than what you asserted.
PERIOD.
Yes, I did jump the gun a bit with that statement. Green stickers also matter when selling to uncertain collectors that aren't that confident in their grading ability within that series
Empty Nest Collection
Those that would forego a second opinion on an expensive coin because of $20 [or an anti sticker philosophy] are just nuts IMO.
TDN I totally agree with you. On an expensive coin why wouldn't you want not only the TPG grade but the affirmation that the coin is an "A" or very high "B" coin for the grade opinion given. Grading by the TPG's is an opinion, review by CAC is an opinion. What each of us personally grade a coin at is an opinion. Having said that on a scarce to rare coin what is wrong with more then one opinion?
If it's financially viable to do so why not get a 2nd opinion!
One of the key words here though is economic. With the cost of grading, CAC verification, shipping etc. and margins in Numismatics it only makes sense to go through this process on more expensive coins. Granted if you examine actual sales records, a CAC stickered coin nearly always sells for more then a non-stickered example so that price differential often takes care of the CAC verification cost.
I know many dealers, myself included have suggested to CAC that they create an "economy" review tier, say at the $7 cost level so that less expensive coins can be reviewed for a lower price economically.
Just a thought on the OP question. Pre-CAC I had an opportunity to purchase a pretty tough date in my series I was working on at the time in my collecting days. The choice was between a MS63 and MS64 example, both were single digit pops and the same dealer had both coins. I had a registry set and it took me half an hour to decide, looking, strolling the bourse, thinking about what I was feeling inside. I liked the 63 better as a 63 then the 64 as a 64. I wound up buying the 63, paying strongly for it and was very pleased with it. Later when it came time to sell my collection that coin also stickered and I made a modest profit on it. I can't say what would have happened to the 64 as I didn't buy it or track it, and it likely would have sold for more $ then the 63. But I was very pleased with the 63 and it turned out well.
Website-Americana Rare Coin Inc
and where it is truly valuable. And where it is not .
I really doubt that JA, and other advocates of the CAC approval, think that circ low grade coins, like an 1831 bust half in VF 30
need a green bean, to either price the coin or market it.
But an expensive coin, be it a gold rarity, and a 1792 half disme that is toned, can never be questioned re additional expert opinions on
originality and unnatural surfaces. Before a whale or anyone else puts up thousands( perhaps millions) to own it.
The problem I see, TDN, is the absolutism you feel, and convey regularly, on this forum.
So, take a break.