Options
David Hall and John Ford debate 1989......
bidask
Posts: 13,865 ✭✭✭✭✭
I manage money. I earn money. I save money .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
0
Comments
Thanks for posting this!
<< <i>If I was Ford, in retrospect, I'd be scarred of coin authentication more than grading....... >>
No kidding. As for being 'the collectors' collector,' Ford was an industry insider (cataloger, coin buyer, schmoozer, schemer, auction house owner (NASCA), etc.) and had access to material at prices likely not extended to schmos (er, collectors).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
He was abrupt, ruthless and not a very nice person.
he was one of the very VERY few I intensely disliked.
he was one of the very VERY few I intensely disliked." Oreville
While I never met John Ford, you express a very common assessment of the man and his style.
I suspect his response to these opinions would be: who the xxxx cares.
He did however by wit or crook know the field and accumulated an amazing 'set' of coins.
<< <i>I have to give the nod to David Hall......
David Hall and John Ford debate >>
Oddly enough, the coin market, which had been going up in an insane bubble based upon speculation that a Wall Street fund was going to be launched BECAUSE slabbed coins made it possible to trade coins sight unseen, crashed horribly a day or two after this tape was made when it was announced that the proposed fund was a non-starter.
Many coins lost 75% of their bubble values.
I think we have to give this one to Mr. Ford.
<< <i>"He was abrupt, ruthless and not a very nice person.
he was one of the very VERY few I intensely disliked." Oreville
While I never met John Ford, you express a very common assessment of the man and his style.
I suspect his response to these opinions would be: who the xxxx cares.
He did however by wit or crook know the field and accumulated an amazing 'set' of coins. >>
I met John Ford several times. He would indeed not have cared what anybody else thought of him.
TD
I thought he did speak in a firm demeanor- could be his passion. I don't know.
I think Mr. Hall had the opportunity to make the better arguments and somehow that did not come across. I suspect my view has been influenced by hind sight.
We are better off with TPG than without it. I say even though it is not perfect, but it still can be improved if there is an objective review of where we have been, where the problems exist and what can be done to make it what it truly should be.
Ford made the comments about what is collector and investor driven within the coin market and the effect on coin valuations. What remains a problem is the evaluation of mediocrity. Not all coins within a grade are equal and some will say and argue that the market will figure it out. I see this differently in that mediocrity limits valuations and is drag on the market.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to give the nod to David Hall......
David Hall and John Ford debate >>
Oddly enough, the coin market, which had been going up in an insane bubble based upon speculation that a Wall Street fund was going to be launched BECAUSE slabbed coins made it possible to trade coins sight unseen, crashed horribly a day or two after this tape was made when it was announced that the proposed fund was a non-starter.
Many coins lost 75% of their bubble values.
I think we have to give this one to Mr. Ford. >>
My view as well. And the market as a whole has not recovered to those 1989-1990 highs, even with another round of dollar debasing. Only REG set top pops, rarities, bullion, key dates, circ type, better date 18th/19th century stuff has weathered the storm. But if you were into choice/gem common silver dollars, mercs, buffs, walkers, classic commems, gold commems, and gem type, you've not made it back to 1989....and maybe not even back to January 1980. As every 5-10 years pass the market tosses off another layer of coins that are no longer deemed worthy enough of the fairly stagnant collector/investor base. Stickering by itself has labeled a large chunk of the market as not so worthy. I guess the day is coming that the only coins in demand will be 6-7 figure rarities, REG set pop tops, and old holdered coins with a + sign and gold sticker (rattlers, ogh's, doilies, etc.). There will be too much of everything else for the available demand.
Mr Ford : "This is the only major collectible business, where grading, through terrific promotion; self serving promotion I might add, has been brought up as far more important than rarity, far more important than history , far more important than historical association, far more important than provenance. It's been brought up because it's the quick and easy way to a buck.
Just like the investor in his ignorance...is the quick and easy way to a buck. Let's stop kidding around here, there's nothing educational. No one's worried about consumer protection. There is only smoke screening to make money "
Now there's a schism developing between the collector market and the investor market There's a division. .." ... end quote...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Hall: (in short) ... "quality always commands a premium price.... it's the same in virtually every collectible field" ... "it's not a Ponzi scheme... whether people buy these beautiful coins in plastic or not"... "the market place is the ultimate arbitrator"... "the investor has made the coin market a better place for all of us".
Paraphrased, in part. But this is the gist of the debate.
WHO WON ? I don't think the debate is over. The market isn't finished going "UP AND DOWN" yet.
I see that as a problem, and it completely baffles me that it is pretty much universally accepted in the numismatic community.
<< <i>Two modern coins of substantially similar quality and eye appeal, if raw, trade for substantially the same price. Those same two coins graded MS69 and MS 70, when on the next day of the week may be graded in the reverse order, trade for thousands, sometimes tens of thousands more than the other due to a number on a small sheet of paper.
I see that as a problem, and it completely baffles me that it is pretty much universally accepted in the numismatic community. >>
I don't see the problem. Women have been purchasing make-up for years and some of us still need a beer for her to look better.
Who cares if someone pays MORE than someone else for a similarly graded coin ?
Mr Hall pointed out very early in the debate that collectors LOVE the coins inside or outside of the plastic. So the problem must only be inside of your head and not in the numismatic community since we who are in it, support it daily.
People paying $3 each plus sales tax of $.21 cents for Presidential Dollars is no more a problem than me paying $20 to get one graded with the chance it is up near the top in quality for the future collectors or myself and hopefully getting my ROI.
A challenge. Expensive it is. A hobby it is. Logic ? Only a man who knows coins would find logic... and BOTH MEN put out tons of logic. Neither of them had a problem with COLLECTING. Sadly, a lot of people prefer division to unity and discord to harmony.
<< <i>Oddly enough, the coin market, which had been going up in an insane bubble based upon speculation that a Wall Street fund was going to be launched BECAUSE slabbed coins made it possible to trade coins sight unseen, crashed horribly a day or two after this tape was made when it was announced that the proposed fund was a non-starter. >>
For those who weren't around in 1989. Looking at the Greysheet dated August 11, 1989, I see common date MS65 Morgan and Peace dollars at $325 and $600, respectively. The 144-piece set of classic silver commems in 65 were at $254,270; now it's $70,795. $2½ Indians in MS65 were $8000, now $2060. Common date $20 Libs in MS65 were $9,850, now $3,380. There were some opportunities: BU rolls of 1935-D quarters were $4,500, and some truly scarce type coins were lower in 1989, but the more plentiful types were generally 2-3 times today's levels. Many of the August 11, 1989 prices for generics were already down from the previous week.
David Hall and John Ford each made some valid points about collectors and the coin market.
IMO, .the collecting world is a better place due to the TPG's, as there are fewer shysters selling overgraded and/or doctored coins.
Jim
<< <i>
<< <i>Two modern coins of substantially similar quality and eye appeal, if raw, trade for substantially the same price. Those same two coins graded MS69 and MS 70, when on the next day of the week may be graded in the reverse order, trade for thousands, sometimes tens of thousands more than the other due to a number on a small sheet of paper.
I see that as a problem, and it completely baffles me that it is pretty much universally accepted in the numismatic community. >>
I don't see the problem. Women have been purchasing make-up for years and some of us still need a beer for her to look better.
Who cares if someone pays MORE than someone else for a similarly graded coin ?
Mr Hall pointed out very early in the debate that collectors LOVE the coins inside or outside of the plastic. So the problem must only be inside of your head and not in the numismatic community since we who are in it, support it daily.
People paying $3 each plus sales tax of $.21 cents for Presidential Dollars is no more a problem than me paying $20 to get one graded with the chance it is up near the top in quality for the future collectors or myself and hopefully getting my ROI.
A challenge. Expensive it is. A hobby it is. Logic ? Only a man who knows coins would find logic... and BOTH MEN put out tons of logic. Neither of them had a problem with COLLECTING. Sadly, a lot of people prefer division to unity and discord to harmony. >>
I shouldn't have said problem, that was probably inappropriate. It just is what it is. It just doesn't make logic sense to me that when we talk about loving coins, that people seem to love a coin more (via paying multiples) for no reason related to the actual coin.
Hall references the sight unseen concept. Is this accurate and the purpose of TPGers? I suspect most would say no, but at the same time folks work diligently playing the resubmit/make a coin game trying to get a higher number on a tiny sheet of paper and hence make some $. As a collector it concerns me.
As for Mr. Ford's character, I find it very sad that a person can go through life with little compassion or respect for 'the other guy'.
Makes me think he only had 'his precious coins' and nothing else in life to make him happy..........'Rosebud'.
(I hope I'm wrong in judging him).
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>John Ford wrote the preface in the book The Waterford Water cure, bowers. This small look into his life says more about him than that debate. I really am at a bit of a loss as to why anyone my age is into rare coins, IF YOU USE PERSONALITY AS AN IMPEDUS for dealing with coin dealers. Most are miserable IMHO. Easy and quick to anger. I liked john ford and what little he wrote. I very much admire David Halls ability to make an attempt at leveling the playing field and adding some semblance of order to the coin market. NOW tell me who caused the plus signs, the green holders, the stars, the green stickers, the gold, the auto disrespect for "other" grading services.? The market? Or the lack of one? >>
IMPEDUS?
However, the elephant in the room is that the entry of investor dollars into the market has dramatically changed the hobby; without those dollars, there would be far fewer coin dealers. Prior to the advent of TPGs, crudely doctored coins (whizzed, polished) were everywhere, and many dealers were unashamedly selling them to newbies. Dealers were also buying low and selling high, as far as grades (and prices) were concerned. It's much tougher to get away with this now.
Regarding Ford's comments, what I saw was an excellent performance---passionate, and also quite hypocritical. Ford famously campaigned on behalf of counterfeit exposure, and simultaneously sold fakes to many collectors. Some (like John Pittman and the Norwebs) realized that they had been hoodwinked and demanded their money back. However, there are still collections that contain fakes that were sold by Ford. He was well known for referring to a number of his customers as 'boobs', and had no problem selling them garbage. So much for consumer protection. Ford also noted that pre-TPG-era collectors had to learn how to grade; they routinely made mistakes while newbies, and were forced to learn to grade in order to avoid being repeatedly ripped off. I have never understood why this commonly held view is acceptable. It is likely that a fair percentage of collectors, who discover that they were repeatedly ripped off, simply decide to cut their losses and exit the hobby for good.
Both speakers skirted around the undeniable, dirty undercurrent in the business end of numismatics. Collectors still need a level playing field.
Advantage: Hall
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
grades with re-submissions..
Given that demand is part of "the market", the answer to your question is clearly "the market". Then again, I'm not really sure what you meant to ask.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
There were a lot of people who resisted slabs. I read David Halls book on coin investment and was a firm believer in PCGS and slabbed coins. I remember dealers coming by my table and describing it as "slab city." There were also a lot of sharp people who picked off raw coins cheap and got them slabbed with good grades. After the crash, many coins, especially generics never recovered. In hindsight, I wish I had concentrated more in world gold and large size type notes in gem cu condition.
Thanks for sharing the video.
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
<< <i>NOW tell me who caused the plus signs, the green holders, the stars, the green stickers, the gold, the auto disrespect for "other" grading services.? The market? Or the lack of one?
Given that demand is part of "the market", the answer to your question is clearly "the market". Then again, I'm not really sure what you meant to ask. >>
The "market" asking for all these additions is a sign that the TPG system had developed a lot of cracks. The 1986-1989 TPG system imo was far more simplistic and accurate than today's much more complicated system. We're not far from the point where you need a professional coin analyst/broker to escort you through all the various choices in grading today to optimize your profits or minimize your losses. This is a far cry from the 1989 market when that debate took place. The grading problem was reported as "solved" back in 1986. And in general I agree with that statement during the 1988-1990 period. But, I no longer consider it solved.
Grading standards for 1989 were far tougher than today's. So that a large percentage of those $300 MS65 Morgans are probably MS66's today. And as such worth closer to today's MS66 money. Standards for MS65 gold back then were wicked tough. I'd bet a bunch of those MS65's are MS66's and even MS67's today. An MS65 $20 Lib back then was a heck of a coin. Most solid to higher end MS64's of that period are in MS65 holders today. It took a great coin back then to make MS65. Now it takes a MS66 or even a MS67 to make a great coin today.
Captain Henway, I find your posts to be a personal attack. I really have no excuse for my spelling errors. Mea cupa, Mea cupa a thousand times mea cupa.
The debate that Hall and Ford engaged in is as valid then as it would be now had it occured today. Why????? Because more and more people would be attracted to this "hobby" a costly one I might add if it were simplier to buy and sell in the "market". I don't know how old you guys are, but how many have a 'grey" sheet or a "blue" sheet? Do you remember anacs color photos? black and white ones were Pooh Poohed, conveniently to the advantage of the dealer. Not withstanding the coin.
How about the sight unseen market? What about John Albanese commenting (paraphrasing) "I looked around the show and didn't like what I saw not too many participants and not very young new ones" So, what helps? I will tell you. A SIMPLE MARKET . Where a coin is the value. Holdered? Yes! YES. Less is more. The value cannot be derived from a subjective opinion on it's grade. It can only be the starting point for the meeting of a buyer and seller. They can rest assured the product is not counterfeit and decide for themselves its value.
Now then take the, stars, the plus signs, the stickers, the color of the holder, the fatties, the rattlers, the blacks, the lined, and set it aside. LOOK AT THE COIN.
Read what John Ford wrote in that preface. It is much more fun for the coins than "what's it worth according to the holder extras"
I mean really?
collector; How much you buying nice bust quarters for?
dealer: What no plus sign? Ahh I got no where to go with it. I pass.
collector: Huh, maybe I will try computer gaming.
David Hall has since said ".............have fun with your coins"!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Not really. Coins are coins. What you do with them is up to you.
Ironically, slabs (and the resultant pop reports, easy to compare auction records, etc) have brought an increased level of sophistication to the market that has actually driven people towards the historical rarities that JJF favored, and away from the shiny high grade widgets that were all the rage when the debate took place. The transformation is not complete, and probably never will be, but the trend is still in place. Funny how things turn out.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The "cracks" were all there the day PCGS was formed. Grading was still subjective, coins could still be doctored, and resubmissions were inevitable. The only difference is that the cracks kept getting bigger, and now we can all see them. As for the "stars" and "green beans", think of them as putty on the cracks.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think Ford wins in many ways. Slabs facilitate buying and selling. Streamlining many aspects and perhaps not for the best. As I tell me painting students - "keep cutting corners and you'll end up with a circle..."
I am not fond of the sight unseen concept. Certainly TPG's cut down on some of the bad stuff - out and out fakes, AT and so on. But we have seen other things too. In autographs, these days, many folks NEED and I mean MUST have the "COA" - because they have no clue themselves what they are pursuing. I have often refused to sell to someone who has no idea what they are buying. And of course, most folks buying "COA's" or opinions blindly get burnt sooner than later. For brain surgery (or a major coin rarity of some sort), I'd get (pay for) a second opinion. As noted, it facilitates selling. In the areas I collect, buying an opinion seems counterproductive. I have to admit, selling my opinion is a different thing
Eric
Edit to add: Putty in cracks as in "temporary"? It is the * and + and cac etc. that makes all the different ways to get a single grade. Of course, you could quickly make that argument with just strike, tone, hits and so on. Many different ways.
<< <i>The "market" asking for all these additions is a sign that the TPG system had developed a lot of cracks. The TPG system imo was far more simplistic and accurate than today's much more complicated system. We're not far from the point where you need a professional coin analyst/broker to escort you through all the various choices in grading today to optimize your profits or minimize your losses. This is a far cry from the 1989 market when that debate too place. The grading problem was reported as "solved" back in 1986. And in general I agree with that statement during the 1988-1990 period. But, I no longer consider it solved.
The "cracks" were all there the day PCGS was formed. Grading was still subjective, coins could still be doctored, and resubmissions were inevitable. The only difference is that the cracks kept getting bigger, and now we can all see them. As for the "stars" and "green beans", think of them as putty on the cracks. >>
You are like a wise owl in numismatics...do you still write ethics columns for the Numismatist?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>.... like a wise owl in numismatics... >>
... and graceful like a butterfly. I'd vote for MrE if he was running for something.
There would not be a market without all the stop gaps added to keep one side up, because that side is the demand and it is poor. Then of course it is probably great for the certain coins that meet the criteria of the day as dictated by dealers in coins most cannot or will not afford.
Henway, the market crashed right after the debate? Not because of the debate, but let's see why? Gee, couldn't get common dates into holders fast enough, realization that there were hundreds of thousands of common date coins i.e. Morgan dollars e.g. The 1878 S mint is five times rarer than the 1881 S mint, but only trades for 2 times the price. Come ON MAN they were all common dates.
Sizzle, sounds good, smells good, looks like agh crap nothing, but sizzle.
Part of the hobby is grading. So have the TPGs grade. Let the two or more who come together to buy decide. Report the going decisions. Lay off trying to keep the buy side up with more and more sizzle marks. They only serve to ruin the "market" that previous participates were in. Leaving them wondering what they have to buy next to be validated coin buyers. Oh, yeah that's right the coins I forgot about the metal thing inside the holder. That piece of stamped silver or gold or copper. I forgot to mention the coins.
As long as there are coins and people, there will always will be a market. However, if you're suggesting that the market would have been lower today if these "things" were not in play, I would have to agree, although we would probably disagree about the extent.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
SonoranDesertRat: << Prior to the advent of TPGs, crudely doctored coins (whizzed, polished) were everywhere, and many dealers were unashamedly selling them to newbies. ... It's much tougher to get away with this now. ... Regarding Ford's comments, what I saw was an excellent performance---passionate, and also quite hypocritical. Ford famously campaigned on behalf of counterfeit exposure, and simultaneously sold fakes to many collectors. Some (like John Pittman and the Norwebs) realized that they had been hoodwinked and demanded their money back. However, there are still collections that contain fakes that were sold by Ford. He was well known for referring to a number of his customers as 'boobs', and had no problem selling them garbage. So much for consumer protection. ... It is likely that a fair percentage of collectors, who discover that they were repeatedly ripped off, simply decide to cut their losses and exit the hobby for good.>>
This is a bold post by this Desert Rat. Are his remarks fair?
Captain Henway: <<Oddly enough, the coin market, which had been going up in an insane bubble based upon speculation that a Wall Street fund was going to be launched .. crashed horribly a day or two after this tape was made when it was announced that the proposed fund was a non-starter. .. Many coins lost 75% of their bubble values.>>
Although I acknowledge that the Captain is older and wiser than I am, IMO, this statement is not accurate.
1) Coin markets peaked in late May or early June 1989, not in August 1989. Indeed, bluesheet and greysheet prices for time period peaked, by a large margin, in early to mid June 1989 issues.
2) Funds were active throughout 1989 and early 1990. The Kidder-Peabody fund and mulitple Merrill Lynch funds bought a lot of coins. It is true that speculators were expecting more buying from funds, but there were tens of millions of dollars of purchases by funds. Markets crashed in June 1989 for several reasons.
3) Markets rebounded in late 1989. Another peak and a crash occurred in March 1990. Prices for rare U.S. coins in general in March 1990 almost reached June 1989 levels. Many coins were worth more in March 1990 than these were in June 1989.
Million Dollar Items Lead Central States Auction, Part 2
Million Dollar Items in Central States Auction, Part 1
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>One could wonder about the real motivation for Ford's opposition to the concept of third-party grading and authentication, so evident in that video clip. Might it simply be that he viewed them as a threat to his ability to sell esoteric, sometimes expensive items to buyers? Or possibly a threat to his reputation (but he seemed to be indifferent to the opinions of others)? He frequently managed to make a sale by packaging a piece with an artfully woven story (provenance), which would carry little weight with authenticators. >>
The anti-Ford tirades by Sonorandesertrat are becoming a little tiresome. I was sitting two seats away from John Ford (Carl W.A. Carlson
was between us) in the 1989 video clip and my take on the entire matter varies considerably from that presented by Sonorandesertrat.
One of problems discussed somewhat at length, if memory serves correctly, was damage to copper coins by the contemporary holders.
Both Ford and Carlson were very concerned about such damage, both publicly and privately.
<< <i>
Captain Henway: <<Oddly enough, the coin market, which had been going up in an insane bubble based upon speculation that a Wall Street fund was going to be launched .. crashed horribly a day or two after this tape was made when it was announced that the proposed fund was a non-starter. .. Many coins lost 75% of their bubble values.>>
Although I acknowledge that the Captain is older and wiser than I am, IMO, this statement is not accurate.
1) Coin markets peaked in late May or early June 1989, not in August 1989. Indeed, bluesheet and greysheet prices for time period peaked, by a large margin, in early to mid June 1989 issues.
2) Funds were active throughout 1989 and early 1990. The Kidder-Peabody fund and mulitple Merrill Lynch funds bought a lot of coins. It is true that speculators were expecting more buying from funds, but there were tens of millions of dollars of purchases by funds. Markets crashed in June 1989 for several reasons.
3) Markets rebounded in late 1989. Another peak and a crash occurred in March 1990. Prices for rare U.S. coins in general in March 1990 almost reached June 1989 levels. Many coins were worth more in March 1990 than these were in June 1989.
Million Dollar Items Lead Central States Auction, Part 2
Million Dollar Items in Central States Auction, Part 1 >>
I stand by my statement of when the market crashed. Prior to the 1989 ANA in Pittsburgh I looked at the bubble in the market and advised my father-in-law that this would be a good time for him to sell his collection of U.S. commems. I made an inventory of the coins, and happened to end up sitting next to a dealer I knew on the flight to Pittsburgh. He asked me what I had to sell at the show, I took the boxes and the inventory out of my briefcase, and we reached a deal right there on the plane. At setup I gave him the coins and he gave me a check made out to my f-i-l. A couple of days later the word came that the mutual fund was a no-go, and the market collapsed. My f-i-l thought I was very clever!