Is techinal quality (grades) overrated?
crypto79
Posts: 8,623 ✭
I have been doing some thinking recently and I have noticed as many of you have-- a shift in market tastes with more and more people only chasing the market defined A or B coins and a decrease in the liquidity of the lesser judged coins. Quite a number of people will only buy CAC coins and then a larger % will only buy PCGS coins and then an even larger % will only buy TPG coins. Now there is a weeding out of the coins that are supposedly the diamonds out of those particular groups as well.
While I will admit there is a direct cost and future appreciation context involved that shouldn't be ignored; I guess my core question is quality (IE liquidity and future potential) really the ultimate factor in coin evaluation before all others?
If money is a primary consideration with capital growth and preservation your paramount interest, than the market dictates that one goes in that direction. The counter point is I know many of us are driven by history and amassing of artifacts as goals ahead of the financial goals although no one should throw away money. It kind of makes me think that the real driver behind this incessant quest for grades is more of a registry phenomenon much like (IMO) the strangely important FBL, FB , FH and strike designators that may or may not actually correlate to a stronger strike. Many grades don't necessarily mean higher quality and there is no true consensuses on the definition of quality so how can so many people be chasing it. And before a lawyer pulls out the porn analogy that you "Know it when you see it" let me ask a few questions
Is a XF45 CAC coin really better than an C+ non-CAC AU53 ? (They often sell for about the same or close)
Is a colorful NGC AU58* better than a PCGS AU detail questionable color
Why do AU58 costs more than Many lower range UNCs (spare me the because most AU58s are really AU64 because that isn't true)
why do people pay exaggerated premiums for differences in grades they cant perceive (66-67;67-68)
Why do people pay more for a tweener problem coin that made the grade opposed to the same one that didn't.
Why do PQ coins with stickers sell for more that PQ coins without.
considering that everybody tells you don't count on price growth, does the disproportional outlay of cash to acquire the top stuff put you actually at a bigger risk of loss at selling time compared to avg ok coins (not pure crap)
Getting away from the matched set concept I think it is all but impossible to not come away with these observations
1-Most people can't actually grade, (so why are they putting so much weight in a grade)
2-People prioritize competitiveness and the financial aspect more than they admit
After watching a fellow collector railroad another collector over a coin using his pocketbook after a recent major auction. I just question how much the trumpeting of the quality and grades is truly helping the hobby. It has been a boon to the dealers for sure as a demand driver but it seems to have put classic coins out of reach of avg people and brought a type of collector that puts fundamental collecting in the back seat and turned it into a game of guessing winners and losers. Why is a coin a loser just because it isn't a Money winner? That is really what we are talking about when we call something "quality" isn't it.
Maybe I just need a break
While I will admit there is a direct cost and future appreciation context involved that shouldn't be ignored; I guess my core question is quality (IE liquidity and future potential) really the ultimate factor in coin evaluation before all others?
If money is a primary consideration with capital growth and preservation your paramount interest, than the market dictates that one goes in that direction. The counter point is I know many of us are driven by history and amassing of artifacts as goals ahead of the financial goals although no one should throw away money. It kind of makes me think that the real driver behind this incessant quest for grades is more of a registry phenomenon much like (IMO) the strangely important FBL, FB , FH and strike designators that may or may not actually correlate to a stronger strike. Many grades don't necessarily mean higher quality and there is no true consensuses on the definition of quality so how can so many people be chasing it. And before a lawyer pulls out the porn analogy that you "Know it when you see it" let me ask a few questions
Is a XF45 CAC coin really better than an C+ non-CAC AU53 ? (They often sell for about the same or close)
Is a colorful NGC AU58* better than a PCGS AU detail questionable color
Why do AU58 costs more than Many lower range UNCs (spare me the because most AU58s are really AU64 because that isn't true)
why do people pay exaggerated premiums for differences in grades they cant perceive (66-67;67-68)
Why do people pay more for a tweener problem coin that made the grade opposed to the same one that didn't.
Why do PQ coins with stickers sell for more that PQ coins without.
considering that everybody tells you don't count on price growth, does the disproportional outlay of cash to acquire the top stuff put you actually at a bigger risk of loss at selling time compared to avg ok coins (not pure crap)
Getting away from the matched set concept I think it is all but impossible to not come away with these observations
1-Most people can't actually grade, (so why are they putting so much weight in a grade)
2-People prioritize competitiveness and the financial aspect more than they admit
After watching a fellow collector railroad another collector over a coin using his pocketbook after a recent major auction. I just question how much the trumpeting of the quality and grades is truly helping the hobby. It has been a boon to the dealers for sure as a demand driver but it seems to have put classic coins out of reach of avg people and brought a type of collector that puts fundamental collecting in the back seat and turned it into a game of guessing winners and losers. Why is a coin a loser just because it isn't a Money winner? That is really what we are talking about when we call something "quality" isn't it.
Maybe I just need a break
0
Comments
Perhaps you should expound on this if it got you upset enough to post all this
Quality coins have always brought more. Granted, those premiums are going through the roof - so much so that one does indeed need to compare the discount associated with a non stickered coin to its true quality. I know I'm very happy with my fingerprint dollar - I think the quality exceeds the price I got it at.
Truth be told, I think a large number of people here on the forums (and in the hobby in general) are looking more at the business/invensting side of this than the collector side.
If you're in it for "investment" or as part of your income, you better pay attention to whatever whim or fancy the market is currently favoring. Fads come and go, series ebb & flow, grading standards move around, etc. etc.
If you're in it purely as a collector, such things aren't so concerning and a "C" coin at the right price can be perfect.
I'd describe myself as a collector who tries to be a smart buyer, learning as I go, optomistic but hopefully realistic about potential financial gain, but participating in the hobby come what may. I will also fully admit to paying attention to where my sets are at in the Registry. This sort of thing probably does not make me a better collector.
<< <i>After watching a fellow collector railroad another collector over a coin using his pocketbook after a recent major auction. I just question how much the trumpeting of the quality and grades is truly helping the hobby.
Perhaps you should expound on this if it got you upset enough to post all this
Quality coins have always brought more. Granted, those premiums are going through the roof - so much so that one does indeed need to compare the discount associated with a non stickered coin to its true quality. I know I'm very happy with my fingerprint dollar - I think the quality exceeds the price I got it at. >>
No no, that wasn't really a driver of all that just a symptom and an off forum one at that.
It was about two advanced collectors who chased a rare coin in an even rarer grade even though they were both connected enough to get a lesser (but not by much) one at a fraction of the cost.
And I applaud CAC and NGC and PCGS for what they do for the hobby. I am not talking the F and D- coins and doctored coins here that they help weed out. I am talking about the shunning of D+ through B-. About how a Lightly cleaned UNC can be a nicer coin than a PQ Xf to a collector if they divorce themselves from the money side.
Is a XF45 CAC coin really better than an C+ non-CAC AU53 ? (They often sell for about the same or close) I’m not sure, but off the top of my head, the catch-all term “eye appeal” comes to mind. Also, the buyer may feel the CAC coin is more liquid for the long-term.
Is a colorful NGC AU58* better than a PCGS AU detail questionable color If I happened to see these hypothetical coins side by side, one of the first things that would jump out at me would be the words “questionable color” on the label. Again, perhaps that is the future liquidity aspect again.
Why do AU58 costs more than Many lower range UNCs (spare me the because most AU58s are really AU64 because that isn't true). This topic has been discussed a lot on these boards, and one of the usual takeaways is that the typical MS60-61 coin can look pretty beat up and baggy. That is my best guess there, which also reflects on my personal observations of coins in-hand. This may be more apparent on larger coins, because I usually collect Peace and Morgans.
why do people pay exaggerated premiums for differences in grades they cant perceive (66-67;67-68) Now this one I don’t quite understand, so I would have the same question as you. It could be that since I don’t play at high price points, and I don't have Registry entries, this aspect just doesn't affect me as much.
Why do people pay more for a tweener problem coin that made the grade opposed to the same one that didn't. Perhaps because of the fact the one coin “made it”. Someone else absorbed the risk and cost of getting the coin into that slab. Could be a bit of the future liquidity angle again, or perhaps just a bit of buying the plastic as much as the coin.
Why do PQ coins with stickers sell for more that PQ coins without. I’ll refer to the my previous answer, for lack of anything more to add on this one.
considering that everybody tells you don't count on price growth, does the disproportional outlay of cash to acquire the top stuff put you actually at a bigger risk of loss at selling time compared to avg ok coins (not pure crap) . I think it can. Collecting tastes and goals can and do change over time – they certainly do for me. I don’t want to be at a disadvantage when I go to sell coins which the market may frown upon, even if I happened to like them at the time. So, I do keep that in mind when acquiring new coins. Now, I do swim against the stream at times, but I do so while acknowledging that this is either a keeper for many, many years or it may fetch less-than-optimal price when/if I were to sell it.
<< <i>Is techinal quality (grades) overrated? >>
Yes, IMHO, but I don't collect four- and five-figure-pricetag rarities.
Technical grades matter less to ME personally, but I would not be so crass as to assume this is true over the whole spectrum.
Take it for what it's worth.
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>
No no, that wasn't really a driver of all that just a symptom and an off forum one at that.
It was about two advanced collectors who chased a rare coin in an even rarer grade even though they were both connected enough to get a lesser (but not by much) one at a fraction of the cost. >>
The answer is simple - it is the net pleasure derived from ownership minus the opportunity cost of said ownership. Since both sides of the equation vary by individual, it will rarely perfectly make sense to an outside observer.
<< <i>And I applaud CAC and NGC and PCGS for what they do for the hobby. I am not talking the F and D- coins and doctored coins here that they help weed out. I am talking about the shunning of D+ through B-. About how a Lightly cleaned UNC can be a nicer coin than a PQ Xf to a collector if they divorce themselves from the money side. >>
I look at a coin and determine what holder it should be in and figure the price from there. This expands the range of coins I'm willing to buy BUT, since plastic has a value in the marketplace, rarely the coins I'm willing to buy at the price quoted.
<< <i>People who collect coins for the love of coins are not as likely to be plastic/grade conscious. Those who look at the hobby as investment or a business, or those with deep pockets, will chase rarities, grades and stickers. This is understandable for both groups. No doubt, to some extent, there is an overlap between those two, very general, categories. Being myself a collector, and not an investor (well, except for PM's), I look for coins I like, or oddities that intrigue me. I believe all should pursue that which makes them happy..... however, in the pursuit of happiness, be sure to take time to be happy. Cheers, RickO >>
Well said and I agree with this. I consider myself a tweener in that I like to do the registry thing within limits but am mostly a collector that buys what I like not the fad of the moment.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>considering that everybody tells you don't count on price growth, does the disproportional outlay of cash to acquire the top stuff put you actually at a bigger risk of loss at selling time compared to avg ok coins (not pure crap) >>
Yes, though I would say "gamble" instead of "risk" because the upside potential is probably bigger too.
Lance.
Why do people pay more for Tiffany jewelry, Patek Phillipe watches, Fendi handbags, this designer clothes, that famous artist's art, this other make of automobile?
Shouldn't functionality and value for the price be the main concern?
For some it is, for some it isn't. It's not for us to judge others' preferences, just to express our own in our words and actions.
Just as some choose to have one Ferrari instead of 10 (or 50) Toyotas, some choose to have one MS68 instead of 10 (or 50) MS64s
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If your objective is to build a collection that you enjoy, you can maximize the utility of your money by seeking eye appeal instead of high technical grades. In my collection, I typically prefer a well selected PR63 coin at one third the price of a typical PR65. When a PR67 is ten or twelve times the price of a nice PR65, I would rather own half a box of PR65 coins than a single PR67. I'm in this hobby for my own enjoyment, not to impress other people with high grades.
I think I have evolved over time in my collecting habits. I own coins of every class and grade. If I had learned 30 years ago that every grade also can vary by class (A, B, C...etc.), I would have saved a lot of money.
I will collect a variety of coins, but I want truth...don't tell me a "C" is a "B", or a problem coin is anything other than a problem coin. I might buy it at real market value, but not some multiple of that. I collect Barbers in VF, commems in 65, IHC's in AU, early copper in VG...but my standards for all of these have tightened over time. There are nice coins and cr@p in all grades and all holders.
Many people do focus only on grade, to their own detriment. You can read QDB and others, in texts written over many years, how grading tightens in down cycles. The "investor" coins that are just made 66's or 67's can get killed in a market like this.
or resale by a dealer in the series.
Over the last 12 years, I have paid more than the next 2 grades higher for a coin that I thought was perfect for my set, and I have passed on grades
that were priced 2 pts lower--great bargains, but not for me.
Most recently, a rattler containing an AU CBH( generic date) sold for 5K, when guides were $950.
And a rare AU Early dollar with guides at 70K sold for 45k--I did not want it at a really reduced price.
Technically it was AU 58, visually it was XF 45.
The TPG's do a great job technically, and the green beanies are helpful to many. Neither affect my choices very much.
<< <i>
<< <i>
No no, that wasn't really a driver of all that just a symptom and an off forum one at that.
It was about two advanced collectors who chased a rare coin in an even rarer grade even though they were both connected enough to get a lesser (but not by much) one at a fraction of the cost. >>
The answer is simple - it is the net pleasure derived from ownership minus the opportunity cost of said ownership. Since both sides of the equation vary by individual, it will rarely perfectly make sense to an outside observer.
<< <i>And I applaud CAC and NGC and PCGS for what they do for the hobby. I am not talking the F and D- coins and doctored coins here that they help weed out. I am talking about the shunning of D+ through B-. About how a Lightly cleaned UNC can be a nicer coin than a PQ Xf to a collector if they divorce themselves from the money side. >>
I look at a coin and determine what holder it should be in and figure the price from there. This expands the range of coins I'm willing to buy BUT, since plastic has a value in the marketplace, rarely the coins I'm willing to buy at the price quoted. >>
Opportunity cost implies true rarity and while I see what you are saying I am talking a little more basic in scope as quality doesn't always mean rare. An example a friend brought up is a 1938d Buff in P/MS65 with a gold CAC sticker being fought over more than the common MS67 examples that are prolific on the market. I admit I am talking about genral collecting and the people who swim in the deep end better know what they are doing due to whats at stake.
The phrase the question a different way is the chase for quality just the most recent "Well managed promotion"? Used as a way to extract more revenue on the hardest to replace coins, the quintessential upsell? The market can not market true rarity as there isn't enough to go around so we get MS70, PQ, condition rarity, top pop, FBL and all these other modifiers to help innovatory standout. Quality is just the new IT one IMHO.
While the nicest collections have normally had the nicest coins and the have preformed the best, the definition of quality hasn't been static at all during this time so that is a hard measure to build against. An AU with a repaired hole might have sold for more than a really nice VF 125 years ago where blast white was all the rage 50. The same group telling us (avg collectors) to buy the best and pay up for the opportunity to buy as to protect the investment, are often the ones who profit the most on the Buy-sell side all while proclaiming coins not be a true investment vehicle. It is the same double talk engrained into us to watch out for in the retail world. Again I am talking about the dilution of what quality means and not the best of the best kind of stuff. To me quality is technically & visibility top shelf while also having rarity and popularity.
If quality does preform better though out history (Which is obviously the case) and because of that we should only buy the best quality we can afford to maintain value: Does that sound financial advice transcend just grade, should people not collect series that have low demand, should all stamp collectors simply lick and use their collections (ok I give you that one).
I am not saying quality doesn't have a place, I am just implying that that markets definition should only be as important to the collector as the financial aspect of the hobby is to their enjoyment of it. And most of all only a small % of the "quality" for sale on the market will stand the test of time and be viewed by the majority of serious people who view it as true quality.
Though I tend to side with TahoeDale.
Both more and less illuminating, a 58 "A" can be valued, if not worth, more, if it is desired more by a few, than a 63 "B". The same with a 64 "A" and a 66 "B".
<< <i>Gosh you can ask the same question, is technical quality (brands of retail merchandise) overrated?
Why do people pay more for Tiffany jewelry, Patek Phillipe watches, Fendi handbags, this designer clothes, that famous artist's art, this other make of automobile?
Shouldn't functionality and value for the price be the main concern?
For some it is, for some it isn't. It's not for us to judge others' preferences, just to express our own in our words and actions.
Just as some choose to have one Ferrari instead of 10 (or 50) Toyotas, some choose to have one MS68 instead of 10 (or 50) MS64s >>
This is a good point but I am referring to the up sale of quality very a specific grade. I understand some people value preservation and grade is a cost driver, but I am talking about the difference between a (nice 67 vs a plain 67) compared to a PQ66 or applied to any specific grade spread.
that said branding and marketing absolutely come into play here just like your example and I have just been thinking about if it has been positive or negative on the hobby as a whole. If one isn't at all focused in rankings or price gains does it even matter if they add a Avg XX grade or a Quality XX graded coin. Why is there a difference in the same coin in two different company's holders with the same grade on it. Is that branding or coin collecting?
<< <i>After watching a fellow collector railroad another collector over a coin using his pocketbook after a recent major auction. I just question how much the trumpeting of the quality and grades is truly helping the hobby.
Perhaps you should expound on this if it got you upset enough to post all this
Quality coins have always brought more. Granted, those premiums are going through the roof - so much so that one does indeed need to compare the discount associated with a non stickered coin to its true quality. I know I'm very happy with my fingerprint dollar - I think the quality exceeds the price I got it at. >>
I think the OP is a lot of good food for thought, as is this from TDN. I dunno, I think it all ties into more liquid $ chasing the perception of "the best" and some hobbyists are left out in the cold, with regards to affordability of the classic era US stuff. I don't mind very much as it always seemed somewhat unaffordable to me in any case, now it's just moreso. People trust in TPGs and then stickers on top of that, because they've learned (perhaps by being burnt once or twice) that they really can't trust their own eyes with regard to relative quality. I would absolutely agree with OP point #2: "2-People prioritize competitiveness and the financial aspect more than they admit."
<< <i>
<< <i>Gosh you can ask the same question, is technical quality (brands of retail merchandise) overrated?
Why do people pay more for Tiffany jewelry, Patek Phillipe watches, Fendi handbags, this designer clothes, that famous artist's art, this other make of automobile?
Shouldn't functionality and value for the price be the main concern?
For some it is, for some it isn't. It's not for us to judge others' preferences, just to express our own in our words and actions.
Just as some choose to have one Ferrari instead of 10 (or 50) Toyotas, some choose to have one MS68 instead of 10 (or 50) MS64s >>
This is a good point but I am referring to the up sale of quality very a specific grade. I understand some people value preservation and grade is a cost driver, but I am talking about the difference between a (nice 67 vs a plain 67) compared to a PQ66 or applied to any specific grade spread.
that said branding and marketing absolutely come into play here just like your example and I have just been thinking about if it has been positive or negative on the hobby as a whole. If one isn't at all focused in rankings or price gains does it even matter if they add a Avg XX grade or a Quality XX graded coin. Why is there a difference in the same coin in two different company's holders with the same grade on it. Is that branding or coin collecting? >>
A good deal of it's branding. I have no problem with that - I think aesthetics, presentation, perceptions do count, and depending, they can both hinder or help with relative value.
I'm a real PITA when it comes to buying coins for my own collection. I study coins, history and science and attempt to find the intersection of all three when a coin is evaluated for purchase. Additionally, I attempt to be disciplined with respect to what I buy, but not so much for how much it costs to acquire. Also, I ignore the presence or absence of a sticker since I can get these by submitting the coin in question and completely disregard strike designations. Lastly, the registry as a competitive tool is utterly irrelevant in my world. The goal of my collection is to make me happy. Oddly, when I offer a coin from my collection it is typically sold very quickly at what might be considered an aggressive amount, which to me indicates that thus far there are other, likeminded folks out there.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
A few years back i had well over 100k in coins and i did not like the fuzzy feeling i was getting, i have since reduced to around 25k in coins and if they would only bring 100 dollars tommorow i could care less. While i do not think that will happen i have changed my collection to where i can dispose/sell on my terms are not worry about it. I had dug myself into a hole where dealers were the only winners in what i was doing.
So i belive technical quality is important the price of quality is more important meaning make your own green footballs and upgrades instead of buying the coin already maxed out by the seller.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Classic all there VF
A techinal UNC with a light but noticeable wipe on the Obv only with an original looking skin.
To paraphrase a few other members- Isn't it time the Hobby starts putting Value on pedestal.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I don't know how much these TDs cost, but I would happily own the VF25 and would walk away from the other. >>
They were both just shy of 1100 all in, Kind of my point about quality vs value using an example at both extremes. The vf is close to a higher grade, perfect skin, look and a rare die pair too but it might be the most expensive VF25 ever where the GEN one is a rare chop mark example and also a condition rarity as well. It is a few wispy hairline and a chop away from a strong 5 figure coin. It is the nicest 73cc ill ever own.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know how much these TDs cost, but I would happily own the VF25 and would walk away from the other. >>
They were both just shy of 1100 all in, Kind of my point about quality vs value using an example at both extremes. The vf is close to a higher grade, perfect skin, look and a rare die pair too but it might be the most expensive VF25 ever where the GEN one is a rare chop mark example and also a condition rarity as well. It is a few wispy hairline and a chop away from a strong 5 figure coin. It is the nicest 73cc ill ever own. >>
I'm not being argumentative at all with my post, but you lose me with the bold text. In my opinion, the VF25 is not only the better quality coin, but it also has the greater value than the other piece. However, I do not think you were attempting to come to that same conclusion, were you?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>
Is a XF45 CAC coin really better than an C+ non-CAC AU53 ? (They often sell for about the same or close)
Is a colorful NGC AU58* better than a PCGS AU detail questionable color
Why do AU58 costs more than Many lower range UNCs (spare me the because most AU58s are really AU64 because that isn't true)
why do people pay exaggerated premiums for differences in grades they cant perceive (66-67;67-68)
Why do people pay more for a tweener problem coin that made the grade opposed to the same one that didn't.
Why do PQ coins with stickers sell for more that PQ coins without.
considering that everybody tells you don't count on price growth, does the disproportional outlay of cash to acquire the top stuff put you actually at a bigger risk of loss at selling time compared to avg ok coins (not pure crap)
>>
In order:
No, if they are selling for the same price one is not better than the other. Clearly collectors see value in the CAC coin so they pay more for it, it is not "better" than a non CAC AU53. It is "better" than a non-CAC coin in the same grade.
Yes, maybe I do not understand this question, but this is a no-brainer.
Because the "Everyman's Registry" sets have driven up anything AU 58 to higher and higher prices.
If you are buying MS67's you should be able to tell the difference, if you can't then leave that piece of the market alone.
Do not understand the question. Problem coins generally mean Details coins so this is not making sense to me.
PQ is a meaningless term. It is marketing and has no formal place in coin grading
No, the top pop and eye appeal coins are generally the ones that consistently move higher. I can give you many examples. This is actually counter intuitive, but the big dog coins (sans moderns) are the ones that have the least downside risk.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know how much these TDs cost, but I would happily own the VF25 and would walk away from the other. >>
They were both just shy of 1100 all in, Kind of my point about quality vs value using an example at both extremes. The vf is close to a higher grade, perfect skin, look and a rare die pair too but it might be the most expensive VF25 ever where the GEN one is a rare chop mark example and also a condition rarity as well. It is a few wispy hairline and a chop away from a strong 5 figure coin. It is the nicest 73cc ill ever own. >>
I'm not being argumentative at all with my post, but you lose me with the bold text. In my opinion, the VF25 is not only the better quality coin, but it also has the greater value than the other piece. However, I do not think you were attempting to come to that same conclusion, were you? >>
No I see your point and assuming quality is self defined i can see how it fits your parameters. What I was attempting and not at your expense by any means, was to use an extreme example (problem coins aren't for everybody but aren't all coins problem coin at some level) of putting value above perfection in a collector context. While not a recipe for absolute returns it can be for a happy collection. Lesser examples might be a pleasing but not B quality (c+) AU53 as opposed to A+ 45, a just made it 64 with the luster of a 66 instead of 65, colorful AU put in an UNC set.
I guess I just have mentally separated perfection and the word quality for my perspective. Don't get me wrong as I do like nice coins, I just try to find the magic in all of them save for SBA
I have two of the three MS68 trade dollars - I can definitely appreciate the difference in quality between them and my MS67s. The one time that I couldn't is the one MS68 that I passed on.
Even schlock has some value
<< <i>You're right about the quality of that other MS68. Not as nice, and not as pretty
Even schlock has some value
Lunch money, lol.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Which is the “better” coin? Which is the “better” value? The collector who finds the VF coin so lacking in aesthetic appeal as to be “not worth owning” will never be convinced by doctrinaire arguments over “originality”. As TDN said, “apples and oranges.”
CG
Edit: oops I guess my sentiments were already somewhat iterated in the post above.
ALERT - 10 YEAR OLD THREAD
I wish to resurrect this thread because of the issues raised regarding quality vs value.
I am not grade bound (but sure like AU coins) when deciding upon coins for my collection. I think there is quality at every grade level. Finding the distinctions within the same grade is the challenge.
What is value? I'm not a dealer, so resale upside is not my focus. I buy coins that make me happy and they are often above market prices. I am sensitive to not losing my shirt or to be "buried" in a coin, but I don't let that rule my acquisition decisions.
What are your thoughts as you read this old thread?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Value is what it is worth to you. Value is also what it's worth to The Market. On a happy day, those values match. If they don't, go with your internal value. It's supposed to be fun.
The OP post was pretty loaded and it will be hard to address everything, but as a generalization, I would say "Yes, technical grades are overrated."
I don't participate in registries and I don't adhere to strictly defined "sets", so I just buy what speaks to me. When i'm buying a coin that will reside in my collection, I analyze the purchase much differently than I would if I were buying for resale. Some of the qualities that are most important to me are eye appeal, surface preservation/originality, and strength for the grade. I could care less what the actual grade is, but I feel like I get better value when I overpay for a wonderful AU55 vs paying a tad more to get a "meh" AU58, even if the 58 was offered under market value. I've paid up for several coins in my collection with no regrets, and i'm fairly confident that someone else down the line will pay up when i'm ready to sell, however if I had to dump them in a hurry I would probably take a loss.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook